Homosexual Marriage

[RickSp]

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

Exactly. we are discussing civil, not religious marriage. Marriage as an institution has developed over the centuries and it continues to develop.

[An American 1st]

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.

The state allows things but official recognition of this is up to the people, this is a democracy.

[Derach]

The state allows things but official recognition of this is up to the people, this is a democracy.

Actually, the state prohibits things. Everything is allowed unless there is regulation limiting it. And the US is not a democracy. If it were, civil rights wouldn't exist, womens' rights wouldn't exist, most labor laws wouldn't exist, social services as we know them wouldn't exist, and much more.

[Sunbelt]

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.

I'm saying that gay marriage is not legally recognized in the overwhleming majority of US States, therefore, it's justifiable to deny marriage to homosexuals.

[Sunbelt]

The law explicitly disagrees with you.

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


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.

Loving v. Virgina was a "Race" issue, not a "Homosexual" issue. Your argument is irrelevant.

[The Decider]

Loving v. Virgina was a "Race" issue, not a "Homosexual" issue. Your argument is irrelevant.

Yes, Loving v. Virginia is about interracial marriage, but the 14th Amendment that was used to overturn Virginia's marriage law has relevance to state marriage laws in general. The 14th Amendment grants to US citizens the following protections:

• No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens.
• No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law."
• No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."

You will notice the explicit mention of "state." No "state" can abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens. Most states are doing just that when they prohibit gay marriage while allowing for heterosexual marriage. The case has simply not come before the US Supreme Court--yet.

You will also notice the Bill of Rights language, "life, liberty, or property." States that deny gays the liberty of marrying their partners without "due process of law" are violating the US Constitution.

And if gays are denied the liberty to marry, they are treated differently from heterosexual couples and are therefore denied "equal protection of the laws."

Loving v. Virginia, and the 14th Amendment that underpins it, has immense relevance to this debate.

[RickSp]

The state allows things but official recognition of this is up to the people, this is a democracy.

Actually, what you describe is mob rule.

As a point of fact, a majority of people in America already support gay marriage.

Majority of Americans support gay marriage in poll

[RickSp]

Loving v. Virgina was a "Race" issue, not a "Homosexual" issue. Your argument is irrelevant.

LOL. "Loving v. Virgina" was a question of basic individual liberty, just like gay marriage. Your argument is incoherent.

[An American 1st]

Actually, the state prohibits things. Everything is allowed unless there is regulation limiting it. And the US is not a democracy. If it were, civil rights wouldn't exist, womens' rights wouldn't exist, most labor laws wouldn't exist, social services as we know them wouldn't exist, and much more.

Yes they would. All of those things were done in a democratic way. But let marriage be its own issue as it is. And as it is, seeing that homosexuality is not a state of personhood but of behavior, it is within to debateable arena of societal will. As to whether it is detrimental to the quality of the family and society altogether. Like drugs and other things. Now we have already decided long ago that heterosexual is a positive right thing to recognize as marriage for more than just love alone. But we haven't with the other. I will use my freedom of speech to convince our gov. to keep the iconoclast purpose as it is.

[The Decider]

I will use my freedom of speech to convince our gov. to keep the iconaclass purpose as it is.

Thankfully, a growing majority of Americans are using their freedom of speech to support gay marriage.

Majority of Americans support gay marriage in poll

[Jack]

...seeing that homosexuality is not a state of personhood but of behavior...

As far as I know medical and biological science is still unsure of the exact origin of homosexuality. Your presumption is not a matter of fact.

Worse for your argument, if homosexuality is simply behavior than, too, is heterosexuality. Both are aspects of sexual orientation.

[An American 1st]

Loving v. Virgina was a "Race" issue, not a "Homosexual" issue. Your argument is irrelevant.

You're right one is an issue personhood and the other is of behavior. Behavior and its perceived effects is debatable and not a right unless that is agreed to