Homosexual Marriage In The Usa.
Deus_Ex_Machina
Join Date: 2004-07-01 Member: 29674Members
Join Date: 2004-07-01 Member: 29674Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Yay? Nay?</div> Before the thread about the tsunami and religion turns into a debate about homosexual marriage, I'd like to start a new thread on it. I'd like to hear fellow posters' arguments on whether or not they think it should be allowed by law in the United States. Honestly, I don't think I should have to say this, but please don't say, "OMGz tehy cannt get hitched tehyr teh fajorts!1". I want logical and reasonable arguments
Personally, I believe that a homosexual couple should be able to be married and have all the rights and priveleges other Americans have by law. I feel that excluding people with an unchosen state of being from all the the rights of citizenship is unconstitutional. Please note that in no way do I wish to imply that I feel homosexual couples should be guaranteed the right to marry in religious establishments. That is a decision that needs to be made by each religious establishment on its own.
Personally, I believe that a homosexual couple should be able to be married and have all the rights and priveleges other Americans have by law. I feel that excluding people with an unchosen state of being from all the the rights of citizenship is unconstitutional. Please note that in no way do I wish to imply that I feel homosexual couples should be guaranteed the right to marry in religious establishments. That is a decision that needs to be made by each religious establishment on its own.
Comments
Obviously, if a religion wishes to exclude a group of people from being able to do something within the religion, then that's their call; however, marriage is a legally sanctioned action that isn't restricted to a single religion, and it involves extremely important legal rights that govern everything from taxes to adoption. Offering "domestic partnership" or whatever else you want to call it, even if it's equivalent in benefits, still falls under the "separate but equal" category.
This has also been taken up in courts; sometimes it's deemed constitutional, sometimes it's not. But if you think about it, denying American citizens from a right afforded to others is unconstitutional.
Then again, various states have been passing unconstitutional laws for decades; there are states where discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation and even financial status (i.e. denying rental or sale to a poor person, even if they can afford it) is perfectly legal. Even homosexual and transgender (including born hermaphrodite) lives are apparently not worth those of "normal" heterosexuals - there have been cases where the police have completely ignored their calls for help, not bothered to investigate murder tips, or even worse singled them out for abuse themselves. So I guess it shouldn't be any surprise.
I'm not bitter. Really.
On the point of homophobia, fears can be irrational and unbased, such as agoraphobia or arachnaphobia, even if they started with some trauma. Homophobia is one of these unbased ones. Does an agoraphobic try to limit the sky's potential (pun unintended)? No, he or she just avoids it and large, open spaces. If you are a homophobic and a homosexual person ask you out, say no thanks, I'm not homosexual. That's it. 99% of homosexuals will just leave you alone in that respect. The other 1% are either very inconsiderate, cannot take a hint or, on very rare occasions, have rape in mind, in which case they are criminals, just like all heterosexuals who commit rape.
In order to accomadate all the beliefs in a counrty as large and diverse as the US or Canada, the law must be above the church/mosque/other religious infrastructure. Otherwise we will get severe discrimination based on nothing other than that he believes god has a different name.
Up here in Canada, the Supreme Court will be deciding on the issue sometime in the near future. All pointers show that they will rule in favour of homosexual marriage.
So, to summarize my giant rant:
Why legalize homosexual marriage?
1) It does no harm, and
2) It improves rights and equality, just as abolishing slavery and ending apartheid did.
Now, to those who would dispute my assupmtion that it would do no harm, I belive you are homophobics. No insult, just a fact. I have no beef with homophobics either, just as long as they aren't so naive and egoistic to think that people's rights should be curtailed just because it makes the uncomfortable. In fact, my motto is: "Believe whatever the hell you want, just don't try to limit me."
P.S.: Please keep in mind that I agree with Athena and Mantrid, that acceptance of homosexuality should be decided by each religion individually. I am speaking about the law, not religion.
Edit: I used the g-word <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
P.S.: Sorry for the double post, I was typing mine while he posted.
*edit* by the way, for your information - there is no law banning homosexuals from marrying. They can marry just like anyone else. In fact, a homosexual can marry another homosexual, if they so choose - provided they're not of the same gender. I know you guys are like "WTH" but it's true. There is no law prohibiting you from marrying based on your sexual preference. You just might find that if you do marry, you won't be having a very good marriage.
