Wow, I thought I had it hard as a straight atheist in America. But to be gay in America too... You should be exempt from paying taxes due to taxation without representation! Trying to put a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is deplorable. The constitution was NOT created to TAKE rights away from people but to EMPOWER us. Things will get better. They did for slaves, minorities, and women. Remember Winston Churchill:
If u say u dont want 2 hear relig BS, wht makes u think ne1 wud want 2 listen 2 ur anti-relig BS? U want ppl 2 respect that u don't want 2 hear relig BS so Y dont u show the same courtesy? If u dont believe in God, why say God damn? U r full of contradiction & faggotry. “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” -Darwin
@khbctx Did God teach you the word "faggotry" or did you invent that little gem on your own? Jesus befriended homosexuals you know... This man is asking why he is not given the same rights as all Americans and all you can do is tell him "God, God, God, faggot, faggot, faggot" You ask him why he says God's name if he doesn't believe in him, then you end your post with a Darwin quote. You fucking moron.
He sent me an article about gay marriage and children, he pulled a quote out of it,
"We have identified conceptual, methodological, and theoretical limitations in the psychological research on the effects of parental sexual orientation and have challenged the predominant claim that the sexual orientation parents does not matter at all. (Stacy & Biblarz. (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? p.176)" (cont)
The article then goes on to refute EVERY IDEA of the research that they identified. He cherry picked the article for things that supported his view, and didn't even bother to read the article? The article does state that gay parents have a SLIGHTLY increased incidence of gay kids. They attribute this to the fact that gay people tend to be less condemning of homosexuality so their kids are less likely to feel the need to hide it. The article actually concludes (cont)
that gay people make BETTER parents because they tend to wait until they are older and emotionally mature enough to have kids. Gay people don't accidentally get people pregnant when they're not ready for children. It says that because of this, the kids of Gay and lesbian parents tend to turn out more well-adjusted than their straight parented counterparts.
@Femigaytheist That's not always true, being a gay parent doesn't make you a better parent. It doesn't make your kid turn out better. It's how the parent treats the kid is how they turn out. There are plenty of straight parents that have kids that turn out great.
the studies Judith is referring to mainly and only compare same sex arrangements to heterosexual single parents, divorced, and cohabiting parents NOT two biological married parents and these comparisons are only done at a very young age. there are no studies done on the long term adult achievements of these children like education, jobs etc. also, these studies happen to be extremely limited especially compared to what is yielded from heterosexual married parents versus all the other arrangments
one more interesting fact about the studies their mentioning is that they are only or mainly based in American jurisprudence. the fact is in Australia there is a study that shows significant differences in comparisons to same sex couples and two biological married parents that reflect findings that members of the APA and APP mentioned about sexual and gender identity
witness who was supposedly an "authority" on marriage for the Prop 8 Proponents at the trial here in Calif. When the very same question was asked of him by Bois, pertaining to the effect gay marriage would have on straight marriage, he said, and i quote "I don't know"
Civil unions are indeed equal to marriage statewide. whether or not each state that offers them makes sure they are equal is a whole other matter.The benefits your talking about are based on federal law. even with gay marriage, you would not get those benefits because of DOMA. so its a redherring and has been ever sense the No On 8 Campaign brought it up
Besides, We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights down the future without having to redefining marriage for everyone
Statewide? What are you talking about? Which state are you referring to? Not all states allow civil unions. My question to you would be how does "redefining marriage" affect "traditional" marriage. Those privileged heterosexuals who are married or plan to be married will IN NO WAY be affected by allowing gays to marry.
@Femigaytheist I think the biggest part about this whole situation with the religious comes from the gay community calling it Marriage, which is strictly a religious term. Whether there's a legitimate reason for gays not to have a union such as Marriage, as long as the majority claims it so, it is so. And since the Republican party and the Religious make up a big part of the majority, based upon their views, this Union between same-sex couples is wrong. Whether its legit or not, there it is.
