Should gay marriage be allowed?

@JEB007,

JEB007 wrote:

You are talking about procreation. It is archaic to think that marriage is about procreation and the preservation of the species. We are beyond that, the human race is not going anywhere, I am here because my parents decided to have children after they got married. When people get married nowadays, the first though in their heads is not to have children but to share their life together.

Obviously u have not been to a college party, a night club, a highschool party, hell even a middle school party in a long while. Unfortunately promiscuity is a part of American society regardless of sexual preference, we take sex to lightly nowadays.

Hahahhahahahahahaha. If u knew anything about me. you would not be saying I am playing the race card. I was using an example!

You say it is archaic yet your parents did it.? We are beyond that? By how many generations. As far as partys, i sure didn't miss anything.

If i new anything about you i think it would take more then 54 posts. I was using an example as well.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

moot - not mute !!!!

And there ARE conflicting views on this site !

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Though I consider myself to be very conservative on most issues, this is one where I find myself firmly on the liberal side of the issue.

I've examined the arguments both for and against, and frankly, it seems to me that arguments against gay marriage are based on nothing more than fear and prejudice. I personally believe that the ultra conservative religious right has too great a voice among conservative politicians. When will people understand that Freedom OF Religion must include Freedom FROM Religion?

The bottom line when considering issues like this must be a litmus test of harm. If something is made legal, will it cause harm? And if it causes harm, is that harm greater than the harm caused by not making that action legal? I've heard any number of arguments that allowing gays to marry will somehow harm the institution of marriage, but have yet to see even one argument that makes this true. It boils down to "if we allow gays to marry, how will my marriage be harmed?" It won't. The institution of marriage won't be harmed. Our perception of marriage may change, but change does not necessarily equate to harm.

Kevin McHugh

3 Replies

@kmchugh,

kmchugh wrote:

Though I consider myself to be very conservative on most issues, this is one where I find myself firmly on the liberal side of the issue.

I've examined the arguments both for and against, and frankly, it seems to me that arguments against gay marriage are based on nothing more than fear and prejudice. I personally believe that the ultra conservative religious right has too great a voice among conservative politicians. When will people understand that Freedom OF Religion must include Freedom FROM Religion?

The bottom line when considering issues like this must be a litmus test of harm. If something is made legal, will it cause harm? And if it causes harm, is that harm greater than the harm caused by not making that action legal? I've heard any number of arguments that allowing gays to marry will somehow harm the institution of marriage, but have yet to see even one argument that makes this true. It boils down to "if we allow gays to marry, how will my marriage be harmed?" It won't. The institution of marriage won't be harmed. Our perception of marriage may change, but change does not necessarily equate to harm.

Kevin McHugh

I think this was a great summary, thank you

0 Replies

@kmchugh,

kmchugh wrote:

Though I consider myself to be very conservative on most issues, this is one where I find myself firmly on the liberal side of the issue.

I've examined the arguments both for and against, and frankly, it seems to me that arguments against gay marriage are based on nothing more than fear and prejudice. I personally believe that the ultra conservative religious right has too great a voice among conservative politicians. When will people understand that Freedom OF Religion must include Freedom FROM Religion?

The bottom line when considering issues like this must be a litmus test of harm. If something is made legal, will it cause harm? And if it causes harm, is that harm greater than the harm caused by not making that action legal? I've heard any number of arguments that allowing gays to marry will somehow harm the institution of marriage, but have yet to see even one argument that makes this true. It boils down to "if we allow gays to marry, how will my marriage be harmed?" It won't. The institution of marriage won't be harmed. Our perception of marriage may change, but change does not necessarily equate to harm.

Kevin McHugh

Welcome to the site and I like your post Smile

0 Replies

@kmchugh,

kmchugh wrote:

Though I consider myself to be very conservative on most issues, this is one where I find myself firmly on the liberal side of the issue.