Under apartheid, blacks had their rights infringed upon.
Under a governement that makes homosexual marriage illegal, homosexuals are having their rights infringed upon.
I'm not trying to debate how much harm is being done, the point is <b>any</b> harm is too much.
Thanks, I'll be suing you now. see you in court.
Just kidding, but seriously, that claim is ludicrous. A person who goes through a sheltered life learns nothing about the outside world. When you go through hardship, barring autism, you learn to empathize with someone else. Utopia isn't some imaginary place where nothing bad ever happens and no ones feelings get hurt. Pain is part of being human and growing up.
Or would you rather have a world of people telling everyone else to "let them eat cake"?
Let's get off this petty squabble and back to the issue, please post your own opinion instead of trying to take down mine.
Let's get off this petty squabble and back to the issue, please post your own opinion instead of trying to take down mine. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
aside: my mom sucked it up and died last year of stomach cancer. And unless you have gone through chemo, don't even compare yourself to what she went through. but by your logic, the chemo is bad, because it causes pain, right?
or maybe you would advise euthanasia, so that the remaining family members would at least know that their loved ones died a relatively painless death. Yes? Am I feeling you there?
I never said all pain should be abolished, if it gains an important purpose, and the person or their PoA chooses to accept it, it is ok, albeit unfortunate.
Prohibiting homosexual marriage doesn't serve any logical, non-religious or fear based purpose, and it certainly doesn't have the person's permission.
logically speaking, though, the homosexual marriage you're referring to is a contradiction in terms.
Marriage may have been a religious term in the beginning, but it is the term the government, and therefore the legal system, uses. It is called a "<u>Marriage</u> Certificate," not a "Civil Union Certificate" or what have you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dictionary.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dictionary.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->marriage
n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" [syn: matrimony, union, spousal relationship, wedlock]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You may notice that I omitted the first definition, that is because I believe that by saying "Between man and woman," it is showing itself to be biased. The excerpt I quoted is what the word marriage should mean, free of the bounds of sex. Once again, this is a matter of opinion. But would it be kosher to call a washroom a "Black Washroom" and force blacks to use it instead of the normal washroom? No, this is segregation. I once again refer to Athena's post.
Now, obviously such a large change isn't going to happen, so I think that the least we can do is allow homosexuals to be married legally and have the same rights as married straight couples.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How do homosexual marriages end in divorces any more often than heterosexual ones do? That is just another stereotype.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are misunderstanding him because he is playing games with semantics. What he means when he says "Homosexuals can get married..." is that there is no law against homosexuals marrying, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Hes just trying to confuse everyone and skirt the issue. Frankly I would have thought he would be above that.
And anyways, this is straying off topic. The original question was why or why shouldn't homosexual <i>marriages</i> be allowed. I have yet to see Wheeee post anything resmbling an opinion or argument adressing this question.
No, they are not. Straights don't "prefer" the opposite sex and queers don't "prefer" the same sex. It's built in and iron-clad before you hit puberty, at the least.
Chalk another mark in the column for eliminating "marriage" from civil law and replacing it with standard contract law.
as for skirting the issue... am i really? marriage has been between man and woman since forever, even when homosexuality was openly practiced and *not* frowned upon, as in the classical period. I think you omit that definition because it is you who is biased, who has the agenda. Think about it for a moment. It's not "ohnoes teh changing times are teh evil, get away you faj0rtz!" No, it's like saying "dogs should be given legal standing on par with humans, because they've been domesticated and parts of many families. Who cares if they're not really humans." (Before you post outraged flames at me comparing homosexuals to dogs, it's just an analogy people. don't get your panties all in a bunch).
