Gay Marriage debate.
O'Reilly ended the argument last night. The control freaks that make up with evangelical right have absolutely nothing to argue with when you take the bible out of the equation. Hopefully the SCOTUS has the balls to follow the Constitution and declare DOMA, prop 8, and all of the other anti gay marriage laws unconstitutional and be done with it.
O'Reilly: Gay Rights Advocates Have 'Compelling Argument' - YouTube
Listen to the oral arguments of the SC from Hollingsworth v. Perry. They are thoroughly slaughtering the proponents of prop 8. LOL
I've heard several sound bites from both the DOMA case and the Prop 8 case. There simply is no non religious argument against it. The only biological arguments against gay marriage have been solved by means of adoption, surrogates, and artificial insemination.Originally Posted by .blank cd
Oh and I listened to Andrea Tanteros interview the guy Meghan Kelly and O'Reilly were talking about and his arguments were even worse than your average Sinfix argument. The guy was actually claiming that hiring gays violates business owners' rights to religious freedom.
fixed.
I have yet to see a common sense argument against gay marriage. You will have to point one out to me.
Marriage is nothing more then a life long contract. Who cares whos fucking who? I'm sure there are far more better things these jack asses could be arguing about. The bible and marriage is both equally stupid but that's another subject.
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2
<3 Catnipples
But if this is a thread trying to justify BO or the Oreiley factory as a legitimate source of info, I'm still gonna go with no. O'Reiley himself is a pretty rational man, he ended a show the other day with Christians writing in and grilling him on his interpretation of the bible, and he closed with how the bible is largely allegorical and how it shouldn't be taken literally. I will give him a couple extra respect points though for being rational and quelling the narrative on that show just a little. The Stewart/O'Reiley debate is the same way. When the Faux cameras aren't on him, he is an entirely different person.
O'Reiley as an informed man off camera I can tolerate. He's still gotta bring it down a notch, but I'll chock that up to having to go where the paycheck is.
I will never understand why anyone is against gay marriage, even if you're religious, why is it your business? It's not your job to prevent someone from "sinning."
If I wanted to go marry Sinfix I should legally be allowed to, it will not hurt anyone.
Just a few questions
Should someone be allowed to marry their horse? or relative? if not, why?
Would you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?
If priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?
Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not?
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 03-28-2013 at 07:54 PM.
Should someone be allowed to marry their horse? or relative? if not, why?
A horse is not a person. It's an animal, so no. I don't see the relation. A relative, no, why? Because there are far more medical risks with incest than what you can get from "gay sex."
Would you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?
Absolutely. There were many couples in my high school of the same sex and not once did it bother me. It's not like gays openly show their affection for one another more than a heterosexual couple.
If priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?
Yes, that's their own decision and they should have the right to refuse marrying a same sex couple. At that point, it can be a religious debate, the couple should be able to be married at a courthouse however without any judging or refusal.
Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not?
If there's laws about hiring different races and what not, then homosexuals should be in the mix as well. That's discrimination. If there isn't a law, then I guess it can be up to the business owner.
I dont disagree with any of that, just curious to people's response.
You say incest marriage should not be allowed because of medical risks. Condoms? abortion? birth control?
Should retarded people be allowed to get married? should anyone else with medical limitation be refused marriage?
Condoms, abortion, and birth control don't work for people who don't want babies now, why would they work for people that married a family member?
Are retarded people currently not allowed to get married? I think the point you're making is they could produce more mentally challenged people?
So if i get a vesectomy, should i be allowed to marry my sister?
I have no point, just trying to define the perimeters of marriage, if there are any. Is reproduction the primary reason for marriage? if not, why does incest matter? if reproduction is the primary reason, how does that apply to homosexuals?
This same stupid argument. If you really think its worth an answer, I will give you one thats on a equal intellectual plane as the question. Laws will still be there.
Gay isnt contagious so I cant foresee any problems with a gay couple no matter where they happen to be.
As already mentioned, this is where religion belongs. A church has every right to refuse to marry a gay couple as it does go against their doctrine. That is an example of religious freedom.
Of course not, its called discrimination. The bookstore isnt a religious organization, it is an independent business. If the bookstore is an actual part of the church, you have a very different argument.
Now that I have answered your questions, you can answer mine.
Why should gays not be given the same privilege of marriage, and all the benefits that come with it, that straight couples get?
It is in Hollywood.....
It's a difficult one to prove, and only a case or two each year settles for the person being discriminated against.