I've examined the arguments both for and against, and frankly, it seems to me that arguments against gay marriage are based on nothing more than fear and prejudice. I personally believe that the ultra conservative religious right has too great a voice among conservative politicians. When will people understand that Freedom OF Religion must include Freedom FROM Religion?

The bottom line when considering issues like this must be a litmus test of harm. If something is made legal, will it cause harm? And if it causes harm, is that harm greater than the harm caused by not making that action legal? I've heard any number of arguments that allowing gays to marry will somehow harm the institution of marriage, but have yet to see even one argument that makes this true. It boils down to "if we allow gays to marry, how will my marriage be harmed?" It won't. The institution of marriage won't be harmed. Our perception of marriage may change, but change does not necessarily equate to harm.

Kevin McHugh

"based on fear and prejudice."

Your forgetting it is based on the constitutional law we didn't make it up, it took well over a decade even for a rough draft. So our fore fathers must of been in fear too right. To not include it in our Constitution? We fear them because of why?

"When will people understand that Freedom OF Religion must include Freedom FROM Religion? "

We will understand that when you have it forcible installed into the constitution! Untill then is says Freedom of Religion Not FROM? You got your work cut out for you.

"The bottom line when considering issues like this must be a litmus test of harm. "

Why are you talking harm when you haven't even come up with a good reason to even consider changing the constitution? Now you want a litmus test? I feel your argument going the way of emotional distress for that will be the cry of inhumanity. You will cling onto so very tightly.

"If something is made legal, will it cause harm? "

My question to you is why make it legal in the first place?

"And if it causes harm, is that harm greater than the harm caused by not making that action legal?"

You have to answer the first question before we can get to harm, i didn't make the rules. Second question, Define "not making the action legal"? Are you saying there is a law being broken?

"I've heard any number of arguments that allowing gays to marry will somehow harm the institution of marriage, but have yet to see even one argument that makes this true."

Here we go with the harm issue. Who is being harmed and why? If the institution of marriage is no big deal why they want in so bad? In the ole day it was for love, today it is about taxes right? The arguement as you say you haven't seen is your own existence. Civilization it self is only around for the reason of marriage. It is what the community and the unity comes from having children form your own genes. You tend to hag out with like minded parents and form a community. In that community your neighbor will watchout for your kid as well as his. That is the benefit of community. Now explain how gays would be a benifit to that community? Then maybe we will talk about marriage, because i still need a reason to even consider them a benifit?

"It boils down to "if we allow gays to marry, how will my marriage be harmed?" It won't. "

Don't forget it's just your opinion. Mine differs.

"The institution of marriage won't be harmed. "

In your opinion!

"Our perception of marriage may change, but change does not necessarily equate to harm."

The perception has changed for you but not me. I still need to know who you think is being harmed?

Edit- Welcome also.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

from religion, then there is no freedom of

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Don't flater yourself. Emotion has every thing to do with you.

"but we cannot make something illegal simply because your religion does not approve."

What are we making illegal?

"Again, I ask you, if we are to base our laws on religious beliefs, whose religious beliefs do we choose? Yours? And if so, why? (Please try to come back with some answer about “majority rules.” I love it when fundamentalist Christians do that.)"

As far as i know we live in a republic and that republic is rulled by what? Appears it's more then just Christian fundimentalists don't it? That is the way this Democratic Republic country works! Until you socialists gain control that's the way it's gonna stay. The object it to out vote us, something you haven't been able to do of late.

"I stand by my initial assertion. Arguments against allowing gays to marry are based on fear and prejudice. Fear that it will somehow cause the downfall of our great society, and religious prejudice. I’m truly sorry that you think our society is so frail that it cannot withstand something as trivial as what two people you don’t even know do. "

"“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Where are we not following the constitution? Other then your opinion of it?

You stand by it but can you prove it! How is our society so frail if i'm willing to fight for it? I don't care what they do behind closed doors. None of my bussiness, but when they come out and then demand to be married i say no and guess who rules!

"it is discriminatory to pass laws that deny marriage to this segment of the population."