Excuse <u>me</u>, but I think that I have a right to know why in God's name (oh the irony) you are against **** marriage. A real reason. "God says it's a sin," is NOT a reason to ban **** marriage, alright? This is not a Christian nation, its laws should not be taken from the Bible, and there is no logical reason (since you love logic so much) why the government should ban an action that has no effect on you, nor is there any reason for you - as a supposedly loving Christian - to condone an act that discriminates against some group of people. While they're on Earth, you <u>must</u> treat them with the same love and respect that you treat everyone else; what happens in the afterlife is none of your concern.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->as for skirting the issue... am i really? marriage has been between man and woman since forever, even when homosexuality was openly practiced and *not* frowned upon, as in the classical period.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"It's always been that way, why change it." Nice argument. Times have changed, definitions can be changed. Not to mention I've never heard of homosexuality being accepted in <u>any</u> society ever. I have heard of lords being condemned for homosexual practices....wait, that's going against what you just said. Right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you omit that definition because it is you who is biased, who has the agenda. Think about it for a moment. It's not "ohnoes teh changing times are teh evil, get away you faj0rtz!" No, it's like saying "dogs should be given legal standing on par with humans, because they've been domesticated and parts of many families. Who cares if they're not really humans." (Before you post outraged flames at me comparing homosexuals to dogs, it's just an analogy people. don't get your panties all in a bunch). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh really? So which is it - you're analogy is fundamentally flawed because it compares two completely unrelated things, or you're just so condescending that you compare homosexuals to dogs? According to you it's not the latter, so it must be the former. I'm trying as hard as I can, and for the life of me I can't understand what that analogy is trying to prove. Anyone got a clue, anyone at all?
That is the worst analogy I have ever seen on the internet. I salute you sir you have suprised even me.
that was the point i was trying to make, that homosexual marriage is totally unrelated to marriage.
that was the point i was trying to make, that homosexual marriage is totally unrelated to marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How? its a union of 2 loving people. I see no difference
*edit* by the way, being loving towards other people doesn't mean i become a mindless yes-man to them and condone everything they do.
@ Whee, I'm glad at least one person is willing to argue against, hopefully more will show up eventually. However, the only argument against homosexual marriage I could gather from your 7 posts in this thread is that there never has been homosexual marriage so why change it. Well, there actually has; Canada, France, Greenland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, and Argentina all have legislation which allow homosexual couples exactly the same marriage rights as their heterosexual counterparts.
You are correct in saying that homosexuality was a common practice in some countries during the Classical era, but I guess since they didn't have **** marriage, we shouldn't either, and all those Commie pig nations I just mentioned are terribly wrong. While we're at it, let's get rid of the automobile, cell phones and monotheistic religion. (And juse to cover my ****..) [/Sarcasm]
After all, you can call a plane a car and it'll still be, for all intents and purposes, a plane. It's similar to a car - it runs on petroleum products, it bears passengers to a destination that would take far longer for them to get to by foot, in most cases requires a pilot or driver, and is expensive to maintain.
That does not, however, mean that a plane is a car.
See? So my concern is not about the legality of it at all. My problem is with the concept of it. After all, it's legal to do a lot of stuff that I consider immoral, but I don't really mind it.
*edit* that is why i brought up the open practice of homosexuality in the classical era - because it was socially acceptable to an extent that it is not, here, but the fact that they never even thought about homosexual marriage (even though some of the greatest philosophers lived in that time, and reason was a great motive force in that age) speaks volumes.
Come to think of it, what is the purpose legally benefiting married couples? In our day and age, women can get the same jobs that men can. The crucial points in life where it might not be possible for the man or the woman to have a job are disability and becoming parents.
I say, scrap government recognition of marriage, and allow tax/legal breaks for people trying to support themselves and a disabled person or themselves and their child and stay-at-home spouse.
If somebody can find something wrong with my idea, please let me know. This is the first time I've said anything about it, and I would hate to present it in other debates with horrible flaws in it. Plus, I'm no legal scholar.
I, personally, could care less whether or not **** people get married...although the word marriage carries allot of religious symbolism in most parts of this country...so they might want to try using another word. What I do not want to see is **** couples going around and parading the fact that they are **** for everyone to see.
We've all seen the "in-your-face" *** and frankly nothing makes me more angry then *** shoving the fact that their **** in your face and daring you to challenge them. And I'm fairly neutral on the issue, so you can imagine what it does to the people who are absolutely opposed to **** marriage.
However this is America, and if enough people want something in this country, we'll get it. But this also works in reverse, if enough people in this country don't want something, we won't have it. At this point and time I don't think America is ready for **** marriage, and the harder it's advocates push the harder America well fight back.
Edit: Can you fill in the blanks?
...Since when is "****" a bad word?