Homosexuality

[HopliteGlory]

Could someone explain to me why gays cannot be legally married? I mean, what is the constitutional argument against this action?

If the argument is constructed around the sanctity of marriage, would it not have a connection to religion? And therefore, could it be said that the a religious belief is being imposed?

Also, if the core is sanctity, how can this be truly justified if divorce rates are as high as they presumably are?

How can a couple of a specific group be denied the same that everyone else it entitle to?

I am just curious about the justification behind such an outrageous denial of rights.

[Drexxus Maximus]

Here we go again I agree with what you said 100% but we've had a lot of threads on Homosexuality already.

EDIT: Or maybe the subject just comes up so much I think theres been a lot of threads about it hehe.

[Garbarsardar]

Could someone explain to me why gays cannot be legally married? I mean, what is the constitutional argument against this action?

If the argument is constructed around the sanctity of marriage, would it not have a connection to religion? And therefore, could it be said that the a religious belief is being imposed?

Also, if the core is sanctity, how can this be truly justified if divorce rates are as high as they presumably are?

How can a couple of a specific group be denied the same that everyone else it entitle to?

I am just curious about the justification behind such an outrageous denial of rights.

I'm sure a christian can answer to this. As long as homosexual couples have the same legal rights with heterosexual couples, the "marriage" issue is confined to either christian homosexuals or cases where the legal aspects of a relationship are still regulated by religious consent.

PS could you please edit the title to Homosexuality ? :wink:

[Richard]

You might also want to mention you are talking about THE USA. "Gay marriage in the US" might be better. Many countries, such as the UK and NZ, already have 'civil union' laws, which is basically marriage (legally) without the religious stigma that 'married' and 'husband and wife' have.

In places where church and state are less separated, religion and law can sometimes intertwine so I suppose the answer to your question is that many US politicians, and the population in general, believe it is immoral because the bible states marriage is between a man and a woman.

[the_mango55]

there is no constitutional ammendment about gay marriage.

It just makes people upset to have gay people being married, even though it doesn't hurt anything. It's the same reason that polygamy is illegal. They need to just legalize it, it makes no sense. People say it "devalues marriage," but those people must have a pretty bad marriage if they have to look at other married couples to see value in marriage.

Understand that I am a Christian, and I don't think homosexuality is right. However we live in America, which is not a religious country. I don't think adultary or blasphemy is right either, but I don't think those should be illegal. It isn't the government's job to enforce the Bible. My God doesn't need GWB to enforce his laws for him.

[Richard the Lionheart]

However we live in America, which is not a religious country. I don't think adultary or blasphemy is right either, but I don't think those should be illegal. It isn't the government's job to enforce the Bible. My God doesn't need GWB to enforce his laws for him.

Well like I said, it's majority's rule. If the majority of people don't want to allow gay marriage, then the government is not going to allow it.

And the reality is that over 92% of Americans believe in God, therefore it is inevitable that religion will play at least some role in the issues of government.

[mongoose]

Well like I said, it's majority's rule. If the majority of people don't want to allow gay marriage, then the government is not going to allow it.

You sure about that? If 90% wanted interracial marriage banned, would you say that it's ok?

My stance on this? I don't think that the Church should have to acept it, but on the other hand, I think the goverment should. We're not a theocracy, remember? Marriage exists to make things more convient for people who are living together, so I don't seee why Homosexuals should denied it

[Tom Paine]

Well like I said, it's majority's rule. If the majority of people don't want to allow gay marriage, then the government is not going to allow it

Actually it doesn't matter a damn what the people want, it matters only what Senators and the President want!

And the reality is that over 92% of Americans believe in God, therefore it is inevitable that religion will play at least some role in the issues of government.

That doesn't make it justifiable for them... blech. Anyway.

[Richard the Lionheart]

You sure about that? If 90% wanted interracial marriage banned, would you say that it's ok?

But in reality they wouldn't.

Actually it doesn't matter a damn what the people want, it matters only what Senators and the President want!

Actually that belief is highly overated these days. Popular opinion plays a huge role in politics.

That doesn't make it justifiable for them... blech. Anyway.

The point is that it's inevitable. God is in our Constitution, Decleration of Independece, and even our Court system:

"Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?"

And during the presidential inaugurations, the president always says "So help me God" when he's being sworn in.

[mongoose]

But in reality they wouldn't.

It was a hypothetical example. How about another one? If the majority of Americans wanted, say, Islam to be illegal, would you be happy? The point is that the majority does not have the right to trample over the rights of the minority.

[RusskiSoldat]

Because marriage is legally defined as a union between a man and a woman with both being over 17 years of age IIRC.
I don't know.
My morality collapsed by now, but I still think gay marriage is wrong.
Probably how I was raised or somethinh, go figure.
But really, I wouldn't be picketing if it was legalized tommorow.

