can someone explain to me why Gay marriage is an issue?

Sexuality is one of the fundamental aspects of a being a human and IMO should be embraced rather than shamed and shunned away. Shame and guilt as tools are powerful indeed, utilised very efficiently by religious types to manipulate and control the masses. So much so that this largely irrational shame is still ingrained very deeply in our society and our collective psyches...

I do believe in sexual responsibility, but only in practical terms.. i.e. sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy, but those things need to be discussed openly and frankly to our children, since they're going to be having sex anyway... including the topic of homosexuality. It is only through knowledge of consequence that the process of harm reduction can begin to take effect. Forget teaching celibacy ect. We need to be realistic. Advertising on the other hand teaches nothing and I'm definitely all for less "sexualised" advertising aimed at kids.

Going back to the subject of homosexuality, I believe that there is a big distinction between relationships and mere sexuality. The relationships and life-long bonds we as humans generally and innately seek are visible, respectable bonds that consist of FAR more than just sexual activity. These are the bonds that create homes for children, the bonds that the government should by all means be supporting, encouraging and rewarding.. nurturing monogamy and creating stable households. Promoting the kinds of partnerships that are the glue of society, whether they be gay or straight.

But then of course we have the Constitution, and the fact that the US is not a pure democracy but a republic... it is the job of the courts and of the lawmakers to protect minorities, especially ones perceived to be vulnerable or historically persecuted (as with gay people and sodomy once being a capital crime...). I think all laws that are aimed in some way at disadvantaging such a class of people deserve the highest level of scrutiny, which is why you're seeing California's Proposition 8 and DOMA being challenged on multiple fronts in federal courts. There is a good chance it won't, in fact, withstand such heightened scrutiny.

Since you believe in society's right to choose though, I must ask.. Do you think same-sex marriage in the US is legitimate and right based on it having majority support? (53% last I checked?). Obviously there's the state-by-state issue but do you believe that states do have a right to legalise it or would you rather see that right removed via a Federal Marriage Amendment?

I understand what you're saying (partially), however you do realise that you'll probably get backlash for that last comparison?

Basically yes, you're right in so far as unlike age, race or gender, sexuality effects or gives a greater disposition to a particular act unlike the former... But unless said act can be shown to be harmful to others (which it really isn't), then unlike your pedophilia.. er, example... It is not something that should be viewed negatively. And if there are positive effects that can be gained by supporting gay people, by awarding them equal rights, then why not? It's sure as hell going to benefit those kids out there with same-sex parents, and the state should have an interest in that.

 

Because the "moral majority" says that it is a sin and want to force feed all of us their views. Interesting that out forefathers fled England to escape religious persecution just to create a Country that is steeped in it.

 

I'm not against religion, as I am fairly spiritual myself; but there is little doubt that it has often been used to control people and hold back progress in various societies. That is indisputable.

The BEST we can do here, is diligently maintain SEPARATION of (the powers of) church and state; if we don't, we will be exceedingly regretful that we didn't.

 

I agree, but God is deeply embedded in our Government. Not that I mind too much as I think over all America does at least an adequate job of separating Church and State... there is room for improvement though. But I do have a bone to pick with the moral majority that want me to live my life by their standards, even though I not part of the moral majority.

 

Sadly, the faith of many is very 'shallow'; the depth I see is mostly what is recorded into our nation's founding documents. It makes sense that America's Founders were men of faith... but it does not necessarily follow that they thought it 'just' to impose any of their faith upon others. Also, people over time ascribe new meanings to such subjective things as "God". It is 'my' hope that the essence or actual WAY of Jesus Christ be regarded above all else in all things. That isn't something that should be forced, but something to be embraced (or not) as INDIVIDUALS see what it is truly worth. Words alone, do not define it... which is where many in POWER or RELIGION go wrong.

I say, if a notion or value is part of a religion, then people should have the option to adhere to and honor what is told/taught; but if that observance of religion violates someone else's rights... then a practical remedy must be sought and applied.

That "moral majority" can think/believe whatever they wish... as long as GOVERNMENT doesn't mandate that I adhere to their specific beliefs or values. That is where I draw the line of protest/response personally.

 

did you have something coherant, or relevant to say?

 

Nonsense. There are dozens of court case upholding the constitutionality of marriage limited to heterosexual couples, and not a single one of them relies upon religion. Men and women become husbands and wives who can become fathers and mothers to the children they have created. Its biology, not religion. Religion simply reflects these biological facts. "Matrimony" root of the word "mater" MOTHER. Only women become mothers and only men make women mothers.

 

The existing laws need to change, dixon... and that is why there is growing support for (court cases and laws) doing just that.

It isn't good to deny homosexual people the right to marry and receive equal benefits under the law. If we were in the era of garnering freedom for slave or seeking civil rights for minorities, your position would be the equivalent of saying NO to both.

Remember, THIS is the same nation where equality for women had to be FOUGHT for as well (even THAT fight isn't over, considering many other things including abortion rights).

 

Coiurts also used to uphold that interracial marriage was illegal.......Law and justice are two seperare things.

 

FEAR! ... that's it

 

Well, you boys just keep addressing the strawmen, Im sure that will work out real well for you

 

Interracial couples procreate just like same race couples. Children of interracial couples benefit equally from marriage as the children of same race couples do. Purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the well being of children is such an interest. Really no comparison.

 

Nonsense, what you are doing would be like in those days, arguing for ending slavery and extending civil rights to Africans, while the Chinese continue in slavery and get no civil rights. When every argument you have to end these practices for the Africans, applies equally to the Chinese

 

on this we agree

it will be equal when the baby is also consulted prior to killing him/her.

 

I am not sure about total support, I see that Rick Santorum (proclaimed as homophobic by the media) almost won Iowa republican caucus.

 

Once your thoughts become coherent you will understand everything.
I can repeat the formula.
If certain activity is licensed and regulated it does not mean that similar type of activity should be regulated and licensed if outcomes of those activities are fundamentally different.

 

lol, I'm certainly not confused. I've been handing you your behind for quite a while now.


Notice that when your arguments are utterly destroyed, you simply brush them off, and don't even address them? Such as the post you just quoted, and are now trying to ignore?

I just pointed out that same sex couples are IDENTICAL to sterile opposite sex couples who are physically incapable of procreating. This utterly destroyed your argument, and your only response is "learn math and other sciences". lol

 

25% of Republican primary voters probably accounts for less than 10% of the population of Iowa...

 

The majority of which is evangelical, I am all for states rights but over half the US disagrees with this proposition.

Santorum wants a federal Constitutional amendment prohibiting all same sex marriage as well as anything resembling them, he is also against gays adopting children and would rather then rot in state care. Not to mention he want abortion for all reasons (including rape, incest, severe deformities) to be made illegal as well a removing the option of contraceptives.

 

Dream on.
You actually have got nothing other them total nonsense about special = equal.
Learn the math 2+2=4 (not 5).

 

actually, they are not the same. if 2 lesbians decide to become straight then they could have babies with their mate. If 2 gay men decided to go straight then they could make babies with their mates.

procreation isn't an argument about creating all kinds of silos based upon the type of sex you have.