Currently, it is illegal in GA, so you will have to change the Georgia Constitution first, which is unlikely, considering the DOMA was just passed in 2004.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I've never once said they shouldnt..... i've stated i support gay rights many times. I think gays should be allowed to be legally married, but i also value the christian interpretation of marriage which also happens to be the traditional american view on marriage. I personally dont think the government should have anything to do with marriages period, but since they do..... it's not their business to uphold the laws of religion. Gays should be allowed to marry and receive the same benefit as anyone else. I would encourage religious institutions to continue forbidding it and priests to refuse to marry gay couples. I support gay rights at the same time as supporting religious rights, it's hard to make one side happy without offending the other side. If forced to pick a side, id probably cast a vote in favor of religion.
gay isnt contagious..... debatable.
Should someone be allowed to marry their horse? or relative? if not, why?- NO
Would you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?- YES
If priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?- YES
Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not? - NO
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Going to get knee deep in this when I get home.
Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.
I dont care what gay people do and am fine with them having equal rights as everyone else. The religious sanctity of marriage is a laughable. The biblical interpretation of marriage is so far lost that it's pointless to even bother holding on to it. If christians care so much about the religious institution of marriage, then quit allowing divorce and quit remarrying people who have been divorced. Marriage is a contract between two people. Historically, that contract has been for the exclusive right to have sex with that person. My guess would be that it started for the purpose of being able to identify your own children, prior to have a scientific method for that. However you chose to interpret marriage, its a contract between two people. A contract between two people is the business of the two people making that contract. The government should have no say in this issue outside of recognizing it.
If i ever have kids, i will tell them that being gay is wrong.
So if you aren't religious...how is being gay "wrong?"
Religion is not the only moral compass.
Well then enlighten me, because I don't understand how anyone would oppose it unless religion was the reason, then I disagree, but it's the only thing that has any base to it, stupid and worthless base, but a reason.
Not being able to answer "why not" is not always a reason to do something. I dont believe people should teach their kids that theyre going to burn in hell if they sin, but they have the freedom to teach it.
If my son came to me and told me he was gay, i would hug him, tell him it was ok.... wait for him to leave the house...... probably cry and think about shooting myself..... then get over it, move on and never let it bother me again. Not something i would obsess over, but not something i would encourage.
Ideally, my son or daughter will find a matching color of the opposite sex to fall in love with. If they dont, that's their business and i'll support them and be happy for them.
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 03-28-2013 at 08:40 PM.
A horse, a dog, your toaster, your beer is not a consenting adult, and thus can not enter into a legally binding contract.
1st cousin marriages are permitted in many states.
YesWould you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?
sure, as long as they abide by existing non-discrimination lawsIf priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?
This violates existing non-discrimination laws.Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not?
Fair enough on the contractual part of it.
What about sister, mother, brother ect..... theyre consenting adults... if it makes someone happy why not? And if you object to it, what are the guidelines for not allowing it?
Why do you keep asking these questions but won't answer mine.
What about homosexuals, they're consenting adults... if it makes someone happy why not? And if you object to it, what are the guidelines for not allowing it?
I dont want to prevent gay people from being legally married. I would prefer to do so in a way that also accommodates religious tradition. Our government has no business upholding religious "laws", in the eyes of the law... marriage is a contract between consenting adults, and gay people should be allowed that right.
I do not want to prevent gay people from being legally married but At the same time, i respect the church's right to refuse wedding them. In any situation, i value freedom. I do not agree with being gay, i think being gay is a choice... ect ect ect but i still respect their freedom and rights.
Gotcha
My reason for not being opposed to same sex marriages or relationships is because I do believe many are born that way. I have some gay friends that I never doubted to be gay before they came out. A girl that gets drunk at a party and makes out with girls or goes rebel like and calls herself a lesbian is not the same. If my kid is gay, he or she can be gay, I'd never push them to be "normal" because the only "normal" is being who you are. Trying to govern someones own personal choices and feelings is like trying to control an act of God, you won't win.
That's not to say I would encourage being gay or anything like that, I would let them figure it out on their own.
Holy shit... I agree with every word you just posted.
The end is nigh.
Marriage licenses are issued per the state regulations through the county probate court. Each state has the responsibility of establishing who can get enter into a binding contract in their state. This should not be a federal issue, unless we are going to remove marriage licenses from being issued from the county courthouses, and move them to the federal courthouses.
In GA in 2004, voters specifically passed a constitutional amendment blocking gay marriage. This amendment should be revoked at the state level if any legislation is to be passed for GA to recognize gay marriage. Federal law does not regulate the issuance of marriage licenses.