[Aemilianus]

I think the whole problem with it is very confusing. To that, I put a scenario-

John Smith and Paul Miller are gay and love each other very much. They decide they want to live their lives together, buy a house, adopt kids, etc, etc, etc. However, they can't. Why? Because of a little phrase my friends know very well called "religious ********". I could understand if studies were put forth talking about how children adopted by gays have some lasting problem, or that gay marriage is a drain on society in some way, whatever. The argument, however, is that God did not intend for homosexuality to exist, and it's wrong, and everyone's going to hell, etc, etc.

My response to them is this- A marriage is a union of hearts that has nothing to do with the feelings of anyone else. If you are a happily married couple, there should be no reason for you to find any fault with gay marriage, or even care for that matter. I've been many places in this country, and I've seen people who are in the midst of messy divorces tell me with a completely straight face that gay marriage is undermining the institution. No sir, perhaps your "irreconcilable differences" did that for you. When I am married, I will be devoted to my wife, no matter what. If any of my gay friends have the title "spouse" one day, then great, but my marriage will be the exact same, as it should be.

[I Have a Clever Name]

However we live in America, which is not a religious country.

That, I believe, is wholly open to conjecture. The USA could hardly be referred to as a secular society.

Because marriage is predominantly a religious institution, gay 'marriage' shouldn't be allowed if the theology explicitly forbids it. However, civil unions (or whatever politically correct name they've been graced with) are not connected with the church. If the church prohibits homosexuality out of its orders, why are other religions tolerated, and why isn't every aspect of society moderated in order to accomodate Christian values?

[Richard the Lionheart]

The bottom line is that this whole issue is dependent on religion. And religion, specifically Christianity, which is the dominant religion in the U.S., forbids gay marriage. We must also recognize that marriage is pretty much a religious institution.

Also, the concept of democracy is dependent upon the desires of the majority. If the majority of the U.S. population doesn't want to allow gay marriages, then that's what's going to happen. It's a democracy.

[mrme]

The bottom line is that this whole issue is dependent on religion. And religion, specifically Christianity, which is the dominant religion in the U.S., forbids gay marriage. We must also recognize that marriage is pretty much a religious institution.

Also, the concept of democracy is dependent upon the desires of the majority. If the majority of the U.S. population doesn't want to allow gay marriages, then that's what's going to happen. It's a democracy.

Close, it's actually majority rule, minority right. Not to mention its not the church that is denying homosexuals the right to marry, its the State.

However we live in America, which is not a religious country.

Its not supposed to be a religious country, but it pretty much is.

[Evariste]

The bottom line is that this whole issue is dependent on religion. And religion, specifically Christianity, which is the dominant religion in the U.S., forbids gay marriage. We must also recognize that marriage is pretty much a religious institution.

Also, the concept of democracy is dependent upon the desires of the majority. If the majority of the U.S. population doesn't want to allow gay marriages, then that's what's going to happen. It's a democracy.

Technically, America isn't a democracy, it's a Republic. The founders feared the common rabble and put safeguards in place to protect the U.S. from too much influence of the common riff-raff. They were also worried that dominance by a majority faction would take place. Google "Tyranny of the Majority" and you'll see what I mean.

I think that the government shouldn't play any role in marriage. Marriage is a deeply personal and spiritual commitment that should be left up to private organizations, such as churches, to deal with.

The government should only hand out "Civil Union" licenses to two people that live together so that they can reap the financial benefits.

[Tom Paine]

Technically, America isn't a democracy, it's a Republic. The founders feared the common rabble and put safeguards in place to protect the U.S. from too much influence of the common riff-raff. They were also worried that dominance by a majority faction would take place. Google "Tyranny of the Majority" and you'll see what I mean.

Tyranny of the majority on issues like... gay marriage you mean?

[Bwaho]

Technically, America isn't a democracy, it's a Republic

All western democracies are shaped like republics. We got "representatives" (senates) who speak for the people, but of course in reality they mostly speak for themselves. All you can do as a citizen is hope he does something you want.

[Erik]

All western democracies are shaped like republics. We got "representatives" (senates) who speak for the people, but of course in reality they mostly speak for themselves. All you can do as a citizen is hope he does something you want.

No, the difference is:
In a democracy the people are the highest authority and in a republic this honer goes to the president.
Continental Europe does have democracy because parliament is places above the president/monarch (they are in service to the people, they don't rule over them).

I would say America's case is debatable because power is essentially shared between the president (republic) and the senate (democracy).
But I think ultimately the president has more power than the senate, so it's a republic.

[Kscott]

My question is why is Homosexuality the only sexual deviant people care about? Surely its all or nothing kind of thing..