Is Banning Gay Marriage Constitutional?

[Ockham]

I do not need you telling me what to focus on and will oppose what I wish.

And I imagine a Homosexual would tell you that they don't need you telling them who they can, and cannot marry. You didn't like me telling you what to "focus on" on an internet forum which has no affect on your personal life, but don't mind stepping into someone elses personal life and actually affecting it in a major way.

You can certainly oppose what you wish, but in this case it seems that you're opposing the constitution.

Then prepare yourself for what's to come. If you allow homosexuals to marry, then by your own argument you cannot stop any consenting individuals from marrying. That must include incestuous relationships, polygamy, minors, etc. Anything less will constitute a violation of civil rights.

You presume too much, I have no problem with polygamy, minors cannot give legal consent, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by "etc." but I'll mention that animals cannot give consent either just as a safeguard.

The desensitization of the homsexual world is very much real. It is an active agenda by this group. As far as the less and less resistance to interracial pairs, that was a forced issue by the government too. I am all for to each his own, but there are many, many people that still have a problem with interracial marriages. Same goes for this issue, but to an even greater degree. If acceptance happens in society for this group it will take longer than the bridging of the racial divide, which by many accounts is still a chasm.

Chasm? Which accounts point to interacial marriage being that? Interacial marriage, like Christianity, enjoys the support of around 80% of our population.

 

[D-DAY]

You presume too much, I have no problem with polygamy, minors cannot give legal consent, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by "etc." but I'll mention that animals cannot give consent either just as a safeguard.



Chasm? Which accounts point to interacial marriage being that? Interacial marriage, like Christianity, enjoys the support of around 80% of our population.

Minors can give consent if they meet the age requirement. IIRC 16 and 17 years of age are legal ages of consent in many many states. Denying them marriage at these ages would be a violation or their rights.

"etc." simply meant anything I may have left out that fits.

I notice you didn't comment on the incestuous relationships. So it it ok for a son to marry a mother, a father a daughter, or a sister a brother???

Re-read my post. It says the "racial divide" is a chasm, not interracial marriage. The interracial acceptance numbers have changed drastically in the last 50 years due to many reasons such as government intervention, social desensitization, pc bias, and probably many other reasons. But realistically, asking someone if they approve or disapprove of interracial marriage is pretty much like asking them point blank "Are you a racist?" It's a loaded question. I just don't see people answering truthfully. But that's just my assessment of the 07' Gallup Poll.

 

[Ockham]

Minors can give consent if they meet the age requirement. IIRC 16 and 17 years of age are legal ages of consent in many many states. Denying them marriage at these ages would be a violation or their rights.

People got married that young, and probably a tad bit younger back 50, 60, and 70 years ago. If some states have the legal age of consent set at that age, then go for it.

I notice you didn't comment on the incestuous relationships. So it it ok for a son to marry a mother, a father a daughter, or a sister a brother???

It would be unfair to a child born from incestuous parents.

Re-read my post. It says the "racial divide" is a chasm, not interracial marriage. The interracial acceptance numbers have changed drastically in the last 50 years due to many reasons such as government intervention, social desensitization, pc bias, and probably many other reasons. But realistically, asking someone if they approve or disapprove of interracial marriage is pretty much like asking them point blank "Are you a racist?" It's a loaded question. I just don't see people answering truthfully. But that's just my assessment of the 07' Gallup Poll.

Gay marriage polls are heading that way also, I believed the last poll I saw had approval in the low-mid 40's. I think our society is simply being more accepting, thats my assessment.

 

[CloudStrife]

I think of it this way. Jesus didn't go around enforcing his teachings on anyone. When a person's actions affect things outside of themselves, then he took action, as he did with the salesmen in the temple. He allowed people to choose. Those who rejected him went on their way, and he went on his. In a similar way, I express my beliefs by my words and actions. I don't twist any wrists. In most cases, the way a person lives naturally has a way of attracting others of similar beliefs while distancing them from people they don't agree with.

Incestuous relationships can be banned on the basis that they can result in birth defects.

Personally, I'm tolerant of gays, but I don't accept it with open arms. I wouldn't want my kids taught about it like it's normal. It's unnatural. But as long as it's not thrown in my face, I really don't care.

 

[charliepapa]

Personally, I'm tolerant of gays, but I don't accept it with open arms. I wouldn't want my kids taught about it like it's normal. It's unnatural. But as long as it's not thrown in my face, I really don't care.

