Same-sex marriage begins in parts of Alabama

[Saless]

Kaltros

Ringoringa

Laws against gay marriage stem purely from religious values. There is absolutely no non-religious argument against it. If you say procreation, I'll gladly point out all the sterile couples currently married.

That's ridiculous. Sterile heterosexual couples are the exception to the rule, as can be seen by the constantly growing population of the world. Much of the time heterosexual couples can have kids with no problem.

However, for homosexual couples sterility IS the rule.

Not really, homosexual couples have kids all the time. Either through adoption, artificial insemination,etc. But that argument fails even without that because you've already admitted there are exceptions. If sterile/old heterosexual couples can marry when they are not going to/can't have children than there is no justification to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.

[Saless]

Bokee Gngr

Kaltros

This Isnt Sparta

I hear this alot from conservatives against gay marriage. Alot of states are allowing same sex couples to get married with hopefully more on the way, but I havent seen society tumble into some sort of apocalypse yet. Perhaps God doesnt mind same sex couples as much as people think He does.

There was that story in the bible about Sodom and Gomorrah getting turned to ashes.

May want to look at side reasons of the fall of Rome as well.

Sodom & Gomorrah was more about hospitality than homosexuality...and that's only one mythical example from thousands of years ago. There are no other examples in the thousands of years since that uphold your argument.

Rome fell because it became stagnant and was invaded by a more vigorous group and fragmented instead of rebuilding. Homosexuality was not a factor whatsoever.

[Bokee Gngr]

Saless

Bokee Gngr

Kaltros

This Isnt Sparta

I hear this alot from conservatives against gay marriage. Alot of states are allowing same sex couples to get married with hopefully more on the way, but I havent seen society tumble into some sort of apocalypse yet. Perhaps God doesnt mind same sex couples as much as people think He does.

There was that story in the bible about Sodom and Gomorrah getting turned to ashes.

May want to look at side reasons of the fall of Rome as well.

Sodom & Gomorrah was more about hospitality than homosexuality...and that's only one mythical example from thousands of years ago. There are no other examples in the thousands of years since that uphold your argument.

Rome fell because it became stagnant and was invaded by a more vigorous group and fragmented instead of rebuilding. Homosexuality was not a factor whatsoever.

Actually, Sodom and Gomorrah was about homosexuality and other sexual sins such as wanting to gay rape angels.

[Saless]

Kaltros

Catastrophic Lullaby

Supporting equal rights is not socialism...

Actually yes it is, at least sometimes. Try reading Animal Farm, a fable concerning socialism. "All animals are created equal..."

Quote:

I agree there are certain instances where states have the right of vote but when you're discriminating against a group of people there should be no tolerance whatsoever.

So it's bad to deny the vote to babies? How can it possibly be humane to deny voting rights, drinking rights, or anything else to newborns?

Quote:

You're pretty much saying that it would be okay for Alabama to say, 'Screw you constitution - we don't think whites should marry any other colour than white and we have a right to enforce that".

You clearly do not understand the United States Constitution, socialism, or dictatorship. I am not saying this to be condescending because I truly hope you do some research and come to understand what you're talking because you're not making any sense.

If you're such a constitutional scholar, care to explain enumerated powers? Can you at least see the relevance that might have to the gay marriage issue?

Enumerated powers just talks about what Congress can and can't do. Has nothing to do with this. The Constitution says you can't treat people unequally so you can't ban same-sex marriage.

Your babies argument is nonsense. Babies are unable to even communicate, let alone understand voting. We have age requirements for a reason, just as we have consent laws for a reason. No group of people are being discriminated against in this way because everybody is affected equally. Once you grow up you can vote, enter into contacts, etc.

Animal Farm, btw, wasn't about socialism...it was communism.

[Saless]

Bokee Gngr

Saless

Bokee Gngr

Kaltros

This Isnt Sparta

I hear this alot from conservatives against gay marriage. Alot of states are allowing same sex couples to get married with hopefully more on the way, but I havent seen society tumble into some sort of apocalypse yet. Perhaps God doesnt mind same sex couples as much as people think He does.

There was that story in the bible about Sodom and Gomorrah getting turned to ashes.

May want to look at side reasons of the fall of Rome as well.

