Being Gay and Same Sex Marriages......Huh !

[Flackle]

The only Non-God anti same sex marriage arguments I have heard are fatally flawed. Their arguments all place procedure over progress.

@Flackle: When I was saying that laws defining marriage as being between two people of the opposite sex was not directly against homosexuals getting married, was to point out the difference between a law having a disparate impact upon a group versus being completely against a particular group. For example, most states disallow felons from voting. It could be argued that in a particular state, since the majority of the felon population is of a minority race, that the law is against minorities. But this is not accurate... Even though the minorities will be disparately impacted by such a law doesn't mean that the law is truly against minorities, and thus is not a civil rights issue of racial discrimination. Likewise defining marriage as being between a man and a woman has a disparate impact on homosexuals, esp. since in the general sense of the term people marry someone they are in love with, but is not necessarily discriminatory against homosexuals from getting married, as long as they follow that it is with someone of the opposite sex.

So... Because these laws do not "directly" ban homosexuals from marrying one another, and only ban homosexuals from marrying one another as a consequence, then they are okay? Most laws that exist have unintended consequences. That doesn't make them right. The fact remains, unintended consequences are just as important as the intended consequences of a law, and those unintended consequences should be treated with just as much scrutiny. I already agreed that the federal government cannot improve this situation, and it should remain a states right issue. I already agreed that the federal government need not intervene (I never stated it was a civil rights issue, just a issue on human rights in general. I am frivolously for the separation of church and state, and any case where the government starts dictating anything about any specific religion then I call it a human rights issue).

It's up to us and the states to realize that we should not have laws running religious ceremonies. By that, I mean we should not have laws the specifically ban certain individuals from certain religious ceremonies, especially when that banning has no bearing on any other laws. Its obvious we should ban ceremonies that sacrifice humans (Being that murder is illegal in all other aspects of life), but we should have laws banning people of the opposite sex (Being that there is no other legitimate reason to ban the opposite sex in doing anything else).

If people (and churches) want to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only, that's fine. It's not the government's job to do that for them (and thus, in affect, for everyone else).

The government should only be defining the terms for unions between people (civil or otherwise). And if they want to ban people of the opposite gender when it comes to those unions, they better have a good reason. They'd have too, since they could no longer hide behind religious reasons.

[tammypete]

At one time this country went along with the founding fathers as marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.....Since this world has become so corrupt that is no longer the case.....And someone said something about a FREE country!!!!  Wake up!!! The government is trying to control everything.....Just as of yesterday the new thing is to control our kids since parents aren't doing too good of a job!!!

[Flackle]

At one time this country went along with the founding fathers as marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.....Since this world has become so corrupt that is no longer the case.....And someone said something about a FREE country!!!!  Wake up!!! The government is trying to control everything.....Just as of yesterday the new thing is to control our kids since parents aren't doing too good of a job!!!

The government is trying to control everything, isn't it? In this case, the government is trying to control others by telling them they cannot marry or enter into certain contracts only because that other person is of the opposite gender. The founding fathers might have supported marriage as only being between a man and a woman, but where in the constitution did they ban such a marriage? It's not there because they realized it's not the governments job to define such things. Although they themselves where quite religious, they also supported our freedom to choose one religion over another. They also realize that by banning marriage between a man and a woman (solely for religious reasons) we are infringing on that freedom of religion. Its unfortunate that those running state governments don't see it this way. The idea of marriage is not restricted to only Christianity.

[lvstephanie]

I also agree, Flackle, that states better have a very good reason for banning same-sex marriage other than religious ones. If, say, North Dakota wants to ban same-sex marriage based on the premise that they have a low population and want to provide benefits to heterosexual couples to increase their population, then perhaps... But then they may want to consider banning marriages of people over the age of 65, since they too would not lend in procreation.

As for homosexuals civil rights (esp. having the right to associate with whomever you want to in any consenting way they want to associate), I applaud the Virginia courts a few weeks ago in striking down the state's attorney general Ken Cuccinelli's request to re-examine the now unconstitutional Virginia's anti-sodomy law. This request came out after a 47 year old man had a 17 year old girl sodomize him. Although the case that Cuccinelli was talking about was heterosexual in nature, he has been known as a strong social conservative and so many critics saw that he was trying to make an end-around and use this to ban homosexual relations as well. The courts re-stated the Texas vs. Lawrence decision, saying that sodomy is not the issue, but rather the age of the girl. So while sodomy in general is still legal, there may be a case for the legislature in that state to issue an anti-sodomy with a minor law (to coincide more with their sexual consent laws).

[sigmapi1501]

At one time this country went along with the founding fathers as marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.....Since this world has become so corrupt that is no longer the case.....And someone said something about a FREE country!!!!  Wake up!!! The government is trying to control everything.....Just as of yesterday the new thing is to control our kids since parents aren't doing too good of a job!!!

Are you by any change wearing a tin foil hat right now?