Here is where your wrong! Where is the discrimination? The law says you can marry the opposite sex. So a gay male can marry a female just like a hetero male, hence no discrimination! For some reason you take it as you can marry what ever you want. If that were the case what would stop you from marrying a chair a car your house? Remember the LAW says you have the right to marry the opposite sex.

"As to freedom of religion, your argument contains a serious error in logic. If we cannot be free from religion, then there is no freedom of religion. Freedom of religion implies that I am free to worship God in any way I see fit. Unfortunately for you, that also means I am free to not worship God, if that is what I wish. Christ himself did not try to legislate religious belief, did not try to beat people into religious belief, why should you?"

Your confused. You keep using the word "From" and it's not in there, i've checked. You are the one with an error in logic. I fail to see how you arrive at your choice to no religion and then seek to restrict my devotion to it, Why? You don't feel that hipocritical? Strange! You hold a double standard, one for you not hearing it, another for me praticing it?

"You ask why make it legal in the first place. Simple. If marriage is an institution that some gays want to participate in, then we can only deny them that participation if we can show some overriding reason, some tangible harm that will befall our society as a result of allowing gay marriage. Otherwise, under the first amendment we CANNOT deny them this participation."

Explain to me how they can participate when they cant have kids? You need a boy and a girl remember? OK then answer me this, what will your reason be when someone comes up and wants to marry his mother? Are you going to discriminate against him? What about the guy who wants to marry a 11 year old girl, you gonna discriminate against him? No, then your a sick person! Where will YOU draw the line? Because there has to be one drawn?

"Now, I’ve answered your questions. Might I ask you to answer mine? What harm can you possibly see coming to our society as a result of allowing gay marriage? The decline of the institution? Look around. More than 50% of marriages now end in divorce. I can give other examples, but the point is that it is an evolving institution. Allowing gay marriage is only another step in that evolution. More to the point, if gays are allowed to marry, how on earth will that harm my marriage? "

You didn't answer why we should change the constitution to accomodate gays? They are not discriminated against! When you can do that we'll talk about harm. You can give more examples? How long does the average gay couple last in a relationship? What is that percentage percapita compared to heterosexuals? Instead of harm you should be thinking about what good they do?

"In short, can you give me a solid, logically thought out reason, devoid of emotion and your personal religious beliefs to deny gays the right to participate in this institution? "

I'll make it simple. It's not in the constitution. When a guy marrys a girl then can participate in the institution until then keep walkin.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline wrote:

I'll make it simple. It's not in the constitution. When a guy marrys a girl then can participate in the institution until then keep walkin.

First, wipe the spittle from around your mouth. I know this has you worked up and angry, but try to argue from logic rather than emotion.

Next, you are correct, Gay marriage is not in the constitution. But then, can you show me where heterosexual marriage is in the constitution? I'll even help you out. You can find the constitution here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Now, show me where it speaks of hetero marriage. If you can't, then by your own reasoning, all marriages in the US are unconstitutional, and therefore null and void.

KM

1 Reply

@kmchugh,

kmchugh wrote:

First, wipe the spittle from around your mouth. I know this has you worked up and angry, but try to argue from logic rather than emotion.

Next, you are correct, Gay marriage is not in the constitution. But then, can you show me where heterosexual marriage is in the constitution? I'll even help you out. You can find the constitution here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Now, show me where it speaks of hetero marriage. If you can't, then by your own reasoning, all marriages in the US are unconstitutional, and therefore null and void.

KM

You wish. Only spittle i have is from smoking a bowl, LOL. You show me my emotion i'll show you yours. How do you figure the law and the constitution are not logical?

"Now, show me where it speaks of hetero marriage. If you can't, then by your own reasoning, all marriages in the US are unconstitutional, and therefore null and void."

Now why would they be null and void when we follow state law as far as marriage? Every state constitution has a law that states every human being has the right to marry the opposite sex. The reason being as they wanted to tax the act of being married by the church, they felt they weren't getting there cut. Now they do. It's within the state's right to dicate what you do as far as getting married. Like a blood test and licence to marry weither it's in a church, or by JP! It's under state control not Fed. You should learn this before debating. I can teach you but it would be nice to know you don't know what your talking about in the first place.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline wrote:

You wish. Only spittle i have is from smoking a bowl, LOL.