Sodom & Gomorrah was more about hospitality than homosexuality...and that's only one mythical example from thousands of years ago. There are no other examples in the thousands of years since that uphold your argument.

Rome fell because it became stagnant and was invaded by a more vigorous group and fragmented instead of rebuilding. Homosexuality was not a factor whatsoever.

Actually, Sodom and Gomorrah was about homosexuality and other sexual sins such as wanting to gay rape angels.

Angels in the bible aren't supposed to have a gender...so calling it gay is a stretch, at the least. Besides, if you're going to quote that section of the bible as some kind of moral authority than you also have to look at how the 'hero' of that particular section handled the situation...yes, he took the angels in...but then he offered up his own daughters to the rapist mob to protect the angels. Real good parenting going on there...

[Saless]

Bokee Gngr

Catastrophic Lullaby

Bokee Gngr

The fact is though the USA constitution doesn't say anything concerning all gays should be able to marry.

I personally feel very strongly about states keeping their rights and the government not going the way of the socialist or dictatorship. However, I am for gay rights as a whole.

Supporting equal rights is not socialism... I agree there are certain instances where states have the right of vote but when you're discriminating against a group of people there should be no tolerance whatsoever. You're pretty much saying that it would be okay for Alabama to say, 'Screw you constitution - we don't think whites should marry any other colour than white and we have a right to enforce that".

You clearly do not understand the United States Constitution, socialism, or dictatorship. I am not saying this to be condescending because I truly hope you do some research and come to understand what you're talking because you're not making any sense.

Bokee Gngr

If one makes it all law that everyone must honor gay marriages then one is prohibiting the free exercise of certain religions that are against it. However, if one wishes to keep it completely secular than I have no issue with it. COMPLETELY secular meaning that if a gay couple see a beautiful church they wish to marry in but that church teaches against homosexuality than that church should not be forced to allow the marriage there. However, courthouse, judges, etc. gay friendly churches, that's fine but people can't have it both ways. You can't say that it is all secular than demand a church allow a wedding.

Churches do not have to hold ceremonies for people that they do not wish too. The government is not telling churches to do that; they're simply allowing gays to exercise their right to a secular marriage which is recognized by the government. There is no non-religious argument against gay marriage and therefore their right to marry who they please is greater than offending intolerant ideologies. Nothing will change within the church. Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't make it wrong, nor does allowing something you dislike force you to celebrate it in your private building (although that is another debate for another time as many churches are tax exempt).

I understand those things quite well and if one researches the latest movements of certain political leaders they will find that they are moving in the direction of socialism.

Non-religious arguments against gay marriage- The government is in too much debt to waste the money and time on new "hand outs" to more people and therefore should put new tax breaks for anyone on hold.

It could take money from social security which is already running out and we would be screwing the older citizens out of their fair share of what they paid in.

It would force many businesses who did not wish to lose their customers who may have religious views against it to close their doors and cause a major issue with the economy as a whole...

Those are just a few but there are plenty of them if you want to research or like me, live in an area that people have a lot of different views not all tied to religious reasons.

Socialism isn't necessarily bad...most Americans confuse it with Communism. Very different thing there. We already have a significant amount of socialism in our government and have always had in this country.

Same-sex marriage will have no significant effect on the economy. Some minor reductions in tax revenues, perhaps, but there really aren't all that many gay people so it's not significant. And same-sex marriages generate a significant amount of business, thereby boosting the economy. Social Security wouldn't be significantly effected, if at all. And fixing it is as simple as removing the cap that benefits rich people at the cost of everyone else.

As for businesses...very few will go out of business and that's only because they refuse to follow the laws in their areas. If they can't handle doing business with everyone than they shouldn't be a public business in the first place. This is a simple matter of law. But the business those companies lose will be picked up by other businesses so the net effect is zero.

It's true that there are many arguments that people use that aren't overtly religious on their face...but they're pretty much all made by religious people and come ultimately from that source. And none of them hold any weight, anyway. This is a secular country and always has been. No religion gets to set law for everyone else.

[Catastrophic Lullaby]

Kaltros

Catastrophic Lullaby

Supporting equal rights is not socialism...

Actually yes it is, at least sometimes. Try reading Animal Farm, a fable concerning socialism. "All animals are created equal..."