@Femigaytheist The religious ideals clash with the non-religious all the time. But since they believe it to be an abomination unto god or whatever they may, and their laws are written in "stone" so to speak, they can't be reasoned with or convinced unless they are converted. Unfortunately, since they do make up the majority, saying their religion is bullshit is probably not helping your agenda that much. Basically, you can't afford to ignore them. Believe me, I've tried, but theres just to many
your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. being gay may or may not be a choice but living the gay lifestyle is a choice and that's why we are here. the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race gender etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with
First of all, who are you to say that the comparison is invalid or misguided? Secondly, I referred not to race, but to situations in which the majority opinion created a negative living situation for two groups of people. You're providing a canned answer to my statement, and my statement does not fit your canned answer. So you can save your "Your struggle isn't comparable to race or gender" (which is also BS) for someone who brings up that point.
it is true that we are not bound by the Bible but by the FEDERAL Constitution (not the state one) which happens to give us the fundamental right to vote. in practice, there is no way to amend the federal constitution by popular vote
even if we did take away existing federal constitutional rights by vote from the state constitution, a minority group could easily just go to a federal court and strike it down. thats why we have a federal constitution in the first place so thats not a problem
the state has a vested interest to PROMOTE procreation into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents present (this is on the law books) in order to sustain and maintain society through the future. something same sex couples cannot do
@kenballer00 A 2004 Statement by the American Anthropological Association states that there is no evidence that society needs to maintain "marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution", and, further, that same-sex unions can "contribute to stable and humane societies.
@kenballer00 The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers state: "There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage...
. Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents...
And no we are not happy with separate fountains..we want that what you call "special" right of drinking from the same fountain.
And European societal reality disproves your slanted "research" as to the detrimental effects of "redefining" who can enter into matrimony
"look up a case called Gill v. OPM, which will show you that married same sex couples are still treated differently to opposite sex married couples.
the fact is whether its same sex civil unions or same sex marriage, same sex couples cannot have their relationship recognized by the federal government one way or another and therefore cannot receive any of the benefits that opposite sex couples enjoy in a legal marriage"
And changin civil unions for gays so as to include all the same rights except calling ourselves married and our relationship a marriage for all intents and purpose would have the same effect on "society" and "children" and would there for be totally superfluous if that is the concern.
So, I'm guessing that you think that once gay marriage is inevitably recognized that everyone is going to become gay? The logical flaw in your argument is that the state does NOT have a vested interest in PROMOTION of procreation. People are going to do that. The state has never, nor will it ever, PROMOTE procreation. In fact, the state, when occupied by religious organizations does what it can to INHIBIT procreation with laws that say that people cannot have sex outside of marriage.
nobody's saying that these effects will happen overnight or affect existing marriages. adults would obviously not be affected or converted one way or another because we are fully developed and we know who we are and have our minds made up. the effects will happen overtime and eventually when kids or the next generation who are vulnerable to indoctrination and are constantly reinforced and encouraged by this new idea of marriage, then we will start to see the effects and thats when its too late
No one is "converting" anyone. If your thesis that children are "converted" by exposure to homosexuals, then please provide some scientific data to back up that assertion. I, personally, had no exposure to homosexuality when I was a child, so who "converted" me? No one is indoctrinating. This is a paranoid fantasy of those who think that gay people are immoral or harmful. There is nothing wrong with being gay , except for the violence perpetrated by people influenced by YOUR arguments.
@kenballer00 - Are you even capable of posting an original reply? EVERYTHING you post is copied and pasted out of your not so cleverly thought out reply bank on your computer. I beg you, no I implore you, PLEASE stop making yourself look like an idiot. It's embarrassing. Why are you so obsessed with this? If you need counseling, I can help you. GOOD GOD MAN!!!
@kenballer: Another logical flaw in your argument is that it would require that infertile couples, as well as couples who do not with to have children, be prevented from marrying. Procreation is a reason for marriage. It, however, is not the ONLY reason for marriage or even the PRIMARY reason for marriage.
@shayalon Imndeed to which Kenballer will claim infertile couples do not redefine marriage because "in principle" they can procreate to which the obvious reply is...so can gay people. Just not by means of the sexual act with their same sex partner but this is 2010 and in practicality...we CAN procreate which many in fact are already doing which means in practicality that argument ( originally by Keyes) holds no more water than ANY of Kenballers arguments! As I just demonstrated. Bye bye Ken. :)
i encourage you to type in "Alan Keye's argument" and watch the video where Alan answers and refutes these type of arguments about infertile couples. Promoting procreation is the number one reason according to the state's perspective and its on the law books and has been for over a century
My reason why gay marriage should not be "legal" is because no marriage should be legal. It's a religious institution and therefore it shouldn't be recognized by the federal (or state) government. Everyone should need to have a civil union (gay or straight, makes no difference).
