Why isn't gay marriage legal yet?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Cheesecat**

sebster wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:Yeah, I often find weddings just seem like an over-blown celebration of a couples love.

That strikes me as one of the best possible reasons to have an overblown celebration.

Gay or straight, if a couple wants to spend a pile of cash on a great big party to announce how much they love each other, go for it.

I can see the appeal, it's just not how I would approach the situation. Maybe I'm just cheap.

**Karon**

Because of the Westboro Baptist Church.

**bloodjunkey**

Why do people care so much if some like boys or grils if you wanna love someone love them, but just because people like those in the Westburo Baptist Church say AND I QUOTE "God hates gays" dosent mean the government has to go OH

and say no gay marriage. ugh this whole topic is sooo annoying.

BTW this is the best http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_fAYl4Th4 you will pee (dont worry its on this topic)

**Melissia**

Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

**Platuan4th**

corpsesarefun wrote:
samusaran253 wrote:I support gay marriage.

Congratulations, you are in the overwhelming majority.

Yeah, we're such an overwhelming majority that California kept the bill passed by sheer dint of people supporting it!

Oh, wait, that's right, the opposite happened and popular opinion had the bill repealed in CALIFORNIA of all places.

We supporters are definitely NOT the overwhelming majority.

**Karon**

I'd like for everyone to realize that the Bible and the Catholic Church are very, very different things.

It goes back to the Protestant Revolution with John Locke and Martin Luther where this was revealed.

I do plan to read the bible one day to see this for myself.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

**Emperors Faithful**

Karon wrote:I'd like for everyone to realize that the Bible and the Catholic Church are very, very different things.

Eh? In the area around gay marriage? The Bible specifically instructs gay people to be stoned to death. If anything the Catholic Church is a liberal rainbow-loving hippie compared to the specifics of some areas in the bible.

It goes back to the Protestant Revolution with John Locke and Martin Luther where this was revealed.

I do plan to read the bible one day to see this for myself.

Go for it. No offence, but that might mean you know what you are talking about next time you speak up about this.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

I believe there is a rational opposition, but this pertains as to whether or not Same-sex families are a healthy environment for children to be raised in and whether they should be allowed to have children (and my knowledge regarding this area is very limited so I can't cast an opinion either way). I don't see any real rational reasons to prevent same-sex marriages though.

**Battle Brother Lucifer**

Blacksails wrote:It sure is in Canada. Then again, we've allowed openly gay people in our military for two decades now as well, which only until a few months ago the Americans still had that stupid 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

And you silly Canadians allow S&M shops on the main street.

Saw one named 'North Bound Leather' with creepy dummies with creepy gear on while in Toronto. I laughed quite a bit.

**Platuan4th**

Emperors Faithful wrote:but this pertains as to whether or not Same-sex families are a healthy environment for children to be raised in and whether they should be allowed to have children (and my knowledge regarding this area is very limited so I can't cast an opinion either way).

The problem with this argument is that it's predicated on the false belief presented as "fact" that a heterosexual family is a healthy environment to be raised in.

Bad/abusive/disinterested/etc. parents are that way regardless of sexual orientation, while a healthy, loving family is a healthy environment regardless of the same.

**FITZZ**

biccat wrote:
Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

Ok..I'll bite,besides the alleged "Word" of an as yet unseen " Sky Father"...what would be the "rational" argument against gay marriage??

**Emperors Faithful**

Platuan4th wrote:Bad/abusive/disinterested/etc. parents are that way regardless of sexual orientation, while a healthy, loving family is a healthy environment regardless of the same.

See, I haven't seen any evidence to support this idea.

I'm not saying that abusive heterosexual parents are automatically more suitable than loving, caring same-sex parents, that would be ludicrous. But I do think it's irresponsible to disregard the possible factor off-handedly.

**Melissia**

biccat wrote:So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

The religious thing? If the topic were truly about religion, then gay marriage couldn't be outlawed as that would violate the first amendment. The familial thing? Having children, nor the desire to do so, nor the desire to adopt if one cannot have children, is not a requirement for marriage. Tradition? By itself it is not a logical basis for anything, and arguments based off of tradition are logically fallacious.

**biccat**

FITZZ wrote:
biccat wrote:
Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

Ok..I'll bite,besides the alleged "Word" of an as yet unseen " Sky Father"...what would be the "rational" argument against gay marriage??

I don't think there is a non-moral or non-religious argument* against gay marriage, and according to Loving, in the United States at least, gay marriage should be allowed.

