Supreme Court Strikes Down Key DOMA Provisions
- Thread starter Gahars
- Start date
- Views 23,191
- Replies 271
- Likes 6
And if you go to the right places, people still complain that black Americans are actually treated as human beings. That's no reason to retreat from what's right.
Protected from what, exactly? Being able to marry? You still haven't answered this question.
Just expanding the definition of marriage (making a marriage a legal union between two consenting adults regardless of gender) won't make it unworkable. Why are under the impression that it would become badly formed or poorly worded? And how would this put anyone, of any sexual orientation, in danger?
Are you thinking of hate crimes? Because, a) hate crime legislation is something else entirely, and b) gays and lesbians (and beyond) are already protected under that legislation. What will this ruling change about that?
I'm all for civil unions. I just wish it were worded like that, civil union, instead of marriage. There is nothing religious about a civil union. There is, however, something religious about being married in Holy Matrimony. It seems that there is to be separation of religion from state, but in this case the state allows for it's laws to intercede into religion.
People have long debated whether or not marriage was created by religion. If you believe religious texts, the first union ever between humans was man and was designed by God. Other than that we know Sumerians had brutal marriage laws dating back 5,000 years. Rome has somewhat more lenient marriage laws. The Judeo/Christian religious ceremony is the current oldest surviving system of laws regarding marriage practiced. How far that dates back depends on your beliefs. One thing all marriage laws have in common up until this point is that they were all designed for man and woman.
It makes me no difference if two people want to be legally recognized in a civil union. But let's be real here, more people are doing this to pursue benefits, rather than equality. I hate when people compare this to events such as the civil rights movement. Back then people were getting beat by police, attacked by dogs, sprayed with water hoses, lynched, hung, burned alive, falsely convicted of crimes, not allowed to frequent white establishments, forced to sit in the back of buses, not allowed to vote, denied employment and equal pay opportunities, as well as various other human rights. Which of those basic human rights are currently not afforded to gay people? And yes, they have the same right to marry the opposite sex as every else does.
In the end, I think if somebody wants to be with somebody of the same sex, then it is their God given choice. It's not my place to judge nor condemn them, even if I disagree with it. My God tells me to love everybody equally...and I do. I also think that while a religiously separated legally established civil union should be the choice of the government and the people that it should be kept separated from being a religious ceremony of Holy Matrimony as entered in by a man and woman. It is a mockery to practice the ceremony of a religion that explicitly states it is immoral.
I also don't think people should be forced to accept this as moral. I know that while I will teach my children to treat everybody with equal respect, I will not be teaching them that homosexuality is moral. As long as that is not forced on me then I'm fine.
I remember there was a local expo event that went on annually for years where people would rent a lot. Some of those lots were for fun and games, educational purposes, promote businesses, raise awareness, and some were religious. What happened is that some atheists protested that since the lots were city property and rented by the city that the laws of separation of church and state prevented the city from renting to religious organizations. The atheists won the battle. It was weird seeing as something like only 1.5% of the population was offended by it. But, the laws the law so it wasn't allowed. The following year those same atheists rented that same lot and promoted atheism. They also posted an advertisement on a city owned billboard that promoted atheism even though they had also previously and successfully campaigned to keep religious organizations from renting those as well. I feel that they are within their rights to that is very hypocritical. The same way I feel that forcing people to accept something they don't agree with, such as gay marriage, is hypocritical.
I don't hate or treat gay people any differently than I do any person of heterosexual preference. Yet, because I don't agree with it, myself among many others, are labeled as bigots, homophobes, hate mongers, and various other derogatory terms, even though I have expressed no malice towards anybody with opposing beliefs. Where's the equality in me being labeled for having different beliefs?
People have long debated whether or not marriage was created by religion. If you believe religious texts, the first union ever between humans was man and was designed by God. Other than that we know Sumerians had brutal marriage laws dating back 5,000 years. Rome has somewhat more lenient marriage laws. The Judeo/Christian religious ceremony is the current oldest surviving system of laws regarding marriage practiced. How far that dates back depends on your beliefs. One thing all marriage laws have in common up until this point is that they were all designed for man and woman.