Wait a minute, you can violate the LAW??? You can smoke pot??? But gays can't marry, because it's against the laws of GOD AND MAN??? My, I am so sorry I entered this debate with you. I had NO IDEA you were so powerful. I guess the only laws that apply are those imaginary ones you like, and the real ones you don't like can be ignored, huh?

Quote:

Now why would they be null and void when we follow state law as far as marriage? Every state constitution has a law that states every human being has the right to marry the opposite sex.

However, state law cannot supercede federal law, ever. I have far more knowledge of the law and of the constitution than you imagine. In any even, don't tell me. Show me. Your words:

Quote:

I'll make it simple. It's not in the constitution. When a guy marrys a girl then can participate in the institution until then keep walkin.

Gay marriage is not in the constitution. But neither is heterosexual marriage. Your own argument trips you up. Show me where heterosexual marriage is in the Constitution.

First, you want to tell me that gay marriage isn't legal because it isn't in the constitution. I ask you to show me heterosexual marriage in the constitution. Next you want to tell me that marriage is a state thing. Really, you have to make up your mind, and settle on which way you want it to be. If its a state thing, then the gay people getting married in Mass are legally married, and those marriages must be recognized by other states, yes?

Before we go any further, decide who you want to be in charge of this institution called marriage, then stick to it. Then, if it is a federal issue, show me where the constitution allows heterosexual marriage. If it is a state issue, then it is up to the states to decide. If a state (i.e. Mass) allows gay marriage, then by agreement between all states, those marriages must be recognized by other states. Either way, you lose.

Kevin McHugh

2 Replies

@kmchugh,

kmchugh wrote:

Gay marriage is not in the constitution. But neither is heterosexual marriage. Your own argument trips you up. Show me where heterosexual marriage is in the Constitution.

So should we amend the Federal constitution to allow for gays when it's not even in there about heterosexuals?

Marriage is in the state constitution, afaik, and I don't care who says gays can marry, if I have a vote in my state, mine will be no.

I don't know why they should be so special that they get a constitutional amendment when what they want to change isn't even in the constitution.

2 Replies

@Brent cv,

Quote:

Before we go any further, decide who you want to be in charge of this institution called marriage, then stick to it. Then, if it is a federal issue, show me where the constitution allows heterosexual marriage. If it is a state issue, then it is up to the states to decide. If a state (i.e. Mass) allows gay marriage, then by agreement between all states, those marriages must be recognized by other states. Either way, you lose.

Good point.

0 Replies

@ndjs,

ndjs wrote:

So should we amend the Federal constitution to allow for gays when it's not even in there about heterosexuals?

Marriage is in the state constitution, afaik, and I don't care who says gays can marry, if I have a vote in my state, mine will be no.

I don't know why they should be so special that they get a constitutional amendment when what they want to change isn't even in the constitution.

It is up to the state. my vote would be yes because I don't have a problem with them marrying the other sex regardless of if they want special treatment or whatever I believe it is the right thing to do.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Well damn, if it's up to the state, then the federal constitution should stay out of it, imo.

1 Reply

@ndjs,

ndjs wrote:

Well damn, if it's up to the state, then the federal constitution should stay out of it, imo.

Exactly including trying to ban it at the Federal level like Bush tried to a couple of years ago.

I believe it should be up to the state to decide.

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

that's fine with me. Alabama will be a long time waiting for allowing gay marriages, haha.

I don't feel like a state should be forced to recognize another state's marriage laws.

1 Reply

@ndjs,

Yea Alabama won't be seeing it anytime soon haha...

0 Replies

@kmchugh,

kmchugh wrote:

Wait a minute, you can violate the LAW??? You can smoke pot??? But gays can't marry, because it's against the laws of GOD AND MAN??? My, I am so sorry I entered this debate with you. I had NO IDEA you were so powerful. I guess the only laws that apply are those imaginary ones you like, and the real ones you don't like can be ignored, huh?