Marriage ceremonies that are held by religious institutions are symbolic, and are not legal binding contracts without a state issued marriage license. While officiates can be clergy or ordained ministers, it can just as easily be a Justice of the Peace, and hence, no religious connotation is needed over a marriage.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
This has to be a federal issue because of mobility. If a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts and they decide to move to GA, are they no longer married? When the Constitution was written, mobility wasnt much of an issue as most people lived their entire lives in a pretty small area. That isnt the case today so the US needs 1 set of laws to cover this.
You are correct and I agree. How binding is that though? I understand that the way the ruling is written has a lot to do with this, but if the SCOTUS rules that DOMA and Prop 8 are unconstitutional do all of the other states' anti gay marriage laws fall also or do they need to be challenged independently? Could GA be forced to recognize gay marriages even though they do not issue marriage licenses?
Not at all.
Marriage licenses in the United States fall under the jurisdiction of the state in which the ceremony is performed; however, the marriage is generally recognized across the country through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." In some instances, as is the case with same-sex marriages, other states may not recognize a marriage license from another state. The state in which they are married holds the record of that marriage. This has been going on a long time and you are suggesting that the federal government remove the rights of the states and place them in the hands of the federal government. That's typically a bad idea for most issues, and directly tells the majority of the people in this state that their beliefs are worthless.
Do you think that the Federal Government should have the power to nullify a state constitution? If so, why even have a state government. Just place every aspect of government under the federal government.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I was referring to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. IF GA isnt going to honor a marriage contract from Ma, what is stopping Ma from not honoring a child support ruling from GA? Full Faith and Credit needs to be honored universally or it needs to be amended out of the Constitution. The states cannot decide on their own which clauses of the Constitution they want to follow. It is an all or nothing proposition.
The federal govt would not be nullifying a state constitution or even a part of it. The SCOTUS would be nullifying the amendment outlawing gay marriage as unconstitutional, which is what they are supposed to be doing. This is why I asked if it was possible that GA is forced recognize same sex marriages performed in other states, even if they cannot be forced to issue marriage licenses or have them performed here.
FF&C is utilized mainly in law enforcement and judgments, not civil unions.
As for its application in records of marriage, it has precedent. Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage certificates issued in other states. The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.
Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed laws (9 states) and constitutional amendments (30 states) that define marriage as consisting solely of different-sex couples. Most explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. That's a LOT more than half of the states expressly addressing gay marriage.
Nine states have allowed gay marriage - Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington. Do you think that Washington, DC, and these 9 states should overrule the state amendments of over 30 states? What kind of "United STATES" is that?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I posted this months, if not a year ago. I believe we were in agreement.
Marriage is a states rights issue, it should be decided per state since they are the ones issuing the marriage licenses.
Religion has NOTHING to do with it, religious ceremonies are not binding.
Sexual preference is NOT a civil right.
We should not be providing tax breaks or credits to people with families, regardless of sexuality.
/convo
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
you've got my vote.
I'll add to the religion debate about people fearing hell or punishment.
I was raised quite simply. Neither of my parents were very religious, we didn't go to church, I believed in God for one reason or the other, I didn't know details, but believed there was a God, I never feared hell. I was raised to respect people. I have not ONCE feared a decision would send me to hell but rather fear a decision may hurt someone, make me look bad, etc. If I was to go rob someone, I wouldn't fear hell, I'd feel guilty. My parents shared thoughts of heaven, also believed in god in some way shape or form, but I was never told to go to church or read the bible. I decided to start going to church when I was 17, quit going, go randomly now. I don't like a lot of what a modern day large church has to offer.
I think people have morals, non religious based morals. The way some act for example if the bible was proved to be fake, everyone would let out a sigh of relief then start killing and doing whatever they please. I don't see that as the case. The bible doesn't make people nice, fear of punishment doesn't make people nice, people can just be nice. Some may make decisions on religious punishment but I don't see that as holding the world together.
I know MANY who go to church and according to what they believe, sin left and right, then judge others for something else. Many people dislike church goers because of how many can be completely contradicting to their own beliefs.
/Rant. lol
What's the reasoning behind it being illegal?
The bible says so.
I got into a little tussle with a bible thumping friend of mine over this today. He just couldnt get his head around the fact that social conservatives want a stronger, more authoritarian police state like govt than even the most liberal liberals. They really do want full control over who you love, how you love, and what you do with your body.
Posting Permissions