It makes me no difference if two people want to be legally recognized in a civil union. But let's be real here, more people are doing this to pursue benefits, rather than equality. I hate when people compare this to events such as the civil rights movement. Back then people were getting beat by police, attacked by dogs, sprayed with water hoses, lynched, hung, burned alive, falsely convicted of crimes, not allowed to frequent white establishments, forced to sit in the back of buses, not allowed to vote, denied employment and equal pay opportunities, as well as various other human rights. Which of those basic human rights are currently not afforded to gay people? And yes, they have the same right to marry the opposite sex as every else does.
In the end, I think if somebody wants to be with somebody of the same sex, then it is their God given choice. It's not my place to judge nor condemn them, even if I disagree with it. My God tells me to love everybody equally...and I do. I also think that while a religiously separated legally established civil union should be the choice of the government and the people that it should be kept separated from being a religious ceremony of Holy Matrimony as entered in by a man and woman. It is a mockery to practice the ceremony of a religion that explicitly states it is immoral.
I also don't think people should be forced to accept this as moral. I know that while I will teach my children to treat everybody with equal respect, I will not be teaching them that homosexuality is moral. As long as that is not forced on me then I'm fine.
I remember there was a local expo event that went on annually for years where people would rent a lot. Some of those lots were for fun and games, educational purposes, promote businesses, raise awareness, and some were religious. What happened is that some atheists protested that since the lots were city property and rented by the city that the laws of separation of church and state prevented the city from renting to religious organizations. The atheists won the battle. It was weird seeing as something like only 1.5% of the population was offended by it. But, the laws the law so it wasn't allowed. The following year those same atheists rented that same lot and promoted atheism. They also posted an advertisement on a city owned billboard that promoted atheism even though they had also previously and successfully campaigned to keep religious organizations from renting those as well. I feel that they are within their rights to that is very hypocritical. The same way I feel that forcing people to accept something they don't agree with, such as gay marriage, is hypocritical.
I don't hate or treat gay people any differently than I do any person of heterosexual preference. Yet, because I don't agree with it, myself among many others, are labeled as bigots, homophobes, hate mongers, and various other derogatory terms, even though I have expressed no malice towards anybody with opposing beliefs. Where's the equality in me being labeled for having different beliefs?
Stop it right there, I'm not even reading further.
Marriage IS NOT Holy Matrimony.
Holy Matrimony is a type of marriage. Marriage is a much broader term.
Merriam Webster Online Dictionary said:
What do you have to say to that?
Edit - Two men or two women getting married in a non-religious environment (since most churches and other religious institutions won't marry two members of the same sex) is as holy as a man and a woman being legally married in a non-religious environment. Do you have a problem with a man and a woman being married in such a fashion?
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 31,284
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Dr. Wahwee's castle
- XP
- 18,969
- Country
While we are at it,let's throw some Polyamory/Polygamy into the mix.
Sure, why the hell not? Not that it would make a difference bringing up other topics at this rate....
I adore how this entire thread is just bickering on morals and states nothing about the objective impact this would have on society. Hey guys, good job arguing about semantics!
It's 4 am for me, so I'm going to go to bed, I hope to wake up to some more overly stated opinions about this, or to a locked thread, either should make for good breakfast amusement. Please don't let me down or stop you.
It's 4 am for me, so I'm going to go to bed, I hope to wake up to some more overly stated opinions about this, or to a locked thread, either should make for good breakfast amusement. Please don't let me down or stop you.
What objective impact on society? It isn't as if gay individuals haven't been a part of our society forever now. Hell, they're more openly gay now than ever before because society has come to accept that homosexuality is just gonna exist on a large scale, regardless of their views on it, so they may as well get used to it. It's like I'm sure people were expecting a large scale societal impact that would have lasting repercussions for decades to come from black civil rights finally coming to be, or when women's suffrage was finally passed, and yet, in the end, there was resistance at first, but people came to accept it. Now, here we are, 2013, and the idea of women not voting or people of a different race having less rights than another is considered sexism and racism (respectively) by all except a very select few. I'd imagine that by 2063, gay marriage will be so ridiculously standard, future generations won't understand why the hell there was so much bickering over something so basic.