However, state law cannot supercede federal law, ever. I have far more knowledge of the law and of the constitution than you imagine. In any even, don't tell me. Show me. Your words:

Gay marriage is not in the constitution. But neither is heterosexual marriage. Your own argument trips you up. Show me where heterosexual marriage is in the Constitution.

First, you want to tell me that gay marriage isn't legal because it isn't in the constitution. I ask you to show me heterosexual marriage in the constitution. Next you want to tell me that marriage is a state thing. Really, you have to make up your mind, and settle on which way you want it to be. If its a state thing, then the gay people getting married in Mass are legally married, and those marriages must be recognized by other states, yes?

Before we go any further, decide who you want to be in charge of this institution called marriage, then stick to it. Then, if it is a federal issue, show me where the constitution allows heterosexual marriage. If it is a state issue, then it is up to the states to decide. If a state (i.e. Mass) allows gay marriage, then by agreement between all states, those marriages must be recognized by other states. Either way, you lose.

Kevin McHugh

"Wait a minute, you can violate the LAW??? You can smoke pot???"

When and if, there is a penalty is i get caught. So i take a chance on paying a price.

"But gays can't marry, because it's against the laws of GOD AND MAN??? "

Your getting off track, i thought we are talking about our Marriage. Pertaining to our law it's just against Man as you say.

"My, I am so sorry I entered this debate with you. I had NO IDEA you were so powerful."

Thanks, didn't think you'd notice, LOL.

"I guess the only laws that apply are those imaginary ones you like, and the real ones you don't like can be ignored, huh?"

I'm not the one wanting to change our law?

"However, state law cannot supercede federal law, ever. I have far more knowledge of the law and of the constitution than you imagine. In any even, don't tell me. Show me. Your words:"

Your wrong again. What does the term UNITED STATES mean to you? To me it means each state is like it's own little country, with it's own military and Government. Funny you think they work for the government when the government works for us?

"Gay marriage is not in the constitution. But neither is heterosexual marriage. Your own argument trips you up. Show me where heterosexual marriage is in the Constitution."

Nope it tripped you up, for you are the one that does not know how it works!

"First, you want to tell me that gay marriage isn't legal because it isn't in the constitution. I ask you to show me heterosexual marriage in the constitution. Next you want to tell me that marriage is a state thing. Really, you have to make up your mind, and settle on which way you want it to be. If its a state thing, then the gay people getting married in Mass are legally married, and those marriages must be recognized by other states, yes?"

The reason the constitution came up is because your guys were saying they were be denied a right to marry? They are not! I did not make these fact up it it law. Find out for your self you don't have to believe me, but you should know before you start arguing. If it is legal in Mass the other states do not have to recognize them as such. So i guess the answer is NO.

"Before we go any further, decide who you want to be in charge of this institution called marriage, then stick to it. Then, if it is a federal issue, show me where the constitution allows heterosexual marriage. If it is a state issue, then it is up to the states to decide. If a state (i.e. Mass) allows gay marriage, then by agreement between all states, those marriages must be recognized by other states. Either way, you lose."

I don't have to decide anything, i just know the law. I don't have to show anything concerning hetero marriage, i'm married legally. What if all the states don't agree, what's your plan after that? By your train of thought you are saying if one state makes it legal they are going to force the other to recognize it? I think you already lost for they have already proven there will be no agreement.

1 Reply

@ndjs,

ndjs wrote:

So should we amend the Federal constitution to allow for gays when it's not even in there about heterosexuals?

Marriage is in the state constitution, afaik, and I don't care who says gays can marry, if I have a vote in my state, mine will be no.

I don't know why they should be so special that they get a constitutional amendment when what they want to change isn't even in the constitution.

That's what i mean, they say they want to be equal but to get it they have to be treated special.

0 Replies

Should gay marriage be allowed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know