This is why you SHOULD care. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth and apparently don't even realize it. What's "normal" is for a man and a woman to marry. It's natural. If gay marriage (which you agree is unnatural) is legalized, it will become more prevalent and *in your face*. It will be out there for the whole world to see, including your kids.

 

[D-DAY]

It would be unfair to a child born from incestuous parents.

You cannot discriminate against them based on the assumption that there will be offspring. Not to bring race back into this, but I believe a local elected official was just forced to resign for statements made to this effect, although they were about interracial offspring.

 

[CEHollier]

And I imagine a Homosexual would tell you that they don't need you telling them who they can, and cannot marry. You didn't like me telling you what to "focus on" on an internet forum which has no affect on your personal life, but don't mind stepping into someone elses personal life and actually affecting it in a major way.

The shoe can be on the other foot. Christians oppose homosexual marriages because the next step will be forcing churches to marry gays even though it goes against the principles of the church. Marry gays or lose tax exemption status. Preach against homosexuality and it is hate speech with possible jail time. The gay marriage movement is part of a bigger picture. Homosexuals want their lifestyle to be accepted as normal. They are trying to use laws to do this.

 

[CloudStrife]

This is why you SHOULD care. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth and apparently don't even realize it. What's "normal" is for a man and a woman to marry. It's natural. If gay marriage (which you agree is unnatural) is legalized, it will become more prevalent and *in your face*. It will be out there for the whole world to see, including your kids.

The slippery slope reasoning goes only so far. Homosexuality is already in tv shows and movies. In fact, allowing them to file a few papers at the court house might make them shut the hell up.

Sexual immorality is legal and prevalent, but aren't people still able to shield themselves and their children from it?

The shoe can be on the other foot. Christians oppose homosexual marriages because the next step will be forcing churches to marry gays even though it goes against the principles of the church. Marry gays or lose tax exemption status. Preach against homosexuality and it is hate speech with possible jail time. The gay marriage movement is part of a bigger picture. Homosexuals want their lifestyle to be accepted as normal. They are trying to use laws to do this.

That would be a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[CEHollier]

One conservatives view.

http://www.rachelmarsden.com/columns/gaymarriage2.html

Swallowing the Gay Marriage Agenda

Rachel Marsden
“Deep Throat” isn’t just the nickname of the supposed source in the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon. It also describes what North Americans are being forced to do with the leftist gay marriage agenda. The notion of ‘equality’ is being used rampantly to leverage attacks on the traditional definition of marriage through the court system in both Canada and the USA.

Equality can be overrated. Flat-chested women have no business working at Hooters Restaurants, because Hooters with A cups is basically just Denny’s. Young children shouldn’t hold down 9-to-5 jobs. Kids who took the short bus to school and were forced to wear those special platform shoes back when they weren’t actually hip shouldn’t be allowed to practice neurosurgery, even though denying them the opportunity to do so could be considered discriminatory on the basis of mental disability. If a bus pulls up to the curb and the driver is clutching the steering wheel with his teeth because he doesn’t have any hands or feet, then I’m sorry, but physical discrimination or not, I’ll be walking to work. I don't want Mr. Itchy-Scratchy who has a visibly bad case of dandruff flaking out all over my steak at a five-star restaurant. And the list goes on.

Discriminating against gays when it comes to marriage would also be a wise move. Various studies have shown that children from non-traditional families--lacking either a mother or a father’s influence--are more likely to attempt suicide, drop out of high school, commit crime, run away from home, or become teen parents. When society picks up the bill, then it also ought to be able to make the rules.

But it’s not generally the gay community that’s whining about not being able to marry. Gays comprise a very small segment of the population, and they’re not clamoring to have their relationships legitimized through a religious institution such as marriage, when religion has, and always will, consider their lifestyle to be sinful.

One of the few reasons ever given for why gays would actually want to marry is that they want “legal benefits”. According to the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) website, these benefits include access to family health and auto-insurance policies, family bereavement leave, and dependency benefits through worker’s compensation. They also want to marry so that they can drag each other through the court system in a messy divorce, just like straight people do.

This last reason actually provides the best justification for allowing gay marriage. Picture gay “Divorthe Court”, with singer/actress-turned-judge, Cher, deciding who gets the chaise lounge, the accent chair, the crock pot, and the Tom Cruise DVD collection. It’s hard to imagine gays wanting to sell out to an institution that has rebuffed them, just for the sake of cheap car insurance, a little time off, a few compo bucks, and legitimized access to Judge Judy and Jerry Springer.

