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.

 

45,672 views 186 replies
Reply #151 from JoeUser Forums Top
Respecting the rights on the majority is something that has gone missing here in American over the past years as a slew of fringe minority groups try and exploit the law and goodwill of the people and the courts for their own agenda. We need to respect the desire of the masses in some cases and to the extent that this protects and enforces the heritage of our country (and all the world and its religions) we have an obligation to do so. Otherwise other fringe minorites will be able to foist their agendas and, e.g., pass a recently approved legislation is the California Assembly to establigh trans-gender bathrooms in public schools and facilities.
Reply #152 from JoeUser Forums Top
Respecting the rights on the majority is something that has gone missing here in American over the past years as a slew of fringe minority groups try and exploit the law and goodwill of the people and the courts for their own agenda. We need to respect the desire of the masses in some cases and to the extent that this protects and enforces the heritage of our country (and all the world and its religions) we have an obligation to do so. Otherwise other fringe minorites will be able to foist their agendas and, e.g., pass a recently approved legislation is the California Assembly to establigh trans-gender bathrooms in public schools and facilities.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #153 from JoeUser Forums Top
Marriage is not a cultural phenomenon, it is a religious one. It is only in the last few hundred years that people choose to marry for "love". Prior to that marriage was about gaining or protecting property and land rights. The issue of gay marriage falls under the Fourteenth Amendment. If you recognize the marriage of two heterosexuals LEGALLY (which is what marriage is), then you must also LEGALLY recognize the union of two homosexuals. Otherwise, you have not provided those homosexuals equal protection under the law, which violates the Constitution. The bottom line is -- gay marriage is a lot like flag burning. You may not agree with it morally, but you have to agree with someone else's right to do it.

To argue that homosexual marriage diminishes the value heterosexuals place on marriage is ridiculous. If it is such a sacred institution, why do so many marriages end in divorce? To argue that homosexual marriages will exploit a health or life insurance plans is ridiculous. What is to keep heterosexuals who do not love each other from entering into this "sacred union" and exploiting the system?
Reply #154 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gays and Straights are equal, but hey, they are different. Two men or Two women getting "married" IS different than a man and a woman...People are so afraid to be "politically correct" these days that they actually have reverse discrimination. In the attempt to make everyone equal, people are doing a pretty bad job of pretending people aren't DIFFERENT. I agree with a civil bond, yes. marriage no. In hospitals, someone who is homosexual can't visit their partner in the hospital, even when they're dying b/c they aren't family. this is awful, and for this reason, a "civil bond" should be allowed.
Reply #155 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gays and Straights are equal, but hey, they are different. Two men or Two women getting "married" IS different than a man and a woman...People are so afraid to be "politically correct" these days that they actually have reverse discrimination. In the attempt to make everyone equal, people are doing a pretty bad job of pretending people aren't DIFFERENT. I agree with a civil bond, yes. marriage no. In hospitals, someone who is homosexual can't visit their partner in the hospital, even when they're dying b/c they aren't family. this is awful, and for this reason, a "civil bond" should be allowed.
Reply #156 from JoeUser Forums Top
In the attempt to make everyone equal, people are doing a pretty bad job of pretending people aren't DIFFERENT.


I believe the attempt to treat everyone equally, at least under the law, is an objective, or at least an ideal, of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Reply #157 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree that the concept of "marriage" has nothing to do the the idea of separation between church and state. I also stand behind the notion that marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman; always has been and HOPEFULLY always will be. Although I am forward thinking with most things, this is a tradition that can not and should never be overlooked. There's nothing more to say. Have your "civil union", but marriage is for man and woman and for no one else.
Reply #158 from JoeUser Forums Top
agree that the concept of "marriage" has nothing to do the the idea of separation between church and state. I also stand behind the notion that marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman


You contradict yourself; if it is "sacred," then, by definition, it has something to do with religion.


Although I am forward thinking with most things, this is a tradition that can not and should never be overlooked.


It's not being overlooked. How does conducting a homosexual marriage in any way degrade the quality or nature of present or future heterosexual marriages? Can anyone answer me that?


There's nothing more to say.


Sure there is, including "YOU ARE WRONG AND BACKWARD." It's not case-closed because you say so.
Reply #159 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not being overlooked. How does conducting a homosexual marriage in any way degrade the quality or nature of present or future heterosexual marriages? Can anyone answer me that?