Quote:

I agree there are certain instances where states have the right of vote but when you're discriminating against a group of people there should be no tolerance whatsoever.

So it's bad to deny the vote to babies? How can it possibly be humane to deny voting rights, drinking rights, or anything else to newborns?

Quote:

You're pretty much saying that it would be okay for Alabama to say, 'Screw you constitution - we don't think whites should marry any other colour than white and we have a right to enforce that".

You clearly do not understand the United States Constitution, socialism, or dictatorship. I am not saying this to be condescending because I truly hope you do some research and come to understand what you're talking because you're not making any sense.

If you're such a constitutional scholar, care to explain enumerated powers? Can you at least see the relevance that might have to the gay marriage issue?

Okay - now you're just trolling. Yes, I have read Animal Farm which was written by a socialist man criticizing communism. If you don't believe me than you could re-read the book yourself (assuming you read and understood it) or do any research what-so-ever. George Orwell (pen name for Arthur A. Blair) was a socialist who wrote to speak out against social injustice and pushed for democratic socialism.

I have no idea where you're going comparing newborns drinking to adults engaging in consensual behaviour that straight couples can, so I'm going to ignore that for now.

Socialism is largely an economic system so to compare that to a social issue such as gay rights and say that giving equal marriage rights is socialist is insane. You can have gay rights in any economic system - gays contribute to the economic system whether we are in a capitalist/socialist/communist/ect state.

You do not have to be affiliated with capitalism, socialism, communism, or whatever other economic philosophy to support marriage equality. That has nothing to do with either of the three systems listed (which are the most commonly discussed here in the USA) as well as other systems you may prefer to these.

And I'm honored you find me scholar and yes I know what enumerated powers are. They are limitations on how congress may interpret the constitution. I would be happy to link you to several sources that could explain socialism and communism, enumerated powers, George Orwell and the concepts explored and expressed in Animal Farm if you would like.

[Bokee Gngr]

Saless

Bokee Gngr

Saless

Bokee Gngr

Kaltros

This Isnt Sparta

I hear this alot from conservatives against gay marriage. Alot of states are allowing same sex couples to get married with hopefully more on the way, but I havent seen society tumble into some sort of apocalypse yet. Perhaps God doesnt mind same sex couples as much as people think He does.

There was that story in the bible about Sodom and Gomorrah getting turned to ashes.

May want to look at side reasons of the fall of Rome as well.

Sodom & Gomorrah was more about hospitality than homosexuality...and that's only one mythical example from thousands of years ago. There are no other examples in the thousands of years since that uphold your argument.

Rome fell because it became stagnant and was invaded by a more vigorous group and fragmented instead of rebuilding. Homosexuality was not a factor whatsoever.

Actually, Sodom and Gomorrah was about homosexuality and other sexual sins such as wanting to gay rape angels.

Angels in the bible aren't supposed to have a gender...so calling it gay is a stretch, at the least. Besides, if you're going to quote that section of the bible as some kind of moral authority than you also have to look at how the 'hero' of that particular section handled the situation...yes, he took the angels in...but then he offered up his own daughters to the rapist mob to protect the angels. Real good parenting going on there...

It should say a lot about how the God of the Bible feels about being gay when it was better for a virgin daughter to be given to a rape mob than for an angel to have sex with the same gender they came to earth as.

[Bokee Gngr]

Saless

Bokee Gngr

Catastrophic Lullaby

Bokee Gngr

The fact is though the USA constitution doesn't say anything concerning all gays should be able to marry.

I personally feel very strongly about states keeping their rights and the government not going the way of the socialist or dictatorship. However, I am for gay rights as a whole.

Supporting equal rights is not socialism... I agree there are certain instances where states have the right of vote but when you're discriminating against a group of people there should be no tolerance whatsoever. You're pretty much saying that it would be okay for Alabama to say, 'Screw you constitution - we don't think whites should marry any other colour than white and we have a right to enforce that".

You clearly do not understand the United States Constitution, socialism, or dictatorship. I am not saying this to be condescending because I truly hope you do some research and come to understand what you're talking because you're not making any sense.