Well, I guess I can't disagree with that. It would be nice if we could clear up this obvious violation of the separation between church and state. However, it's not going to happen. Marriage isn't going anywhere. Besides, marriage has really lost it's religious significance, as can be attested to by the existence of the Vegas drive-in wedding. Weddings are about federal and state recognition of the formation of a family unit with shared finances and responsibilities.
we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own.
They certainly do have the right to their opinion. And people have the right to listen to them. They don't, however, have the right to force their personal religious beliefs on society. If majority should always rule, then people of color should still be slaves and women shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property. That didn't change because of the will of the people. A few great people changed those rules. The majority of society was in favor of neither women nor black people @ the time.
In a private ceremony or church marriage, the state or society may not have a right to tell you who you can or cannot marry. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
Why are you drawing a distinction? Marriage is recognized both as a religious institution as well as a civil one. I am saying 1) religion should not determine laws. Which is the case with gay marriage 2) The majority should not have the right to determine the status of the minority. I am a human and I have human rights. If my neighbors, due to their relationship, get certain privileges, there is no LEGITIMATE reason that I should not also receive those privileges.
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexual acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come through marriage with civil unions
I don't know what country you're living in, but "civil unions" aren't recognized in the US. They may be recognized by some states, but they aren't recognized by the federal govt. In the state in which I live, civil unions between same sex couples are expressly prohibited in the state constitution. Up until a few years ago, being gay in my state was punishable by a MANDATORY sentence of 5 years to life. Gays can't freely express our love anywhere without fear of violence. You're wrong.
Civil unions in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, have the same benefits as marriage. According to Lambda Legal Defense, more than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights.
i encourage you to look up a case called Gill v. OPM, which will show you that married same couples are still treated differently to opposite sex married couples because of DOMA, so its a RED HERRING
the fact is whether its same sex civil unions or same sex marriage, same sex couples cannot have their relationship recognized by the federal government one way or another and therefore cannot receive any of the benefits that opposite sex couples enjoy in a legal marriage.
Your posts are always contracting themselves. YOU just claimed that civil unions are not recognized by civil law-and that proves my point. Which side are you on?
you made it seem like that if same couples get married right now then they would receive all those federal benefits opposite sex couples receive. thats all
LOL Kenballer is getting more confused by the day! My bet would be the strains of trying to hide he has no other reason than religious bigotry to oppose gay marriage is starting to muddle his "thinking".
This has been flagged as spam show
Much-belated but I have a legitimate reason to keep gay marriage from being legalized.
Because marriage is a socio-religious institution that has no place in law.
All marriage should be removed from law.
If civil unions aren't good enough for any set of consenting adults then we better hop to fixing THAT.
luciusfluff 3 months ago
Comment removed
luciusfluff 3 months ago
Wow, I thought I had it hard as a straight atheist in America. But to be gay in America too... You should be exempt from paying taxes due to taxation without representation! Trying to put a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is deplorable. The constitution was NOT created to TAKE rights away from people but to EMPOWER us. Things will get better. They did for slaves, minorities, and women. Remember Winston Churchill:
Never, never, never give up.
WhereYouEndAndIBegin 7 months ago
Aww. The troll's upset because I'm not going to engage it.
shayalon 1 year ago
If u say u dont want 2 hear relig BS, wht makes u think ne1 wud want 2 listen 2 ur anti-relig BS? U want ppl 2 respect that u don't want 2 hear relig BS so Y dont u show the same courtesy? If u dont believe in God, why say God damn? U r full of contradiction & faggotry. “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” -Darwin
khbctx 1 year ago
@khbctx Troll.
shayalon 1 year ago
@shayalon you mad?
khbctx 1 year ago
@khbctx Did God teach you the word "faggotry" or did you invent that little gem on your own? Jesus befriended homosexuals you know... This man is asking why he is not given the same rights as all Americans and all you can do is tell him "God, God, God, faggot, faggot, faggot" You ask him why he says God's name if he doesn't believe in him, then you end your post with a Darwin quote. You fucking moron.
