Draginol Draginol

Listening to the arguments on gay marriage

▼

Listening to the arguments on gay marriage

Respecting the rights of the majority

from JoeUser Forums

The United States is premised on the separation of church and state. But over time, what that separation means has changed.  The founding fathers wanted to ensure that people were free to practice whatever religion they wanted. Moreover, they wanted to ensure that the government did not establish any official religion. You will regularly hear the ACLU refer to the "establishment clause" of the US constitution as the basis for their various lawsuits against states.

It's a sticky situation because for such a long while, the percentage of Americans who were Christians were so high that religious concepts made their way into government policy. This wasn't intentional in most cases. If you're a true believer many things that are religious in nature just seem natural, common sense, normal. One such thing is marriage.

In hindsight, it was probably a bad idea for the government to recognize marriage as anything beyond a civil union. But it's easy to understand why this happened. Marriage is such a normal part of human life that how could the government not recognize it?  As an agnostic, it's never bothered me either way. I am comfortable with my beliefs and do not feel threatened by people's religions. In fact, I embrace their beliefs because it helps create a deep tapestry of culture that enriches us all.

I also believe in two social principles: 1) That the traditions of the super-majority should be respected and protected. 2) The rights of the minority should be protected.

I think government should get out of the marriage business entirely. I support the right of any two people to "get married" regardless of sex.  However, the super majority don't think the government should recognize these unions. And by our constitution, that's pretty much that. Marriage isn't a "right". The 10th amendment makes pretty clear that anything not explicitly outlined in the constitution is left to "the people" (in the form of their democratically elected representatives).

That said, gays should have access to civil unions that have the same legal punch as marriage. It may seem like semantics but to millions of Americans, it's not. There is a principle involved here. The same people who argued that the Super Bowl nonsense with Janet Jackson was "no big deal" are likely to not see why people object to gay marriage. The majority of Americans believe in these traditions and they have been with us for literally thousands of years. All around us, however, small minorities seem bent on using the government to infringe on those traditions.  Marriage is a cultural phenomenon, not a religious one. And as long as the majority of Americans practicing it believe it should be between a man and a women exclusively that is what it should be. It's their tradition. Contrary to what some may believe, majorities have rights too.

The government should work to ensure that civil unions have the same legal meaning as marriages. Two consenting adults, regardless of sex, should have the right to form a legal union.  For that matter, I believe that any number of consenting adults should be able to form civil unions (whether you're into "Polyamory" or whatever). But marriage should not be open for redefinition by a small minority of people. And they should not be trying to use the tools of government to hijack it for their own uses.

 

45,677 views 186 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
A good number also outlaw sodomy, but the SC has started to change that.

Question: What if the SC decides that a civil union, with all its legal rights, can include a union between a man and a woman?
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

I assume you mean a same-sex union since they already have civil unions between men and women.

If the SC did that I would consider that to be a gross misreading of the constitution. The founders set up the constitution in such a way to be as clear and concise as possible so that legislatures would be left with very clear rules on what is and isn't legal.

Sodomy laws and other private sexual acts between citizens was correct to be outlawed because what two citizens do on their private property is none of anyone's business. It only becomes a state matter if what they do has an affect on the general public welfare.

This isn't a left-wing right wing issue necessarily. Right wingers were wrong to implement various sexual laws. The state (government) has no right to tell people what they can't do privately when the results of that don't affect others. If having sex gave off spores or something into the neighborhood that would be a different thing.

But marriage isn't a right. It's a priviledge. That is the fundamental problem with this debate. There are lots of people who can't get driver's licenses. But the state can forbid that because driver's licenses are a priviledge, not a right. There are a lot of other things that go along the same principle. Cars and such, like marriage, are not mentioned in the constitution. Therefore, how they are handled is left up to legislatures.

This may sound condescending but I mean this honestly: Read the constitution. It is a remarkable document because it forsaw a lot of this kind of thing. It's solution was explicit: If something isn't expressly stated in this consitution is it reserved to the state legislatures. I mean they literally spell it out.

That's why these kinds of things are so poisonous. I try to be consistent on this issue. I am adamently pro-choice. I feel very strongly on this issue. But it is not an issue the supreme court should be deciding. It should be something state legislatures decide because that is what the constitution expressly says.

If the constitution was a computer program it would be: IF <ISSUE> IS NOT LISTED IN CONSTITUTION THEN STATES DECIDE.

When the SC overturned sodomy laws it was able to point to the the constitution and show how that law violated people's rights. I would be interested to see which article of the constitution that makes marriage a civil right.

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

 

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad you wrote, Those who favor opening up marriage to gays are wrong. It has nothing to do with religion. 5th paragraph. GCJ
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

I realize that. And I am against opening up marriage to gays. And I am agnostic. Hence the rest of my article which explains why I am against it.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
I always thought the "protection of marriage" was a buncha right-wing crap, but reading this thread I can really see a possible progression and maybe there is some truth in it.