Bokee Gngr

If one makes it all law that everyone must honor gay marriages then one is prohibiting the free exercise of certain religions that are against it. However, if one wishes to keep it completely secular than I have no issue with it. COMPLETELY secular meaning that if a gay couple see a beautiful church they wish to marry in but that church teaches against homosexuality than that church should not be forced to allow the marriage there. However, courthouse, judges, etc. gay friendly churches, that's fine but people can't have it both ways. You can't say that it is all secular than demand a church allow a wedding.

Churches do not have to hold ceremonies for people that they do not wish too. The government is not telling churches to do that; they're simply allowing gays to exercise their right to a secular marriage which is recognized by the government. There is no non-religious argument against gay marriage and therefore their right to marry who they please is greater than offending intolerant ideologies. Nothing will change within the church. Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't make it wrong, nor does allowing something you dislike force you to celebrate it in your private building (although that is another debate for another time as many churches are tax exempt).

I understand those things quite well and if one researches the latest movements of certain political leaders they will find that they are moving in the direction of socialism.

Non-religious arguments against gay marriage- The government is in too much debt to waste the money and time on new "hand outs" to more people and therefore should put new tax breaks for anyone on hold.

It could take money from social security which is already running out and we would be screwing the older citizens out of their fair share of what they paid in.

It would force many businesses who did not wish to lose their customers who may have religious views against it to close their doors and cause a major issue with the economy as a whole...

Those are just a few but there are plenty of them if you want to research or like me, live in an area that people have a lot of different views not all tied to religious reasons.

Socialism isn't necessarily bad...most Americans confuse it with Communism. Very different thing there. We already have a significant amount of socialism in our government and have always had in this country.

Same-sex marriage will have no significant effect on the economy. Some minor reductions in tax revenues, perhaps, but there really aren't all that many gay people so it's not significant. And same-sex marriages generate a significant amount of business, thereby boosting the economy. Social Security wouldn't be significantly effected, if at all. And fixing it is as simple as removing the cap that benefits rich people at the cost of everyone else.

As for businesses...very few will go out of business and that's only because they refuse to follow the laws in their areas. If they can't handle doing business with everyone than they shouldn't be a public business in the first place. This is a simple matter of law. But the business those companies lose will be picked up by other businesses so the net effect is zero.

It's true that there are many arguments that people use that aren't overtly religious on their face...but they're pretty much all made by religious people and come ultimately from that source. And none of them hold any weight, anyway. This is a secular country and always has been. No religion gets to set law for everyone else.

As a whole Socialism isn't good and removes too much power from the people. No where do I say I agree with the non-religious reasons people have but simply proving that yes, in fact, there are non-religious reasons why people object. I do not feel that fixing Social Security is as simple as removing the cap because frankly when you say "rich people at the cost of everyone else" I disagree. If you pay more into it you should get more out of it. I do not feel that someone who pays NOTHING into something should get an equal cut of the pie as the person who paid for all ingredients, mixed, baked, decorated etc. the pie.

Not all business will be picked up and it isn't as simple as that either. There are businesses that will respect the law and because they do they will lose 99% of their business because they live in an area where the majority of people are anti-gay rights. They are not losing their business because they do NOT respect the law but rather because they do and no one is going to risk picking that business up unless they are anti-gay rights and will shut down because they do not respect the law. That's the issue with making states who it is not in their best interests do something that other states that it is in their best interest do. You take an area that 97% of people are going to boycott all stores that serve gays and less than 1% of the population is gay...what do you think is going to happen to their profits? Not only that but what do you think will happen to the economy in those states who lose entire towns worth of businesses?

[The Peppermint Bunny]

Bokee Gngr

I laughed. I couldn't help it. I laughed when I was told that judges chose to not give wedding ceremonies to anyone instead of giving them to gays. I know the issue isn't funny but you gotta love the lengths some people will go to uphold their beliefs. I hope people come to their senses and realize that forcing states to go against their constitutions is unconstitutional.

This is a civil right. Banning a civil right is unconstitutional.

[Kaltros]

Saless

Kaltros

Ringoringa

Laws against gay marriage stem purely from religious values. There is absolutely no non-religious argument against it. If you say procreation, I'll gladly point out all the sterile couples currently married.

