There is no rational reason to stop same sex marriage

[Evales]

It's hard for me to view homosexuality as that bad of a thing if someone is born to be that way. I could not judge them against it if they were born that way.

Ok, but what if it turns out to be entirely a matter of choice? Would you judge them against it then? If so, what harm, to others or themselves, would you invoke?

Homosexuality

Point 1) If biological it is something that God created and thus we should not be punished for it since it is natural.

Point 2) That being even if it is still a sin (or not biological) the people who commit acts of homosexuality are fully allowed (by God) to commit as many sins as they like. God gave us the freedom of choice to commit sins or to chose to follow him how we like.

Point 3) Also since not everyone believes there is an afterlife we have no reason to stop them from committing these "sins" if they do not hurt anyone. The only person they hurt is themselves (according to theists) because they will then go to Hell, a place that they do not even believe exists.


There is no rational reason for us to stop same sex marriage.
Throughout history ignorant and oppressive people have stopped certain minorities from gaining certain rights but we see a trend that these minorities are gradually allowed these rights.

To be honest I'm surprised we still oppress homosexuals and bisexuals. How archaic.

[kayky]

The Constitution is silent on gay marriage, although I'm pretty sure how the Founders would have felt about it.

The Constitution guarantees the same human rights to all--without bias. If heterosexual people can choose their spouses, homosexual people have the same right. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter what you think about it. It doesn't even matter what the Founding Fathers would have thought about it. Many of them owned slaves, by the way. Should we consider how they thought about things in the 18th century?

[kayky]

It doesn't, which means this issue should be left to the states, which oppose gay marriage in every referendum.

You do realize that this is the same argument used by the South to maintain slavery, right? There are still some people who think the Civil War was fought over states' rights! In a constitutional democracy, the majority cannot overrule the constitution.

[kayky]

I give you credit for consistency.

Thank you.

[kayky]

Doesn't matter what I think, it would be a clear violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. There is no similar specific Constitutional protection for the right of two (or three) homosexuals to marry each other.

And, you sir, are quite inconsistent in your thinking. There is actually nothing in the Constitution protecting heterosexual marriage either. Perhaps all marriage should be banned on that account. I find it amusing that you wave the Constitution in the air in defense of your own rights, but you are not willing to extend this privilege to others. I don't know how you can be so blind to the irrational nature of this.

[East of Eden]

It doesn't, which means this issue should be left to the states, which oppose gay marriage in every referendum.

You do realize that this is the same argument used by the South to maintain slavery, right?

So what do you want to do, have no more referendums because you disagree with some of the outcomes?

[East of Eden]

Isn't that all perfectly convenient and suited to your personal inclinations... that you have an amendment protecting your interest, and none protecting the interest of a minority you don't relate to.agon.

There are winners and losers in a democracy - deal with it. The minority who voted against Mr. HopeChange aren't being given the time of day, does that bother you?

[Beto]

There are winners and losers in a democracy - deal with it.

Sometimes, everyone's a loser. But some people think they're winning something when they're oppressing minority rights that don't affect them in the slightest.

The minority who voted against Mr. HopeChange aren't being given the time of day, does that bother you?

Should I feel empathetic towards a minority that feels no empathy towards other minorities?

[kayky]

It doesn't, which means this issue should be left to the states, which oppose gay marriage in every referendum.

You do realize that this is the same argument used by the South to maintain slavery, right?

So what do you want to do, have no more referendums because you disagree with some of the outcomes?

No. I want the outcomes to be in line with the Constitution, regardless of my personal feelings.

[kayky]

There are winners and losers in a democracy - deal with it.

And the winners must abide by the Constitution. You need to deal with that.

The minority who voted against Mr. HopeChange aren't being given the time of day, does that bother you?

Perhaps your complaints would be more aptly aimed at the GOP, who seem to be capable of nothing more at the moment than tripping over their own feet and saying "NO." If they had anything constructive to offer, it would be welcomed by all.

[micatala]

kayky wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't, which means this issue should be left to the states, which oppose gay marriage in every referendum.


You do realize that this is the same argument used by the South to maintain slavery, right?

So what do you want to do, have no more referendums because you disagree with some of the outcomes?

Beto wrote:

Isn't that all perfectly convenient and suited to your personal inclinations... that you have an amendment protecting your interest, and none protecting the interest of a minority you don't relate to.agon.

There are winners and losers in a democracy - deal with it. The minority who voted against Mr. HopeChange aren't being given the time of day, does that bother you?

Yes, there are winners and losers. However, what the winners "win" and what the losers "lose" is limited by the constitution including the bill of rights. The winners do get to govern and this includes making policy decisions and law. However, even a President with a unified congress of his or her own party is circumscribed by the constitution.

You yourself have noted making Christianity illegal would be unconstitutional.

Now, you also noted the constittution does not protect gay marriage or polygamy. Kayky noted it does not protrect heterosexual marriage either. The list of enumerated rights in the constitution is somewhat small. However, Amendment IX says:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[quote]

Also, although it is not part of the constitution, the Declaration of Independence says that we are all "endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness . . ." It is the government's role to secure these rights.


It seems to me that letting people form the life time relationships they choose is one of the most central features of pursuing happiness.



Also, you noted the founding fathers probably would not have supported gay marriage or considered it a constittuional right. You are probably right.

However, I would point out the founders also did not consider it appropriate to allow women to vote or to allow blacks to be free from slavery. If you are going to cite the opinion of the founders on marriage, when you are in fact only speculating on what their opinion would be, consistency would seem to imply you should also follow the founders on women's rights and racial equality and slavery.

Do you think we should go back to what the founders thought about these other issues too?

If not, why cite your speculations about their opinions on gay marriage?



It is pretty clear the founders understood they were creating a document that would be adaptable to a variety of situations and societies over time. While they very likley would not have prediceted, and perhaps not even condoned, some of the changes that have occurred, it is clear they expected there would be changes and these changes are allowable under the structure they designed.