Religion = ban on gay marriages
Simply put, it probably won't affect heterosexual marriages but religious views forbid it and most of us come from a somewhat religious background. I think all this focus and controversy is beyond ridiculous. Why should we focus on something so trivial when we have problems like war and poverty, death and disease, global warming, and nuclear proliferation? The worst part is it's obviously media-driven and anything that is media-driven always ends up fogging up the real important issues like the deficit, unemployment, and outsourcing. In my mind gay marriages take a back seat to real problems but it's a little harder to convey that message to the general public that act like mobs out to lynch homosexuals. To me all this controversy is stupid and trivial and can be put to the side for the moment considering the problems we are facing, this is all I will say for now on the matter feel free to disagree.
Reply #160 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am a sophomore doing a debate on this topic and I found that this article has helped me. Although, I am for gay marriage, the argument about marriage itself being so like civil unions was something I could agree on.
Reply #161 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Hey, by law my beliefs are protected, so you..over there..STOP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING..it isn't MY Belief, so feck off and stop or we're going to court!"..

that has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I mean, who is the one telling people to stop because it is not what we beleive in? I don't see the gay people telling the straight ones to stop marrying... n, it is jsut the other way around. And it is not like majority rule always does the right thing. If we always went by majority rule, we may still have black slaves or all be catholic. The idea is to give people the right to do whatever they want, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. If I marry a man, how am I infringing your right to marry who you choose? My god, lay off, let people be.
Reply #162 from JoeUser Forums Top
If I marry a man, how am I infringing your right to marry who you choose? My god, lay off, let people be.


Same way that incest, bestiality, polygamy, etc. supposedly infringe on people's rights. Also, nobody's telling homosexuals to stop being homosexuals or to be slaves or even to stop marrying each other (albeit marriages that aren't recognized as real marriages, but can be recognized as civil unions with the same exact benefits as marriage), so to compare the whole gay marriage argument to slavery and religious freedom is silly.
Reply #163 from JoeUser Forums Top
You say you must respect the rights of the majority, what about protecting the rights of the minority?
Reply #164 from JoeUser Forums Top
I read your article and noticed the line, "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." That means that when a majority of people thought that blacks should go to a seperate school, then we should have kept it that way. and when a majority of americans thought that women didn't need to vote, that it should have also been kept that way. Why don't you tell us your real issue with this, instead of resorting to what equates to mob mentality? Oh, and I may be mistaken but the the last time I checked, America was only 228 years old. So by saying, "The majority of Americans believe in these traditions and they have been with us for literally thousands of years.", really makes me wonder what kind of schooling you had, unless you were refering to the Native Americans who have been here for thousands of years. But youd still be wrong because they looked upon the homosexuals in their ranks as being blessed by not one, but two spirits, and held them in very high regard.
Reply #165 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quick history lesson:

Slavery was abolished via voters. Not judges.

Women received the right to vote via voters. Not judges.

You want gay marriage to be legal - then make your case and convince the majority of Americans of the validity of your position.

Reply #166 from JoeUser Forums Top
your right bakerstreet, the founding father also never intended for blacks to be coverd in the constitution. here's your hood.
Reply #167 from JoeUser Forums Top
Who's being kept from getting married? Homosexuals can marry members of the other sex just as much as heterosexuals can, and heterosexuals can't marry members of the same sex anymore than homosexuals can. Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. Sure, they want the right to marry members of the opposite sex, but they're not the only group not being allowed to marry anybody they desire. Even heterosexuals are forbidden to marry certain types of people (and objects and animals).

But youd still be wrong because they looked upon the homosexuals in their ranks as being blessed by not one, but two spirits, and held them in very high regard.


And you're all right with that? That's as prejudice as holding them in low regard, which the U.S. does not do.
Reply #168 from JoeUser Forums Top
To WAA, RE: "My point in posting in the first place was for those in the discussion to realize that the rights of homosexuals are not even close to the attrocities of Jews, women and blacks."
I see that you are a fan of ommision or maybe just ingorance, but hitler made just as much of a point to burn gays as he did jews. Where do you think the symbol of a pink triangle came from?
Also, I spent many years listening to and agreeing with those people that said being gay was wrong. I sounded a lot like you. It took a suicide attempt to convince me that I was not making a choice about who to be attracted to, I was just accepting myself for who I was.
and Brad, people didn't just wake up one morning and decide to vote for womens right to vote, it took a lot of protests and civil disobedience to change those peoples minds. That is what's happening now. and polls don't prove anything except that any question asked the right way will give someone the response they need to make their point.
Reply #169 from JoeUser Forums Top
Super Baby,
Predjudice is a european concept. The native Americans did not belive in wasting people
Reply #170 from JoeUser Forums Top
To WAA, RE: "My point in posting in the first place was for those in the discussion to realize that the rights of homosexuals are not even close to the attrocities of Jews, women and blacks."
I see that you are a fan of ommision or maybe just ingorance, but hitler made just as much of a point to burn gays as he did jews.