Gays don’t want marriage for gays. Liberals do. The gay marriage agenda is only the latest attempt by leftist elites at social engineering and devaluing the concept of Holy Matrimony. The idea has been in the liberal playbook since the 1970s. Socialists hate the idea of traditional marriage, and prefer the ‘common property’ model exemplified by Bill and Hillary Clinton. It’s a marriage that “takes a village”--not to raise a child, but to figure out which floozy Bill has been busy banging behind Hillary’s back on his morning McMuffin errands. Having a respectful, loyal husband is 'patriarchal', unless of course you’re ‘progressive’ enough to allow him to openly cheat on you and totally disrespect you however he pleases while bragging to your friends about how hip your blasé attitude makes you. Apparently, that’s supposed to be far more empowering for women.

Gay marriage is a top-down shove, with little appetite for the notion being detected in the general public. This past November, voters in the USA passed eleven out of eleven marriage bans. In the most recent Canadian survey, only 39 percent of adults believe that gay unions ought to be recognized as fully equal to heterosexual marriages.

Neither these figures, nor a Canadian Supreme Court refusal to declare the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional, have discouraged Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin from wanting to shut down debate on the issue completely and ramming through his gay marriage agenda. For the very same reason that there shouldn’t yet be a federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage in the USA that would circumvent any further debate at the state level, the Canadian Prime Minister shouldn’t be imposing this legislation on the Canadian people without a full national debate and referendum. If a referendum was good enough for a little group of whiny, militant Quebec separatists in the early 90s, then it’s good enough for the whole country.

Unlike in America, where marriage is defined on a state-by-state basis, Canadian Parliament is constitutionally mandated to legally define the concept for the entire country. Once Parliament sets the law, no single province or territory can opt out of the legislation any more than they can with the Criminal Code. So far, over half of Canada’s provincial and territorial jurisdictions have legalized gay marriage through court decisions. Each one of these decisions has cited the equality provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Referendum Act of 1992 provides for referendums on the Constitution of Canada. It has already been used to determine how Canadians feel about the notion of Quebec being considered distinct from the rest of the country. And if all gay marriage opponents resided in the province of Quebec, you’d better believe that Paul Martin would be having one. But Martin is denying Canadians a debate and direct vote on gay marriage. His Justice Minister is saying, “You don't subject minority rights to a referendum. That's not what we do in Canada.” Oh, no! We can’t have anything resembling an actual democracy with majority rule in Soviet Canuckistan! What would Castro and Stalin think?

There is no excuse for the Canadian Prime Minister not to hold a referendum on the issue, unless he fears that his party’s attempt at social engineering would be met with far less support in the general population that he would like to think there is.

When there’s no real passion for change--as is the case with the gay marriage debate--people tend to gravitate to the status quo. A national referendum resulting in majority defeat of gay marriage would mean that Martin would be pressed to use the Notwithstanding Clause loophole of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to override court decisions legalizing gay marriage, or risk voter wrath in the next election for ignoring the will of the people. He would have to re-open the debate, and possibly even consider tabling legislation that is exempt from the provisions of the Charter in order to meet the demands of Canadians and protect the definition of marriage. It’s a result that every single Canadian who has any respect left for the institution of marriage ought to be fighting for. Right now, you still have a voice. Use it or lose it--unless you re cool with a bunch of socialists making up your mind for you.

Now isn’t the time to be tuning out of the marriage debate in North America. Take a look at where complacency has led thus far: Is marriage even an institution worth preserving anymore, with TV shows like “Who Wants to Marry My Midget Cousin” coupling off total strangers in less time than it typically takes to pick out a new pair of shoes? Defenders of traditional marriage obviously didn’t put up enough of a fight against the concept of quickie, no-fault divorce. As a result, people now switch spouses like Paris Hilton changes accessories. Is it really too much to let a couple of guys who like to engage in ‘naked sword fighting’ call themselves 'spouses' instead of just kinky roommates? If any of this actually matters, then it’s time to stop hitting the snooze bar, because at the end of your next 10 minute nap, you could very well be waking up to a whole new reality--courtesy of the very same people who successfully redefined the term “documentary filmmaker” to include Michael Moore.

 

[CloudStrife]

I still don't understand how laws define marriage. If your marriage is a religious one, then what do laws have to do with it?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I still don't understand how laws define marriage. If your marriage is a religious one, then what do laws have to do with it?

You religious types correct em if I am wrong, but the sacrament of marriage came first. because it was such an integral part of our predominantly Christian society, the government allowed for legal "benefits." it is such an ingrained condition of our society, that it most definitely has legal implications.

