Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[Askthepizzaguy]

I could almost agree with the opposition, but for one problem with their argument:

They don't feel gays can fall in love with one another, that they are trapped by a sexual fetish or desire, and that if they were "cured" they could have "normal" sex and feel love for the first time.

Therefore, only heterosexual love exists, because that's what God designed.

Right... however, plenty of heterosexual people get married for money, for political power, for lust, and for security, not for love. So even if I conceded gay people can't fall in love (something I cannot concede, because it's not true...), they still have a right to get married, because straight people can get married, love or not.

People should have the right to choose their adult partner to spend the rest of their life with, be they different race, same race, different religion, same religion, no religion, be they same sex, opposite sex, or transgender.

To say that marriage is something only men and women should be able to have together, is the same argument used to deny different races, different religions, from marrying. Can atheist/agnostic people get married? Under the state, they can. So, why is it not possible for two people of the same gender to get married?

Also, what about transgendered people? Can they not get married to either sex because they are somehow "freaks"? It's the same kind of thinking.

[Rhyfelwyr]

To say that marriage is something only men and women should be able to have together, is the same argument used to deny different races, different religions, from marrying. Can atheist/agnostic people get married? Under the state, they can. So, why is it not possible for two people of the same gender to get married?

Well its not really since if you actually consider the real meaning of marriage as being between one man and one woman, then race, religion etc is irrelevant. But having two men involved does obviously create a problem.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I haven't brought God into this arguement.

I have said that in Connecticut there was no discrimination because they allow civil unions and marriage is essentially an extra symbolic recognition for male/female relationships because they are special. I have elaborated my opinions on why they are special and why I don't believe that sexual orientation is deserving of special protection beyond basic human rights.

I agree that two people should be able to engage in a civil union irrespective of gender or sexual orientation - friends, family, anyone should be able to pick favorite guardians and partners. I also believe that it is not unconstitutional for the government to recognize how particularly special the male/female committed sexual relationship is. I think that it is a common sense recognition. I believe that it would even be ok to eliminate any tax breaks (or punishments) marriages - better yet to extend those tax breaks to everyone (lower taxes).

I have a real problem with Judges erasing and creating laws, particularly by small margins. I disagree that any two people should be able to enter into a marriage - I believe in a rational division, but if it was enacted by the legislative branch it would be legitimate (however stupid).

The Massachusetts law didn't make me want to go out and overthrow the government. New York abortion laws don't make me want to go out and overthrow the government. I still disagree fundamentally, legally, morally and religiously, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Court cases that make things up and overthrow or write legislation on weak technicalities make me sick and horribly angry.

I hope that I've cleared things up for everyone.

[Strike For The South]

I haven't brought God into this arguement.

I have said that in Connecticut there was no discrimination because they allow civil unions and marriage is essentially an extra symbolic recognition for male/female relationships because they are special. I have elaborated my opinions on why they are special and why I don't believe that sexual orientation is deserving of special protection beyond basic human rights.

I agree that two people should be able to engage in a civil union irrespective of gender or sexual orientation - friends, family, anyone should be able to pick favorite guardians and partners. I also believe that it is not unconstitutional for the government to recognize how particularly special the male/female committed sexual relationship is. I think that it is a common sense recognition. I believe that it would even be ok to eliminate any tax breaks (or punishments) marriages - better yet to extend those tax breaks to everyone (lower taxes).

I have a real problem with Judges erasing and creating laws, particularly by small margins. I disagree that any two people should be able to enter into a marriage - I believe in a rational division, but if it was enacted by the legislative branch it would be legitimate (however stupid).

The Massachusetts law didn't make me want to go out and overthrow the government. New York abortion laws don't make me want to go out and overthrow the government. I still disagree fundamentally, legally, morally and religiously, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Court cases that make things up and overthrow or write legislation on weak technicalities make me sick and horribly angry.

I hope that I've cleared things up for everyone.

I dont like judicial activism either but that isnt what were talking about and why do you find the governments recognition of marriage unconstitutional?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I dont like judicial activism either but that isnt what were talking about and why do you find the governments recognition of marriage unconstitutional?

What? I don't find the governments recognition of marriage unconstitutional. Where did you get that?

I believe that we ARE talking about judicial activism. People have been saying it is "Unconstitutional" to deny people marriage to their same sex partners. When something is "unconstitutional" it should be overturned by the courts.

I do not agree that it is unconstitutional nor do I agree that it should be. In fact, I am averse to the word unconstitutional because it is brandished so frequently by people when they want something that few others want. It is an underhanded tactic.

[Strike For The South]

What? I don't find the governments recognition of marriage unconstitutional. Where did you get that?

I believe that we ARE talking about judicial activism. People have been saying it is "Unconstitutional" to deny people marriage to their same sex partners. When something is "unconstitutional" it should be overturned by the courts.

I do not agree that it is unconstitutional nor do I agree that it should be.

The government should have no role in this other than making it legal. I said in this very thread I am against an amendment. The government should be out of marriage excluding tax breaks for children I find that to be valid.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The government should be out of marriage excluding tax breaks for children I find that to be valid.

Ok, sure. I'll agree to that. I just don't want my government recognizing homosexual partnerships as marriages. I'd sell civil marriage up the river instead.