100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Two more states allow same sex marriage. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The thread was about two more (now three) states legalizing same sex marriage. The country is starting to move forward with this. People can feel however they want about marriage, but pushing their religious beliefs on others isn't going to stop states from legalizing same sex marriage. It is one thing to acknowledge the legalization of same-sex marriage. It is another thing to celebrate the legalization of same sex marriage. It seems to me that the OP of this thread does the latter. Indeed, the expression "moving forward" is quite subjective based on one's personal beliefs, whether or not those beliefs are religious in nature. If you are going to say "moving forward", then explain what "forward" is supposed to be towards. Moral decay from what used to be the 'norm.' Wait a minute. That isn't necessarily what singmesweet meant when she said "moving forward". Perhaps she believes that the legalization of same-sex marriage is moving forward toward the goal of upholding the equal-protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Indeed, that is the legal argument being made against laws that outlaw same-sex marriage. Of course I didn't mean what he said. I'm definitely for equality. I get that not everyone is there yet, though. That is why I think they'll be able to marry anywhere...even in Texas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for moving forward, we're moving away from discriminating against sexual preference. Less bigotry is a good thing. So, now you are the one who is moving away from a legal discussion.  What you call bigotry is what some other people call abiding by God's instructions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for moving forward, we're moving away from discriminating against sexual preference. Less bigotry is a good thing. So, now you are the one who is moving away from a legal discussion. What you call bigotry is what some other people call abiding by God's instructions. Uh, you asked what I thought. I answered you. This thread is still about states that have recently legalized same sex marriage. Using religion to excuse bigotry doesn't actually excuse bigotry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for moving forward, we're moving away from discriminating against sexual preference. Less bigotry is a good thing. So, now you are the one who is moving away from a legal discussion. What you call bigotry is what some other people call abiding by God's instructions. Uh, you asked what I thought. I answered you. This thread is still about states that have recently legalized same sex marriage. Using religion to excuse bigotry doesn't actually excuse bigotry. Now you are begging the question, because you are assuming bigotry that has not been proven. There is a difference between being opposed to what people are and being opposed to what people do. The latter is descriptive of people of faiths who are opposed to sexual activity between two members of the same gender. They are opposed to a certain behavior. In all fairness, I gave you a legal out when I mentioned the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. You could simply have said that state laws against same-sex marriage violate the 14th Amendment, and that you are opposed to the violation of the 14th Amendment. I don't know of anyone in the USA who would argue against upholding the 14th Amendment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the supreme court has actually upheld decidions not to apply the 14th amendment to ALL things,,,,
it would be for supreme court to decide at the end of the day,, and male and female is still equal enough protection in the eyes of many if we makle special exception for sexual preference, than we will have to do the same for a preference for family, and I hope we have not gone that far as a society in our quest to make everything THE SAME,,,,,in pursuing an equal 'right' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ConstitutionResources/LegalLandmarks/JudicialInterpretationFourteenthAmmendment.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I see it, people can make an argument for equal protection under the U.S. Constitution without criticizing the religious beliefs of those who are opposed to same-gender sexual behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I see it, people can make an argument for equal protection under the U.S. Constitution without criticizing the religious beliefs of those who are opposed to same-gender sexual behavior. that is true, but the debate becomes then, do we protect the PEOPLE or the behavior? the people could be protected with a civil union that doesnt have sex as a consideration,,,, but marriage is a way to protect the BEHAVIOR from stigma, and to incorporate it into our childrens heads as acceptable and equal to the bheavior that created them,,,, which isnt a requirement in my opinion,,,of the 14th amendment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for moving forward, we're moving away from discriminating against sexual preference. Less bigotry is a good thing. So, now you are the one who is moving away from a legal discussion. What you call bigotry is what some other people call abiding by God's instructions. Uh, you asked what I thought. I answered you. This thread is still about states that have recently legalized same sex marriage. Using religion to excuse bigotry doesn't actually excuse bigotry. Now you are begging the question, because you are assuming bigotry that has not been proven. There is a difference between being opposed to what people are and being opposed to what people do. The latter is descriptive of people of faiths who are opposed to sexual activity between two members of the same gender. They are opposed to a certain behavior. In all fairness, I gave you a legal out when I mentioned the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. You could simply have said that state laws against same-sex marriage violate the 14th Amendment, and that you are opposed to the violation of the 14th Amendment. I don't know of anyone in the USA who