1) Marriage defined as exclusively man-woman in numerous States thru defense of marriage acts
2) Civil Union for gays made legal in many States to placate homosexual agenda / leftists
3) Corporations and local jurisdictions give equal benefits to marriage and civil unions - it's easier, and "politically correct"
4) Marriage progressively seen more as a religious ceremony, explicit language in goverment and corporations increasingly vague re: marriage / civil union - opting towards the more generic "civil union"
5) Increasingly people opt for a civil union (in government terms), popular social language refers to both as "marriage".
6) Religious groups push to claim "ownership" of marriage to counter society's blurring of line
7) Gradual transition away from marriage as government and societal concept, more secular "civil union" preferred.
7) Governments remove marriage language in reference to benefits citing separation of church and state.

No?

Is there any precedent of this occurring in countries which are more permissive of gay marriage - say, those weirdos in Europe ?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad you should open up a nice little cake shop in Boston, I hear there are going to be lots of weddings there come the merry merry month of may. GCJ
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
GCJ: I could care less. Which part of the concept of democracy are you unclear on? It's amazing how people like you will rail against Bush for taking away some freedom even as you show glee when some appointed judge throws out a law passed by the legislature. Sometimes the courts are doing the right thing but I've yet to hear the legal argument for why gays should be allowed to get married. Personally, like I said, several times, I think it was probably a mistake for the government to involve itself at all in marriage. It should always have been civil unions. But I also believe that civil unions should be between any number of consenting adults. Marriage, by contrast, should be a religious thing. But it's too late for that now. It's too intertwined and there's no pressing need to meddle with it when most of the population is fine with how the system works presently.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
My basic question/problem is not marriage.

OK: Senario: Mass. allows civil unions for Bob and Tom that have the same marriage rights as a Sue and Joe.
The state of Alabama passes a law saying that it will not recognize the civil union of Bob and Tom.
If Bob and Tom visit or move into Alabama. Will they still have the rights granted to them by Mass.
If not what is the solution.

Jalbert

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are not talking about gay pride parades (and why shouldn't they have the right to peaceful assembly just like anyone else?). What we're talking about is gay marriage. What I'd like to ask is, how is it that gay and lesbians asking for the same rights to marriage as the heterosexuals inconveniencing you? What did they ask you to stop doing? Perhaps their asking you to stop discriminating against them has offended you? You have a right to not want gay marriage for yourself, but what right have you to prevent others from marrying someone of the same sex? Are they hurting you? I think not. So, you think it is permissible for you to stop them from doing what they want because that is what you want for them?? Who are you to tell them how to live their lives?
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
If gays do earn the right to get married, then we're going to see a ripple effect. Who's going to want to obtain legal rights to wanna get married next? The people who want to be able to marry family members. And the people that want to marry their dogs, cows, chickens. It's going to cause mass debate and everyone is going to want to get married because "gays can get married, so why can't we??".

Kudos Brad. Article well-written.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think gays will get what they're looking for. The US actually used military force in Utah on several occasions to enforce marriage laws on the Polygamists. I have yet to see an argument that allows us to alter the definition of marriage for gays that doesn't allow for polygamists. Because once you decide the term marriage is open to redefinition, then you've opened a whole new can of worms.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Poet, I have talked about some of my concerns for gay "marriage" in other articles so I won't repeat those. Here is one new one though. I don't think you are looking at the bigger picture concerning our society. Currently I can give the birds and bees talk to my child and say the old "When a man and a woman love each other, they get married and have their own children, etc, etc". Now, marriage is clear. It is between a man and a woman. You might not see the relevancy if you are not religious (although I do and I am not religious).

Currently, marriage is still defined the way it has been for our culture of Christian majority. Just Christians can't prove that homosexuality or premarital sex is a sin, noone can prove that it isn't. I think that if the definition of marriage was changed to include gays, it would undermine the moral beliefs of the majority of our citizens. I don't see that as a good thing.

I agree that everyone in our society should be taught to be tolerant of other life styles but I don't think that laws should mandate that certain things be considered right. Again, I agree with those who say that the next step could lead to any kind of coupling (or any other size group). Gays can have their own union called anything they want other than marriage and have the same benefits. They are fooling themselves if they think people will think of their union as the same as a heterosexual union just because some law says it has to be called by the same name. Already people find themselves saying "marriage" and "gay marriage". They are making a distinction between the two whether they realize it or not.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we allow same sex marriages for equalities sake, shouldn't we allow mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, brothers and sisters, aunts and neices, uncles and nephews, etc.. to marry as well? Shouldn't they have 'equal' rights? Why is incest wrong but sodomy ok? Allowing same sex marriage is opening pandora's box. Same sex marriages and civil unions are wrong just like incest is wrong. If same sex advocates want to compare same sex marriage with another issue - like race issues - then they should compare / advocate incest and polygamy.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Those who favor opening up marriage to gays are wrong. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with showing respect to the traditions and norms of the majority.