WhereYouEndAndIBegin 7 months ago
He sent me an article about gay marriage and children, he pulled a quote out of it,
"We have identified conceptual, methodological, and theoretical limitations in the psychological research on the effects of parental sexual orientation and have challenged the predominant claim that the sexual orientation parents does not matter at all. (Stacy & Biblarz. (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? p.176)" (cont)
Femigaytheist 2 years ago
The article then goes on to refute EVERY IDEA of the research that they identified. He cherry picked the article for things that supported his view, and didn't even bother to read the article? The article does state that gay parents have a SLIGHTLY increased incidence of gay kids. They attribute this to the fact that gay people tend to be less condemning of homosexuality so their kids are less likely to feel the need to hide it. The article actually concludes (cont)
Femigaytheist 2 years ago
that gay people make BETTER parents because they tend to wait until they are older and emotionally mature enough to have kids. Gay people don't accidentally get people pregnant when they're not ready for children. It says that because of this, the kids of Gay and lesbian parents tend to turn out more well-adjusted than their straight parented counterparts.
Femigaytheist 2 years ago
@Femigaytheist That's not always true, being a gay parent doesn't make you a better parent. It doesn't make your kid turn out better. It's how the parent treats the kid is how they turn out. There are plenty of straight parents that have kids that turn out great.
PrimevalHunter300 5 months ago
the studies Judith is referring to mainly and only compare same sex arrangements to heterosexual single parents, divorced, and cohabiting parents NOT two biological married parents and these comparisons are only done at a very young age. there are no studies done on the long term adult achievements of these children like education, jobs etc. also, these studies happen to be extremely limited especially compared to what is yielded from heterosexual married parents versus all the other arrangments
kenballer00 1 year ago
one more interesting fact about the studies their mentioning is that they are only or mainly based in American jurisprudence. the fact is in Australia there is a study that shows significant differences in comparisons to same sex couples and two biological married parents that reflect findings that members of the APA and APP mentioned about sexual and gender identity
kenballer00 1 year ago
Nobody can give you a reason, not even the
witness who was supposedly an "authority" on marriage for the Prop 8 Proponents at the trial here in Calif. When the very same question was asked of him by Bois, pertaining to the effect gay marriage would have on straight marriage, he said, and i quote "I don't know"
firepoispinner 2 years ago
I got a seriously legit reason. So amazing and powerful that it will blow your mind.
Simple: There is no actual reason to not allow same-sex marriage.
:D
MonstrousRedZone 2 years ago
Civil unions are indeed equal to marriage statewide. whether or not each state that offers them makes sure they are equal is a whole other matter.The benefits your talking about are based on federal law. even with gay marriage, you would not get those benefits because of DOMA. so its a redherring and has been ever sense the No On 8 Campaign brought it up
Besides, We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights down the future without having to redefining marriage for everyone
kenballer00 2 years ago
Statewide? What are you talking about? Which state are you referring to? Not all states allow civil unions. My question to you would be how does "redefining marriage" affect "traditional" marriage. Those privileged heterosexuals who are married or plan to be married will IN NO WAY be affected by allowing gays to marry.
Femigaytheist 2 years ago
@Femigaytheist i answered this already to another user on your channel. just look at the recent comment
kenballer00 2 years ago
@Femigaytheist I think the biggest part about this whole situation with the religious comes from the gay community calling it Marriage, which is strictly a religious term. Whether there's a legitimate reason for gays not to have a union such as Marriage, as long as the majority claims it so, it is so. And since the Republican party and the Religious make up a big part of the majority, based upon their views, this Union between same-sex couples is wrong. Whether its legit or not, there it is.