I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

Although I don't know why you have to demean Christians by mocking their faith.

edit: * but if there is, I'm not aware of one.

**Melissia**

I never said such a position doesn't exist. I just stated a reason why gay marriage is illegal in the US.

**frgsinwntr**

biccat wrote:
FITZZ wrote:
biccat wrote:
Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

Ok..I'll bite,besides the alleged "Word" of an as yet unseen " Sky Father"...what would be the "rational" argument against gay marriage??

I don't think there is a non-moral or non-religious argument* against gay marriage, and according to Loving, in the United States at least, gay marriage should be allowed.

I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

Although I don't know why you have to demean Christians by mocking their faith.

edit: * but if there is, I'm not aware of one.

Wait... you're ok with gay marriage? this would be the first non-conservative thing i've ever read you post if so....

**Emperors Faithful**

biccat wrote:So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

Maybe Biblical Law is a valid argument against Gay marriage (and gays in general too then). It's hardly a rational argument though.

**biccat**

frgsinwntr wrote:Wait... you're ok with gay marriage? this would be the first non-conservative thing i've ever read you post if so....

Honestly, I could care less one way or the other. If I absolutely, positively had to vote on it, I'd probably say no. But if I were a voter in California, I'd have left the spot blank.

Fortunately for me, the pro-gay marriage crowd has decided that votes don't have anything to do with it.

From a legal perspective, Loving and especially Lawrence make it clear that laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples are more than likely unconstitutional.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Maybe Biblical Law is a valid argument against Gay marriage (and gays in general too then). It's hardly a rational argument though.

Christianity isn't rationale?

Besides, you can make a moral case without appealing to religion.

**FITZZ**

biccat wrote:
FITZZ wrote:
biccat wrote:
Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

Ok..I'll bite,besides the alleged "Word" of an as yet unseen " Sky Father"...what would be the "rational" argument against gay marriage??

I don't think there is a non-moral or non-religious argument* against gay marriage, and according to Loving, in the United States at least, gay marriage should be allowed.

I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

Although I don't know why you have to demean Christians by mocking their faith.

edit: * but if there is, I'm not aware of one.

I suppose I could ask why Christians feel the need to demean and belittle others as "sinners or Immoral" ,yet for some reason seem to think their "Faith" is above reproach ?
However...Perhaps my comment was inflamitory ,so I'll just say "With out the doctrines found in religious text...what would be the "rational" argument against same sex marriage?"

**Emperors Faithful**

biccat wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Maybe Biblical Law is a valid argument against Gay marriage (and gays in general too then). It's hardly a rational argument though.

Christianity isn't rationale?

Do we really need to walk down this road again?

Besides, you can make a moral case without appealing to religion.

I can't?

Wait...what's this? Breaking News? No! Is it possible? Heaven forbid...apparently, according to our latest sources...I can!

**Battle Brother Lucifer**

Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

**FITZZ**

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Ahhh...But politicians can't "rally voters" running on an anti-Gillette platform.

**Emperors Faithful**

FITZZ wrote:
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Ahhh...But politicians can't "rally voters" running on an anti-Gillette platform.

Gillette! The Best a non-religous Man can Gehttt!

**Ahtman**

Platuan4th wrote:We supporters are definitely NOT the overwhelming majority.

Overwhelming may be putting to fine a point on it but it is true. The problem though is that the opposition votes in greater numbers. Many of those that don't care or are for it are part of the large number of people who can't be arsed to vote.

Also, one of the reasons it hasn't happened is becuase it is a wedge issue and more important to use it as a stick to get the core out to vote. Conservative politicians know they can say two men are getting married and the money will come rolling in to defeat this unholy abomination. In other words, it is about money. A liberal politician can do the same in reverse of course.

**FITZZ**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
FITZZ wrote:
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Ahhh...But politicians can't "rally voters" running on an anti-Gillette platform.

Gillette! The Best a non-religous Man can Gehttt!

That made my beard very happy...

OT,I have a gay Aunt and a gay Cousin,and have witnessed firsthand the type of crap they have to put up with (particularly here in the South) simply for who they are and whom they choose to spend their lives with.
Both are Nurses and have done more "good" for they're "fellow man" than most self rightious "pulpet pounders" who would condem them as " Immoral hell bound sinners" and their relationships should not be a matter of politics,but rather their own personal business.

**Battle Brother Lucifer**

FITZZ wrote:
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Ahhh...But politicians can't "rally voters" running on an anti-Gillette platform.