 

[CEHollier]

I still don't understand how laws define marriage. If your marriage is a religious one, then what do laws have to do with it?

It undermines the value of my heterosexual marriage. I percieve it as an attack on marriage. It (in my eyes) lessens, cheapens, and devalues the institution of marriage. What's next marrying children then divoricng them when they enter puberty. Marriage should be between a man and woman. Generally for the purpose of procreation to give a stable environment for children to instil morals and values for a stable productive society.

Is heterosexual marriage perfect? No. There are a lot of screwed up people out there. Crack and Meth are a cancer on society. Drugs are another assault on the family and marriage but that's for another post.

 

[CloudStrife]

It undermines the value of my heterosexual marriage. I percieve it as an attack on marriage. It (in my eyes) lessens, cheapens, and devalues the institution of marriage. What's next marrying children then divoricng them when they enter puberty. Marriage should be between a man and woman. Generally for the purpose of procreation to give a stable environment for children to instil morals and values for a stable productive society.

Since other people actions can devalue your marriage, does our high divorce rate do the same? Do people of other faiths devalue yours? Do other people's political views devalue yours?

 

[Ockham]

What's "normal" is for a man and a woman to marry. It's natural. If gay marriage (which you agree is unnatural) is legalized, it will become more prevalent and *in your face*. It will be out there for the whole world to see, including your kids.

Homosexuality is natural as well, like it or not its rampant in nature as many different species of animal participate in it.

Birth control is unnatural, but I don't see nearly as large of a push against that. Contacts and glasses are also unnatural. There are so many items we use in our everyday life that are "unnatural" yet we have no problem with them. If "unnatural" is bad, then people who believe that need to make a lot of changes in their lives.

You cannot discriminate against them based on the assumption that there will be offspring. Not to bring race back into this, but I believe a local elected official was just forced to resign for statements made to this effect, although they were about interracial offspring.

There is a difference between social pressures and physical disorders. Heterosexual same race couples often have children which have certain physical characteristics and get picked on for it. Atheist and Muslim couples that have children which grow up with their parents beliefs will probably meet social pressures among their peers, should we not allow them to marry? Again, social pressures are much different from almost guaranteed physical disorders.

The shoe can be on the other foot. Christians oppose homosexual marriages because the next step will be forcing churches to marry gays even though it goes against the principles of the church. Marry gays or lose tax exemption status. Preach against homosexuality and it is hate speech with possible jail time. The gay marriage movement is part of a bigger picture. Homosexuals want their lifestyle to be accepted as normal. They are trying to use laws to do this.

So your suggestion to avoid gays forcing their opinions on you is for you to continue to force your opinions on them? Sounds like you're doing the same thing.

Look at it this way: If there is a church that wants to marry two gay people, they cannot (in most states). So you'll get steamed and fight for the churches that don't want to be forced to marry two gay people but will stay silent or even support not allowing certain churches, that want to marry gay people, from marrying gay people.

It sounds like you aren't aiming for whats fair, you just want to have things your own way regardless of what fair is.

I say be fair. Allow them the right to marry, but don't take away a churches right to free speech.

It undermines the value of my heterosexual marriage. I percieve it as an attack on marriage. It (in my eyes) lessens, cheapens, and devalues the institution of marriage.

That's your opinion of this situation. As I am sure you are aware, you do not have the right to not be offended here in America. Gay marriage only undermines heterosexual marriage because *you* percieve it that way. I don't see gay marriage undermining my own marriage.

What if I felt that blacks voting undermined my own vote? (which I don't) I'd have to either change how I felt about the issue or suck it up and live with it.

What's next marrying children then divoricng them when they enter puberty.

I was actually hoping for some coherent arguments next, but I guess that is too much to ask for. You cannot marry children, they cannot give legal consent. Can we have a serious conversation please?

Marriage should be between a man and woman. Generally for the purpose of procreation to give a stable environment for children to instil morals and values for a stable productive society.

I don't think anyone is trying to outlaw heterosexual marriage, you can still have all of that.

 

[CloudStrife]

Homosexuality is natural as well, like it or not its rampant in nature as many different species of animal participate in it.

It's naturally occurring, but it goes against natural processes. I don't think it's accurate to compare sexual relations to eye glasses and birth control, which I consider to be a man-made path to a similar end found in nature (some people have good eyes, and a woman doesn't always ovulate). However, I don't think being natural or unnatural makes something right or wrong. Nature says survival of the fittest, while God tells us to love one another, so....