JakeDude500 1 year ago
@Femigaytheist The religious ideals clash with the non-religious all the time. But since they believe it to be an abomination unto god or whatever they may, and their laws are written in "stone" so to speak, they can't be reasoned with or convinced unless they are converted. Unfortunately, since they do make up the majority, saying their religion is bullshit is probably not helping your agenda that much. Basically, you can't afford to ignore them. Believe me, I've tried, but theres just to many
JakeDude500 1 year ago
your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. being gay may or may not be a choice but living the gay lifestyle is a choice and that's why we are here. the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race gender etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with
kenballer00 2 years ago
First of all, who are you to say that the comparison is invalid or misguided? Secondly, I referred not to race, but to situations in which the majority opinion created a negative living situation for two groups of people. You're providing a canned answer to my statement, and my statement does not fit your canned answer. So you can save your "Your struggle isn't comparable to race or gender" (which is also BS) for someone who brings up that point.
Femigaytheist 2 years ago
it is true that we are not bound by the Bible but by the FEDERAL Constitution (not the state one) which happens to give us the fundamental right to vote. in practice, there is no way to amend the federal constitution by popular vote
even if we did take away existing federal constitutional rights by vote from the state constitution, a minority group could easily just go to a federal court and strike it down. thats why we have a federal constitution in the first place so thats not a problem
kenballer00 2 years ago
Kenballer, if you continue to mark opposing comments as "spam", I will block you from commenting.
Femigaytheist 2 years ago
the state has a vested interest to PROMOTE procreation into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents present (this is on the law books) in order to sustain and maintain society through the future. something same sex couples cannot do
kenballer00 2 years ago
@kenballer00 A 2004 Statement by the American Anthropological Association states that there is no evidence that society needs to maintain "marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution", and, further, that same-sex unions can "contribute to stable and humane societies.
reddragonready 2 years ago 2
@kenballer00 The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers state: "There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage...
reddragonready 2 years ago 2
. Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents...
And no we are not happy with separate fountains..we want that what you call "special" right of drinking from the same fountain.
And European societal reality disproves your slanted "research" as to the detrimental effects of "redefining" who can enter into matrimony
reddragonready 2 years ago 2
And no, gay cannot have the same rights in civil unions at present as you well know since here is what you posted a few days ago...
reddragonready 2 years ago
Kenballer's words...
"look up a case called Gill v. OPM, which will show you that married same sex couples are still treated differently to opposite sex married couples.
the fact is whether its same sex civil unions or same sex marriage, same sex couples cannot have their relationship recognized by the federal government one way or another and therefore cannot receive any of the benefits that opposite sex couples enjoy in a legal marriage"
reddragonready 2 years ago
And changin civil unions for gays so as to include all the same rights except calling ourselves married and our relationship a marriage for all intents and purpose would have the same effect on "society" and "children" and would there for be totally superfluous if that is the concern.
reddragonready 2 years ago
So, I'm guessing that you think that once gay marriage is inevitably recognized that everyone is going to become gay? The logical flaw in your argument is that the state does NOT have a vested interest in PROMOTION of procreation. People are going to do that. The state has never, nor will it ever, PROMOTE procreation. In fact, the state, when occupied by religious organizations does what it can to INHIBIT procreation with laws that say that people cannot have sex outside of marriage.
shayalon 2 years ago
nobody's saying that these effects will happen overnight or affect existing marriages. adults would obviously not be affected or converted one way or another because we are fully developed and we know who we are and have our minds made up. the effects will happen overtime and eventually when kids or the next generation who are vulnerable to indoctrination and are constantly reinforced and encouraged by this new idea of marriage, then we will start to see the effects and thats when its too late
kenballer00 2 years ago
No one is "converting" anyone. If your thesis that children are "converted" by exposure to homosexuals, then please provide some scientific data to back up that assertion. I, personally, had no exposure to homosexuality when I was a child, so who "converted" me? No one is indoctrinating. This is a paranoid fantasy of those who think that gay people are immoral or harmful. There is nothing wrong with being gay , except for the violence perpetrated by people influenced by YOUR arguments.
