But we're not talking about equal rights in this case, we're talking about special rights.

 

No, we're not talking about special rights at all. We're granting them added protection so that they have the same access to the same rights that we have.

I really don't understand the whole gay marriage deal. The majority of Americans do not want it and in our country people should make decisions like that. I believe the case should be closed.

 

Really? Have you ever read the Constitution? It's not about the majorities moral judgments, it is about granting the same Fundamental Rights to every citizen. Like it or not, many same-sex marriages would be more conducive to raising children than a lot of heterosexual marriages that we see today. As for the first post on here, can you slant your bias anymore?

Also, in this country there is a seperation of church and state. Because our Christian faiths do not recognize same-sex unions has no bearing on whether it should be recognized civilly.

How about the rights of NAMBLA members to love as they desire?

 

So now we're comparing the NAMBLA to homosexuality? Are you serious? You do realize that when we are talking about homosexuals we are talking about two consenting adults, right? That is not the case with NAMBLA.

About Gay adoption. I'm assuming you all would rather a child grow up through the system? When there might be a loving gay family who could take very good care of them? Wow...you would be doing that child such a favor .

Really? Have you ever read the Constitution? It's not about the majorities moral judgments, it is about granting the same Fundamental Rights to every citizen. Like it or not, many same-sex marriages would be more conducive to raising children than a lot of heterosexual marriages that we see today. As for the first post on here, can you slant your bias anymore?

 

Marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Not a man and a man. Why change the definition of a legal union because a minority of people want it done? (by minority I am not talking about homosexuality, just the people who want it).

Also, in this country there is a seperation of church and state. Because our Christian faiths do not recognize same-sex unions has no bearing on whether it should be recognized civilly.

We went over this in the other thread- what does government have to do with marriage, which is a religious institution in itself? Marriages in general should not be recognized civilly.

So now we're comparing the NAMBLA to homosexuality? Are you serious? You do realize that when we are talking about homosexuals we are talking about two consenting adults, right? That is not the case with NAMBLA.

NAMBLA is a bad example. What about two consenting brothers? Is it their right to get married?

Marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Not a man and a man. Why change the definition of a legal union because a minority of people want it done? (by minority I am not talking about homosexuality, just the people who want it).

 

Because people in this country have fundamental rights. Did you know until 1967 many states had laws in their Constitution banning inter-racial marriages involving white people?

 

I've argued this point ad nauseum in another thread. Speaking just in civil terms, w/ no religious overtones involved, what LEGITIMAE state interest is promoted by banning same-sex marriage? Don't use religious rhetoric b/c that has no place when arguing civil ceremonies. How does it benefit the state to ban same-sex marriage?

We went over this in the other thread- what does government have to do with marriage, which is a religious institution in itself? Marriages in general should not be recognized civilly.

NAMBLA is a bad example. What about two consenting brothers? Is it their right to get married?

 

Whether they should be or shouldn't be is another issue. If they weren't recognized civilly, then you would find that married couples would lose all the financial benefits that the government bestows on them. No benefits, no incentives from the Gov't because marriage doesn't exist.

 

Also, 2 consenting brothers incestually? No. You can differentiate the incest laws b/c you are banning it for everyone. Here you are not, you are discriminating against a group solely on sexual orientation.

You cannot love anyone by denying them equal rights - period. That is not love, it is the furthest thing from it.

 

If we are going to play the old testament thing . . .

 

With a close reading of the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus we see that we must kill people for worshipping foreign gods, working on the sabbath and for adultery. We must kill our kids for talking back to us. When we vanquish a foe in battle we must kill all of their women and children. We must bash the heads of children against the rocks, if they are heathen.

 

If we continue with the cultural trapping of the old and some of the new testament, then slavery is acceptable, and we can even sell our daughters into slavery.

 

Just for arguments sake, I don't think there is any historical evidence of a Sodom or Gomorrha.

 

Obviously you do not believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God as I do. Since you do not believe this we will never have any common ground---it is difficult to even debate on an issue when you don't believe the Bible is the standard. You are off base in my opinion and we will have to agree to disagree because I refuse to blatantly ignore scripture.

Because people in this country have fundamental rights. Did you know until 1967 many states had laws in their Constitution banning inter-racial marriages involving white people?

 

I've argued this point ad nauseum in another thread. Speaking just in civil terms, w/ no religious overtones involved, what LEGITIMAE state interest is promoted by banning same-sex marriage? Don't use religious rhetoric b/c that has no place when arguing civil ceremonies. How does it benefit the state to ban same-sex marriage?

 

 

The way I see it you are wanting the special rights for homosexuals to have wording changed in an area that a lot of people don't want. With a black man and a white woman marrying or vice versa we are still talking about a man and woman. So I guess we are just going to disagree on this issue.

Whether they should be or shouldn't be is another issue. If they weren't recognized civilly, then you would find that married couples would lose all the financial benefits that the government bestows on them. No benefits, no incentives from the Gov't because marriage doesn't exist..

A child tax credit would make sense.

Also, 2 consenting brothers incestually? No. You can differentiate the incest laws b/c you are banning it for everyone. Here you are not, you are discriminating against a group solely on sexual orientation.

Two potential situations:

 

1) Say I am sexually oriented only towards family members. Would I be discriminated against?

 

2) Say I wanted to marry my brother, but for non-incestual reasons. We live together and want to tax benefits, but have no sexual relationship. Shall we get married?

 

This may be heading off topic, if so, I apologize.

The way I see it you are wanting the special rights for homosexuals to have wording changed in an area that a lot of people don't want. With a black man and a white woman marrying or vice versa we are still talking about a man and woman. So I guess we are just going to disagree on this issue.

 

What is the special right being granted to them? That you can't discriminate against them b/c they are homosexual? Isn't that the basic gist of laws governing everyone, that you can't discriminate based upon some characteristic? I think, if anything, its sad that you have to put this into actual law. I mean, we as Christians should be tolerant of everyone, right?

A child tax credit would make sense.

 

Two potential situations:

 

1) Say I am sexually oriented only towards family members. Would I be discriminated against?

 

2) Say I wanted to marry my brother, but for non-incestual reasons. We live together and want to tax benefits, but have no sexual relationship. Shall we get married?

 

This may be heading off topic, if so, I apologize.

 

Part I. A child tax credit, but why? That would give incentive to people to have as many kids as they can. Isn't that already part of the problem with welfare?

 

Part II.

1. You would not be discriminated against if the law is equal across the board. If the law said, nobody can get married, then homosexuals would have no gripe.

 

2. Here is why incest will survive an attack on Constitutional grounds.

It does not violate anyone's equal protection rights because incest is outlawed against men and women. That's the difference, and it is a major one.

I know that everyone's counter argument is that, well, the law today is the same against men and women, noone can marry someone of the same sex.

 

The answer to that is, and once it is proven it will totally turn this whole thing on its ear, state courts are starting to recognize that sexual orientation is ingrained in the person. Don't take my word for it read Commonwealth v. Wasson and go to the end of the Court's opinion and remember, the Kentucky Supreme Court wrote that 16 years ago.

What is the special right being granted to them? That you can't discriminate against them b/c they are homosexual? Isn't that the basic gist of laws governing everyone, that you can't discriminate based upon some characteristic? I think, if anything, its sad that you have to put this into actual law. I mean, we as Christians should be tolerant of everyone, right?

 

It is my view a marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred act that should not be expanded upon. I don't believe that makes me intolerant of homosexuals.