I'll agree with that. Doesn't do anything for the gay marriage argument though.

Super Baby,
Predjudice is a european concept. The native Americans did not belive in wasting people


Wasting people? What are you talking about? I guess since they didn't think it was prejudice to think more highly of homosexuals (and because it's homosexuals, now if they thought lowly of them, that'd be just wrong ), it must not be, even if it is prejudice to think more highly of a group just because they belong to a particular group.
Reply #171 from JoeUser Forums Top
Incest and same-sex marriages have nothing to do with each other. Incest can be defined as wrong because it's of the same bloodline and therefore unhealthy to your children should you have any, and Lord knows this country can't keep track of every family in which there is incest and all the children who come from parents of the same bloodline.
Reply #172 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have one question to ask you. You said that the majority of this country is against marriage of a gay couple, but do you have proof? Have you asked the entire country what they think about this issue? Its impossible to get the vote from everyone in the US since not every one takes polls like that. So therefore there is no actual proof that the majority is against gay marriage. I konw that the majority where I live is definatly for gay marriage.
Reply #173 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your article is interesting, but this issue is about religion. Perhaps if you were a gay person desiring not only an equal institution with your loved one but the same institution you would understand. You concept of respecting the majority and social norms of tradition, is again interesting, but un-rounded. How could you possibly think that just a respect of tradition and a back--off approach to social change ic right. We live in a melting pot of culture, religion, ethnic diversity in a nation that has a representative in it's population of every part of the world. One of the fundamental principals that America should and does follow is change. America's Laws and policies should allow for the full freedom and rights of all Americans even if there were only 5 gay people in the whole nation, they should be bestowed those rights, as many or as few they may be. You must remember that Slavery was also a coveted tradition, both in Africa, and the new world. I for one am glad that social change came about. Think about what your saying, and don't support a segregation notion of settling for just civil unions, you might as well be against it entirely.
Reply #174 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your article is interesting, but this issue is about religion. Perhaps if you were a gay person desiring not only an equal institution with your loved one but the same institution you would understand. You concept of respecting the majority and social norms of tradition, is again interesting, but un-rounded. How could you possibly think that just a respect of tradition and a back--off approach to social change ic right. We live in a melting pot of culture, religion, ethnic diversity in a nation that has a representative in it's population of every part of the world. One of the fundamental principals that America should and does follow is change. America's Laws and policies should allow for the full freedom and rights of all Americans even if there were only 5 gay people in the whole nation, they should be bestowed those rights, as many or as few they may be. You must remember that Slavery was also a coveted tradition, both in Africa, and the new world. I for one am glad that social change came about. Think about what your saying, and don't support a segregation notion of settling for just civil unions, you might as well be against it entirely.
Reply #175 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are many reasons that people sustain to be against a homosexual marriage. But most of these don’t even have basis. Maybe, being homosexual is not natural in a biological way, but that doesn’t mean it is not normal. Nobody has the right to determine what is normal and what is abnormal. Same-sex marriage should be legalized because gays are humans just as heterosexuals so they must have the same rights.

The main argument of the people who are opposite to this kind of union generally is that gays are not able to maintain a serious relationship. They believe that the fact of being homosexual makes them promiscuous. In a way this is kind of true, just as it is with heterosexual relationships. And off course, we can not generalize, just because it happens it doesn’t mean all gay people is promiscuous and doesn’t like serious relationships.

Many people argue that marriage is for procreation . So homosexuals, who obviously can’t, mustn’t marry. However, people who are infertile are able to marry, even though it is not possible for them to procreate. Besides, marriage is a union of love, so if two heterosexual, poor people love each other but they don’t want to have children because they wouldn’t be able to feed them, then they mustn’t get married?

Most of the people who are against homosexual marriage believe that marriage’s main function is to raise children . But then, why is it allowed for criminals to marry and have children? It is scientifically proved that the results of children rose in homosexuals’ marriages are similar to heterosexuals’ marriages. But as always, there are exceptions, but those happen in both kinds of families.

Heterosexuals also believe that if a kid is raised in a gay family, then he would turn out also gay. But isn’t it true that there are homosexuals that born is straight families? So it doesn’t matter the family, if the child must be gay, then he will. Besides, there is nothing wrong of being homosexual. As I have wrote before, the fact that it is not natural to procreate doesn’t mean it is nor normal.

The truth is that gays “coming out of the closet” is a very recent event, so the majority of the people is not prepared to accept the fact that homosexuality is normal. Even though same-sex attraction has always existed, our era is the first where they accept their sexuality in society. Straight people should open their mind to the fact that life changes with time, just because the homosexuality of a person was considered to be a secret, it doesn’t mean it cannot change.