would argue against upholding the 14th Amendment. In all fairness, I was giving my opinion on what you had said about god/religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I see it, people can make an argument for equal protection under the U.S. Constitution without criticizing the religious beliefs of those who are opposed to same-gender sexual behavior. that is true, but the debate becomes then, do we protect the PEOPLE or the behavior? the people could be protected with a civil union that doesnt have sex as a consideration,,,, but marriage is a way to protect the BEHAVIOR from stigma, and to incorporate it into our childrens heads as acceptable and equal to the bheavior that created them,,,, which isnt a requirement in my opinion,,,of the 14th amendment Playing Devil's advocate, here is a counter-argument: People of faith do not have an exclusive right to define what marriage is, at least not according to any legal document accepted in the USA. Thus, there isn't necessarily any stigma to be avoided. Also, it is possible for one to support the liberties described in the U.S. Constitution without one approving of every way that those liberties are practiced. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for moving forward, we're moving away from discriminating against sexual preference. Less bigotry is a good thing. So, now you are the one who is moving away from a legal discussion. What you call bigotry is what some other people call abiding by God's instructions. Uh, you asked what I thought. I answered you. This thread is still about states that have recently legalized same sex marriage. Using religion to excuse bigotry doesn't actually excuse bigotry. Now you are begging the question, because you are assuming bigotry that has not been proven. There is a difference between being opposed to what people are and being opposed to what people do. The latter is descriptive of people of faiths who are opposed to sexual activity between two members of the same gender. They are opposed to a certain behavior. In all fairness, I gave you a legal out when I mentioned the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. You could simply have said that state laws against same-sex marriage violate the 14th Amendment, and that you are opposed to the violation of the 14th Amendment. I don't know of anyone in the USA who would argue against upholding the 14th Amendment. In all fairness, I was giving my opinion on what you had said about god/religion. I understand, but me giving an opinion that happens to include religion doesnt mean that religion is the reason for a law I could also say that the bible says not to murder, but that wouldnt mean such a law must be based upon the bible laws are cultural,, sometimes culture and religion overlap, but thats not the same as religion defining culture,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I see it, people can make an argument for equal protection under the U.S. Constitution without criticizing the religious beliefs of those who are opposed to same-gender sexual behavior. that is true, but the debate becomes then, do we protect the PEOPLE or the behavior? the people could be protected with a civil union that doesnt have sex as a consideration,,,, but marriage is a way to protect the BEHAVIOR from stigma, and to incorporate it into our childrens heads as acceptable and equal to the bheavior that created them,,,, which isnt a requirement in my opinion,,,of the 14th amendment Playing Devil's advocate, here is a counter-argument: People of faith do not have an exclusive right to define what marriage is, at least not according to any legal document accepted in the USA. Thus, there isn't necessarily any stigma to be avoided. Also, it is possible for one to support the liberties described in the U.S. Constitution without one approving of every way that those liberties are practiced. I agree, thats why they dont come to me to write laws, they go to the people and their representatives,,, and it is still not exactly mentioned in the constitution or declaration what marriage is or how it should be defined,,,but somewhere somehow, we managed to do it,,,,as a society,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Homosexuality begins with the man's story, but it has always been a parallel bottom of the hetero relationship, because it does not produce continuity of the species |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the anus is an exit,,,,,THE END...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the anus is an exit,,,,,THE END...  Never would have expected that statement from you...  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Homosexuality begins with the man's story, but it has always been a parallel bottom of the hetero relationship, because it does not produce continuity of the species if there are to many in the species, it's what they call an evolutionary dead end.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Homosexuality begins with the man's story, but it has always been a parallel bottom of the hetero relationship, because it does not produce continuity of the species if there are to many in the species, it's what they call an evolutionary dead end.... At the end.. the invisible forces will restore the cosmic order, chaos and order, the mankind existential states.. are never definitive, at last they do not have a human logic, what happens is a continuous transformation ... hunger, opulence, life and death |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the anus is an exit,,,,,THE END... Never would have expected that statement from you... She has done very well to highlight it, there is a lot of misinformation around here, going forward in this way someone will try to have sex even with the navel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the anus is an exit,,,,,THE END... I love it when a posh bird talks dirty |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
omg how is the united states so far behind?? us brits have had same sex legalised marriages for years now.nothing wrong with them.why the big hoohaa?i don't get it.good grief.gay people are allowed love and marriage just like anyone is.its no sin!!!
|
|
|
|
|