I'm just bringing up for the people, when being anti-gay marriage, say they follow the Bible as law (I had a better way to put this and blanked, someone help lol) because if they do, they shouldn't shave (is my point)

**FITZZ**

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:
FITZZ wrote:
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Ahhh...But politicians can't "rally voters" running on an anti-Gillette platform.

I'm just bringing up for the people, when being anti-gay marriage, say they follow the Bible as law (I had a better way to put this and blanked, someone help lol) because if they do, they shouldn't shave (is my point)

I get what your saying BBL,but as Ahtman pointed out,the whole situation becomes one of political tub thumping for funds and votes,while using "select" Biblical referances as "justification".

**Battle Brother Lucifer**

FITZZ wrote:
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:
FITZZ wrote:
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Ahhh...But politicians can't "rally voters" running on an anti-Gillette platform.

I'm just bringing up for the people, when being anti-gay marriage, say they follow the Bible as law (I had a better way to put this and blanked, someone help lol) because if they do, they shouldn't shave (is my point)

I get what your saying BBL,but as Ahtman pointed out,the whole situation becomes one of political tub thumping for funds and votes,while using "select" Biblical referances as "justification".

Thats why my campaign slogan will be 'All or None'
Everybody takes it all to the fullest, or none at all can be used for justification.

**sebster**

Cheesecat wrote:I can see the appeal, it's just not how I would approach the situation. Maybe I'm just cheap.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:I'd like for everyone to realize that the Bible and the Catholic Church are very, very different things.

It goes back to the Protestant Revolution with John Locke and Martin Luther where this was revealed.

I do plan to read the bible one day to see this for myself.

Umm, no. First up, it was the Protestand Reformation, not Revolution. Second up, you're probably thinking of John Calvin, not John Locke. Thridly, it wasn't 'revealed' that Catholcism and the bible are different things, the bible remains the primary source for Catholics as it does for Christians.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

I'm perfectly willing to believe people have rational grounds to believe the opposite of what I believe, but after a decade of hearing people attempt to justify their opposition to gay marriage, I'm yet to hear one valid argument. The only sensible conclusion from there is that no such valid argument exists.

I'm curious as to why you think there must be a valid argument despite having never heard one, over the decades this debate has taken place.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Christianity isn't rationale?

Christianity is rational. Attempts to enforce biblical morality onto a population that is not universally Christian, in a country that prides itself on seperating its government from any religion, are irrational, though. And they only get more irrational when only the shallowest, most selective reading of the Bible could lead someone to conclude the book is particularly concerned with homosexuality compared to issues like poverty and compassion.

Oh, and do you really want me to put [sic] after rationale in your post above? Because I could, but it would be very lame... though it might answer why you did something that inane in your response to me in the other thread.

**Bromsy**

Guitardian wrote:The problem isn't with gays, its with the illusion of separation of church and state that sometimes gets the curtain pulled up. All marriage should be a non-issue, personal choice, private contract, be it with multiple wives, husbands, homosexuals, whatever. If it is a moral or religious ideal then the state has no business saying what is or is not legal.

This includes the problem that marriage is also a civil union involving things like taxes, certain rights like not testifying in court or child support in the case of divorce, and such other things that really have no business dictating gender roles, just legal standings, in which church morality again, should have no business dipping their mass delusion fingers in.

I see no reason why deciding to be BFFs and making a public spectacle of it should allow for special priveliges/penalties beyond what unmarried people have. You decide to get married and your status changes from a legal perspective. I know plenty of people who may as well be married and have been together for 10+ years and for whatever reasons never paid the court fee to be 'married' in the eyes of anyone other than themselves, which to me, is how it should be.

It should have absolutely no legal standing, proprietal rights, or anything else beyond what any other written, signed, notorized contract would, and as such, should be an available option to anyone who wants to commit on such a level. Unfortunately, a few hundred years of scientific progress have still not found the solution to the needs of some to believe in the laws of long dead archaic cultures allegedly passed to them by a shrub, and still have the power to insinuate their stone age mentalities under the protection of modern cultural acceptance, even in a place where we are allegedly separated legally from any church idealism involved in our lawmaking. Oh well, horray for the bible belt for showing that against all human progress in spite of its efforts, delusional ideas can still hold legal power because the book says that stubborn faith will win over common sense.

Harrumph, Bully, and Good Job!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said... I'd really like to see more people use the "I just don't like it." or "It creeps me out." arguments a bit more. More straightforward.