That's ridiculous. Sterile heterosexual couples are the exception to the rule, as can be seen by the constantly growing population of the world. Much of the time heterosexual couples can have kids with no problem.

However, for homosexual couples sterility IS the rule.

Not really, homosexual couples have kids all the time. Either through adoption, artificial insemination,etc. But that argument fails even without that because you've already admitted there are exceptions. If sterile/old heterosexual couples can marry when they are not going to/can't have children than there is no justification to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.

On this principle, should we also let humans marry cows, or dogs, or cats, or lamps, or whatever they want to marry? How about members of NAMBLA who want to marry young boys? There's no reason to stop at homosexual marriage alone, if that's your reasoning. It should also be polygamy, bestiality, and anything else.

[Kaltros]

Saless

Enumerated powers just talks about what Congress can and can't do. Has nothing to do with this.

You're confusing me. "Enumerated powers just talks about what Congress can do... But whether or not the government recognizes gay marriage has nothing to do with this!"

Quote:

The Constitution says you can't treat people unequally so you can't ban same-sex marriage.

Your babies argument is nonsense. Babies are unable to even communicate, let alone understand voting. We have age requirements for a reason, just as we have consent laws for a reason. No group of people are being discriminated against in this way because everybody is affected equally. Once you grow up you can vote, enter into contacts, etc.

No, they are NOT affected equally in the present. In the present some people are over 18, and they can vote. In the present some people are under 18, and they cannot vote. The law is treating them unequally based on age.

Quote:

Animal Farm, btw, wasn't about socialism...it was communism.

Nitpick away. They're close enough the point stands. Socialism is considered a transition into full communism.

[Kaltros]

Saless

Rome fell because it became stagnant and was invaded by a more vigorous group and fragmented instead of rebuilding. Homosexuality was not a factor whatsoever.

Well, except in the case of emperor Elagabalus, maybe, considered a possible transsexual.

Quote:

According to Cassius Dio, his most stable relationship seems to have been with his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, whom he referred to as his husband.[31]

The Augustan History claims that he also married a man named Zoticus, an athlete from Smyrna, in a public ceremony at Rome.[41] Cassius Dio reported that Elagabalus would paint his eyes, epilate his hair and wear wigs before prostituting himself in taverns, brothels,[42] and even in the imperial palace:

Finally, he set aside a room in the palace and there committed his indecencies, always standing nude at the door of the room, as the harlots do, and shaking the curtain which hung from gold rings, while in a soft and melting voice he solicited the passers-by. There were, of course, men who had been specially instructed to play their part. For, as in other matters, so in this business, too, he had numerous agents who sought out those who could best please him by their foulness. He would collect money from his patrons and give himself airs over his gains; he would also dispute with his associates in this shameful occupation, claiming that he had more lovers than they and took in more money.[43]

Herodian commented that Elagabalus enhanced his natural good looks by the regular application of cosmetics.[37] He was described as having been "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the queen of Hierocles" and was reported to have offered vast sums of money to any physician who could equip him with female genitalia.[32] Elagabalus has been characterized by some modern writers as transgender, perhaps transsexual.[44][45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus#Sex.2Fgender_controversy

[Kaltros]

The Peppermint Bunny

Bokee Gngr

I laughed. I couldn't help it. I laughed when I was told that judges chose to not give wedding ceremonies to anyone instead of giving them to gays. I know the issue isn't funny but you gotta love the lengths some people will go to uphold their beliefs. I hope people come to their senses and realize that forcing states to go against their constitutions is unconstitutional.

This is a civil right. Banning a civil right is unconstitutional.

Newborns can't vote, so unconstitutional, right? Convicted felons can't vote, either.

[The Peppermint Bunny]

Kaltros

The Peppermint Bunny

Bokee Gngr

I laughed. I couldn't help it. I laughed when I was told that judges chose to not give wedding ceremonies to anyone instead of giving them to gays. I know the issue isn't funny but you gotta love the lengths some people will go to uphold their beliefs. I hope people come to their senses and realize that forcing states to go against their constitutions is unconstitutional.

This is a civil right. Banning a civil right is unconstitutional.

Newborns can't vote, so unconstitutional, right? Convicted felons can't vote, either.

lol, shut-up, Kaltros.