Homosexual Marriage

[Sunbelt]

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
that is the relevant part of the 14th amendment he is referencing

Too vague. Cohabitation is a natural right; civil marriage is a privilege
granted and restricted by law.

[Synalon Etuul]

Too vague. Cohabitation is a natural right; civil marriage is a privilege
granted and restricted by law.

Are you in some way trying to claim that because marriage is a 'privilege' it is justifiable to deny it to homosexuals? I think you should unpack your reasoning a little more.

[brendand]

Too vague. Cohabitation is a natural right; civil marriage is a privilege granted and restricted by law.

The law explicitly disagrees with you.

From the Supreme Court ruling on Loving v. Virginia (emphasis added by me):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

But I am also very interested in hearing why, even if it was considered a privilege, you think it should not be extended to homosexuals.

[spfldnet]

The original intent of marriage was the merging of families and/or tribes as a means of peace-making, gathering strength in numbers and access to resources. It was a contractual agreement between parents and/or leaders. The strongest symbol of their bond just happened to be sexual reproduction.

Over time, the meaning and value of marriage evolved into an expression of love and sexual desire rather than economic strength and stability between a man and a woman, which became disastrous as far, far too many more children were produced than could be managed.

It was determined that this was beneficial for industry as an over-supply of labor drove down the cost of labor, so promotion of marriage as a driver of reproduction was heavily marketed. It kept women pregnant and in the kitchen. Their lives and their expectations would be lowered for such a long time that it seemed normal. It was a way of controlling women.

Now all of the sudden people of the same sex are getting married, which means they will combine their resources and be stronger together. They are a threat to the institutions that for so-long have benefited from the masses that drove themselves into marriage and consequently poverty due to too many children which drain resources and drive families into debt.

[An American 1st]

Homosexuality is a freedom of choice but it is not a God designed institution. Marrige is about family and family is a physical concept even though the term is often used in many other ways. So surrogate mother is the real mother of the child with gay caretakers.

[Primum non nocere]

Homosexuality is a freedom of choice but it is not a God designed institution.

It has been said many times before, but if homosexuality is a choice than so is heterosexuality.

Marrige is about family and family is a physical concept even though the term is often used in many other ways. So surrogate mother is the real mother of the child with gay caretakers.

Are you suggesting that famlies can only exist among blood-relatives? I would call that a denial of reality. Parents especially come in all shapes and sizes.

[An American 1st]

It has been said many times before, but if homosexuality is a choice than so is heterosexuality.


Are you suggesting that famlies can only exist among blood-relatives? I would call that a denial of reality. Parents especially come in all shapes and sizes.

You're right heterosexuality is a choice like everything in life is but it is within the confines of God's intended design and purpose for mankind. He prefered beings of choice to choose to love Him, not instinctive robots.

[An American 1st]

Are you suggesting that famlies can only exist among blood-relatives? I would call that a denial of reality. Parents especially come in all shapes and sizes.

Yes only after tragedy or unfaithfulness do other definitions of family spring up. Some are noble and good alternatives. But the intended structure of a mother and a father as the leaders and nurturers of their children is healthy and best thing. This should be the initial and first aim though bad things happen.

[RickSp]

Homosexuality is a freedom of choice but it is not a God designed institution. Marrige is about family and family is a physical concept even though the term is often used in many other ways. So surrogate mother is the real mother of the child with gay caretakers.

Thanks sharing your religious views with us. Why should they have anything to do with the question of whether all should have equal rights an protection under the law?

Unlike you, tolerance is one of my family's values.

[An American 1st]

Thanks sharing your religious views with us. Why should they have anything to do with the question of whether all should have equal rights an protection under the law?

Unlike you, tolerance is one of my family's values.

We disagree, you are intolerant of my views in the same way I am of yours. This is supposedly a free Country.

[Cruella]

Stick to debating the topic, please.

[do not respond]

[Derach]

Homosexuality is a freedom of choice but it is not a God designed institution. Marrige is about family and family is a physical concept even though the term is often used in many other ways. So surrogate mother is the real mother of the child with gay caretakers.

Actually, neither is marriage a 'God designed institution', but (like homosexuality) a lifestyle choice.

Nothing is a 'god designed institution' except maybe heaven, hell and purgutory ... but since their existence is only going to be unveiled upon our death, those concepts really have no place in logical debate.

And who cares if the child of gay caretakers have a surrogate mother or not? What does that have to do with whether any two people have the right to marry or whether the state has the right to limit those choices? 'God' has blessed tons and tons of marriages that have ended in divorce, abuse and murder. Just because 'God' (your particular interpretation of him, no less) has forbidden a lifestyle choice doesn't mean you get to impose that on everyone else. Only means you should obey your perception of Gods will in your own life.

Just like abortions. Don't like 'em, don't have em. Don't want gays to marry ... don't marry one. But you have NO right to impose those values on someone else.