As for marriage, the only part of society this will "impact" is those that let it impact them. Otherwise, this is ultimately a decision that will be of little consequence to anybody that isn't gay except for those that see it as their life goal to steal the rights of others in one way or another. Ultimately, the only reason gay marriage was held back like this for so long was because of religious conservatives preaching that it was sinful and against the Judeo-Christian God. Thinking anything else would actually be ignorant of the obvious evidence placed out before us year after year, debate after debate.
Now, if I missed your point, feel free to make it when you wake up, but really, I don't know what point you were trying to make. I haven't seen any argument in here that won't come up in actual debates about this issue in the coming weeks from conservative thinkers. We've already established what marriage is, so that, realistically, this decision should have no actual impact on society at large, but rather just gay couples. If you're expecting us to talk about how society will crumble at the foundations from this decision, well, you're clearly lacking an actual understanding of the base of this issue as a whole, the significance of this specific decision, and how this country has dealt with civil rights issues of every sort time after time.
This thread is actually going decently though. It hasn't devolved into basically a shouting match, most people have been fairly civil in their criticisms of others, and it hasn't gained page after page of essentially insults. I'd say it's one of the better debate threads we've had on here to date.
I would like to point out that they are nonreligious (not just fundamental christians) people who are against it too.
It's not a chosen lifestyle, it's something completely out of our control. But even if it were chosen, why should it matter to you or anyone other than ourselves? That would be like trying to make it against the law to buy a Tuna salad for launch because it's not your choice in lunch.
And it's not different from written law, as I said before, The Bible is not law, thus should hold no power in law.
Homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals. We eat, breathe, shower, play video games, drink water, sleep, use cellphones, watch tv, go to the movies, walk, drive cars, pay taxes, have jobs, go to school, raise pets, ect ect, just like every other person on this plant. The only difference between us is who we come home to in the end of the day. And if you feel that's a good enough reason to separate us, then refer to my previous statement.
its a genetic thing to be gay(which is FACT, dont give me B.S.). But the holy books say not to be gay. so why did god make people with gay genetics? answer that religious people.
I had more to say about it but, as stated, you didn't read it. You also just gave us a dictionary's more modern term for marriage...I guess if you had read more you would see that it would have covered that as well. Awesome.
God likes to test people. He makes men who wanna be with little girls, yet we all agree that even tho they desire this that it is wrong, in the same way he makes men who want it in the ass to test them. The bible never mentions "kill all men who look at other men and get hard" it says to kill men who sleep with other men. And when the bible says "sleep with" it almost certainly is referring to sex.
Did you genuinely just compare homosexuality to paedophilia?
Could you educate me on this? I suppose switch the word taboo with the words "looked down upon" if that makes you happy.
Homosexuality is quite acceptable in the nicer parts of the world and thus does not really count as taboo. Those that look down upon it are usually considered cretins in the same way that those that look down upon learning things and figuring out how things work are.
paedophilia is damaging on quite a few levels and not just "something most do not bring up in polite conversation".
Also
I thought we covered this before -- the government of anywhere has two jobs, it breaks down many more times and overlaps in many places but still two jobs
1) Public works/doing things that private enterprise might not consider profitable but would improve that quality of life for those governed.
2) Make new laws, interpret laws, tweak existing laws as the need arises and enforce said laws. Otherwise known as decide upon, encode and enforce baseline morality.
Now the better systems of doing this will consult with the people being governed where it is applicable but the fact remains it is their job.
paedophilia is damaging on quite a few levels and not just "something most do not bring up in polite conversation".
Also
I thought we covered this before -- the government of anywhere has two jobs, it breaks down many more times and overlaps in many places but still two jobs
1) Public works/doing things that private enterprise might not consider profitable but would improve that quality of life for those governed.
2) Make new laws, interpret laws, tweak existing laws as the need arises and enforce said laws. Otherwise known as decide upon, encode and enforce baseline morality.
Now the better systems of doing this will consult with the people being governed where it is applicable but the fact remains it is their job.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
-
- Locked