Femigaytheist 2 years ago
@kenballer00 - Are you even capable of posting an original reply? EVERYTHING you post is copied and pasted out of your not so cleverly thought out reply bank on your computer. I beg you, no I implore you, PLEASE stop making yourself look like an idiot. It's embarrassing. Why are you so obsessed with this? If you need counseling, I can help you. GOOD GOD MAN!!!
firepoispinner 2 years ago
@kenballer: Another logical flaw in your argument is that it would require that infertile couples, as well as couples who do not with to have children, be prevented from marrying. Procreation is a reason for marriage. It, however, is not the ONLY reason for marriage or even the PRIMARY reason for marriage.
shayalon 2 years ago
@shayalon Imndeed to which Kenballer will claim infertile couples do not redefine marriage because "in principle" they can procreate to which the obvious reply is...so can gay people. Just not by means of the sexual act with their same sex partner but this is 2010 and in practicality...we CAN procreate which many in fact are already doing which means in practicality that argument ( originally by Keyes) holds no more water than ANY of Kenballers arguments! As I just demonstrated. Bye bye Ken. :)
reddragonready 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i encourage you to type in "Alan Keye's argument" and watch the video where Alan answers and refutes these type of arguments about infertile couples. Promoting procreation is the number one reason according to the state's perspective and its on the law books and has been for over a century
kenballer00 2 years ago
My reason why gay marriage should not be "legal" is because no marriage should be legal. It's a religious institution and therefore it shouldn't be recognized by the federal (or state) government. Everyone should need to have a civil union (gay or straight, makes no difference).
Jiade80 2 years ago
Well, I guess I can't disagree with that. It would be nice if we could clear up this obvious violation of the separation between church and state. However, it's not going to happen. Marriage isn't going anywhere. Besides, marriage has really lost it's religious significance, as can be attested to by the existence of the Vegas drive-in wedding. Weddings are about federal and state recognition of the formation of a family unit with shared finances and responsibilities.
Femigaytheist 2 years ago
we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own.
kenballer00 2 years ago
They certainly do have the right to their opinion. And people have the right to listen to them. They don't, however, have the right to force their personal religious beliefs on society. If majority should always rule, then people of color should still be slaves and women shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property. That didn't change because of the will of the people. A few great people changed those rules. The majority of society was in favor of neither women nor black people @ the time.
Femigaytheist 2 years ago
In a private ceremony or church marriage, the state or society may not have a right to tell you who you can or cannot marry. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
kenballer00 2 years ago
Why are you drawing a distinction? Marriage is recognized both as a religious institution as well as a civil one. I am saying 1) religion should not determine laws. Which is the case with gay marriage 2) The majority should not have the right to determine the status of the minority. I am a human and I have human rights. If my neighbors, due to their relationship, get certain privileges, there is no LEGITIMATE reason that I should not also receive those privileges.
Femigaytheist 2 years ago
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexual acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come through marriage with civil unions
kenballer00 2 years ago
I don't know what country you're living in, but "civil unions" aren't recognized in the US. They may be recognized by some states, but they aren't recognized by the federal govt. In the state in which I live, civil unions between same sex couples are expressly prohibited in the state constitution. Up until a few years ago, being gay in my state was punishable by a MANDATORY sentence of 5 years to life. Gays can't freely express our love anywhere without fear of violence. You're wrong.
Femigaytheist 2 years ago
Civil unions in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, have the same benefits as marriage. According to Lambda Legal Defense, more than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights.
MonstrousRedZone 2 years ago
i encourage you to look up a case called Gill v. OPM, which will show you that married same couples are still treated differently to opposite sex married couples because of DOMA, so its a RED HERRING
the fact is whether its same sex civil unions or same sex marriage, same sex couples cannot have their relationship recognized by the federal government one way or another and therefore cannot receive any of the benefits that opposite sex couples enjoy in a legal marriage.
kenballer00 2 years ago
Your posts are always contracting themselves. YOU just claimed that civil unions are not recognized by civil law-and that proves my point. Which side are you on?
MonstrousRedZone 2 years ago
you made it seem like that if same couples get married right now then they would receive all those federal benefits opposite sex couples receive. thats all
kenballer00 2 years ago
How? I thought I was being pretty clear. Besides the fact, that same sex couples aren't even able to get married right now...
MonstrousRedZone 2 years ago
@MonstrousRedZone
LOL Kenballer is getting more confused by the day! My bet would be the strains of trying to hide he has no other reason than religious bigotry to oppose gay marriage is starting to muddle his "thinking".
reddragonready 2 years ago