 

[Ockham]

It's naturally occurring, but it goes against natural processes.

If you see sex as purely for reproduction, then yes, but in nature sex isn't just used for reproduction. In some mammals, members of a group have sex for fun, with any gender of the same species. It's been shown to form strong bonds between all the members in the group.

Speaking of the natural process, oral sex or just using your hands does the same thing. Having an orgasm anywhere but within a woman's vagina is against the "natural process".

Humans as a whole have many different sexual fetishes, and I'd argue that most of them are go against the natrual process.

I don't think it's accurate to compare sexual relations to eye glasses and birth control, which don't have a defining precedent.

I think its accurate so long as the only criteria for the comparison is "unnatural". If you want to broaden the topic then I'm sure we'll find many qualities that both have which will push them further apart. But the issue is that some people think that homosexuality is unnatural and because it is unnatural its bad. If that's the line of reasoning, that unnatural things are bad, then there are a lot of things we need to change about our lives.

It cannot be that simple, the argument against homosexuality needs to be much deeper than "its unnatural".

 

[Cat]

The slippery slope reasoning goes only so far. Homosexuality is already in tv shows and movies. In fact, allowing them to file a few papers at the court house might make them shut the hell up.

Sexual immorality is legal and prevalent, but aren't people still able to shield themselves and their children from it?



That would be a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

Wrong.

You are not free to say just anything you wish under the first amendment.

 

[CEHollier]

Since other people actions can devalue your marriage, does our high divorce rate do the same? Do people of other faiths devalue yours? Do other people's political views devalue yours?

Yes, divorce devalues marriage and hurts the families involved. In instances of abuse or adultry divorce is justified. Too many people get divorced because of convenience. My wife and I have been over some rough patches of road in 27 years of marriage. There were times when divorce would have been the easy way out. But we stuck with it and worked things out. Today my marriage is 10X's stronger for it. Making it through the bad times is the glue that keeps it together durring the good times.

Do other people's political views devalue yours?

They do not devalue my personal political view. However, the legislation of their party/group can impact me in a negative way. The liberal Dems supporting gay marriage is one example. Another is gun control.

I was actually hoping for some coherent arguments next, but I guess that is too much to ask for. You cannot marry children, they cannot give legal consent. Can we have a serious conversation please?

The point is change one law change another. Presently a child cannot marry. There have been groups pushing to lower the age of concent. I'm ending anyfurther posts on this thread. You cannot change my mind and I cannot change yours. Our societies morals are sliding and only time will tell the outcome. When I was younger my views were much more progressive. Maybe time will change your minds too. I will agree to disagree. Good day gentlemen.

 

[Ockham]

The point is change one law change another.

I can make the same point against interacial marriage.

I'm sure there are people and groups trying to lower the age of consent, but that's a seperate topic from gay marriage. The whole slippery slope bit doesn't really work seeing as how our European neighbors, who are clearly much more progressive then we are, allow gay marriage but do not allow you to marry children.

You cannot change my mind and I cannot change yours.

Actually you can change my mind, I've switched positions on several key issues here in America simply because of people putting forth good arguments. Sorry to hear you won't change your mind, though.

I will agree to disagree. Good day gentlemen.

Good day.

 

[CloudStrife]

If you see sex as purely for reproduction, then yes, but in nature sex isn't just used for reproduction. In some mammals, members of a group have sex for fun, with any gender of the same species. It's been shown to form strong bonds between all the members in the group.

Speaking of the natural process, oral sex or just using your hands does the same thing. Having an orgasm anywhere but within a woman's vagina is against the "natural process".

Humans as a whole have many different sexual fetishes, and I'd argue that most of them are go against the natrual process.



I think its accurate so long as the only criteria for the comparison is "unnatural". If you want to broaden the topic then I'm sure we'll find many qualities that both have which will push them further apart. But the issue is that some people think that homosexuality is unnatural and because it is unnatural its bad. If that's the line of reasoning, that unnatural things are bad, then there are a lot of things we need to change about our lives.

It cannot be that simple, the argument against homosexuality needs to be much deeper than "its unnatural".

I'm trying to say that being unnatural is what makes it wrong. I don't pass judgment. Honestly, I don't care. To each his own. But I do find homosexuality weird and disturbing in the aesthetic sense. We can go back and forth all day about what is natural. As humans, with greater mental capacity and logic, I think what is natural for us extends beyond basic animal instincts. However, for this topic, male/female is the standard way of things in animals. That's just how I see it.