If this is the case, interracial marriages would still be banned in most states. For that matter, slavery would have been reinstated in the South after the Cvivil War. Women wouldn't be allowed to vote. In fact only white, landowners would be allowed to vote. And we would still be burning witches at the stake.

These are the traditions and norms of majority past. It wasn't until, in most cases, the supreme court decided that rights should be protected did these things become moved from being wrong to being a tradition and norm.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
A seemingly sober argument against gay marriage... but in end, shallow and not well argued.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just simply cannot understand why gay people do not get the same rights as anyone else. Why should we show respect to "tradition"? Some laws are meant to be changed, expecially laws that discrimate against a whole group of people. I dont see any difference between not allowing gays to be married and other discriminating instances that have happened in this world. In Germany in the early 1930s Jews were robbed of many of their rights. The majority ruled in favor of this. Does it mean it is right??? Many times the majority is utterly wrong. For instance in the Civil War the south was in favorism of slaves.....did that make it right? Certainly not. The southerners were used to the "tradition" of having slaves....so was the North disrespecting that tradition?

So how are gay people hurting anyone? Why must people feel threatened by them? It is so uncomprehensible to me. If you don't let gay people get married...why not stop African-americans from marrying whites? Or Jews from marrying Christians?

We are also not talking about much of a "majority" here. Many people are in favor of gay marraige (about 40%).

In my opinion, the law against gay marriage is unconstitutional. It it robbing a group of people from a basic right that every minority and majority of people can have.....
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ryan Clarkson's response is the one of most ridiculous and embarassing statements I have ever read. Obviously he doesn't understand what the word "homosexual" means. People are born gay...exactly like people are born straight or how African American people are born with darker skin, and caucasian people with white. People are not born with a attraction towards incest or chickens.....

If you want to argue against gay marriage do some thinking before you say idiotic and embarassing statements
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
People are not born with a attraction towards incest or chickens.....


And what's your argument for this? I thought sexuality was innate, but it only is for homosexuals?
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you can come up with an example of chicken rape...I'd love to hear it. There has been history of incest, but far less than homosexualtiy. Incest usually is learned or in some societies it is not considered taboo. You are not born with an inherent attraction to family members......
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't keep up with the news much, so can someone tell me if that gay gene theory has been proven? If not, then how do we know that homosexuality is inherent? Personally, I think it's more societal than anything else, much like the other attractions and fetishes people have.

Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
societal?? so you are saying, if given the choice, someone would be gay? Someone would choose a life of being hated and discriminated against? I don't think so. And yes, homosexuality has been proven to be genetic in the majority of cases. Gay people act different from early childhood before they have even heard of sex. There has been studies of the rates of homosexuality in identical and non-identical twin brothers of gay men, as well as adoptive brothers of gay men. Fifty-two percent of the identical twin brothers were gay, as against 22 percent of non-identical twins and 11 percent of the adoptive, genetically unrelated brothers. In contrast, research on social factors has been fruitless. Despite many attempts, there has been no clear demonstration that parental behavior, even a parent's homosexuality, affects children's sexual orientation. Cultures tolerant of homosexuals do not appear to raise more of them than do less permissive societies.


Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why can't people just accept us? We are not all high-heel wearing flamboyant freaks or butchy fat dykes whose main objective is to disrupt the lives of the straight. In fact, we do everything straight people do, except we aren't attracted to members of the opposite sex. But love is love.

And no, gayness is not societal. I would like not to be gay....but it's pretty hard not to be. Don't you think it would be hard for a straight person to fall in love with someone of the same sex? And what if marriage was not allowed to straight people? How would you feel if such a fundamental thing was taken away from you? Yes, marriage is important to us. We dream about getting married and having a lifelong relationship like straight people do. Try seeing it from our point of view before you judge so harshly.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Seeing it from the other guy's point of view is seldom the strong point of those who would beat you into heterosexuality with the family Bible. Logic and reason do not apply.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think many have tried seeing it from both ways (if you read all of the comments) and still concluded that "marriage" is not what is needed to give gay relationships equal rights. Gay unions are not the same as heterosexual unions. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with either type or that either type should get different rights. They are not the same though and "marriage" is already the definition for a heterosexual union so the homosexual union needs a different name.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
societal?? so you are saying, if given the choice, someone would be gay? Someone would choose a life of being hated and discriminated against? I don't think so.


It sounds crazy, but people do choose lifestyles like that.

Fifty-two percent of the identical twin brothers were gay, as against 22 percent of non-identical twins and 11 percent of the adoptive, genetically unrelated brothers.


If homosexuality is genetic, then if one of the twin brothers is gay, the other should be as well, since they have the same exact genes. It's stuff like this that makes me doubt that homosexuality is all genetics.