What Is the Big Deal With Gay Marriage?

Status
Not open for further replies.
rolling7 said:
You ask the question....post #133..how the thread got turn into a "religious symposium". The first use was her...post #6...."in religious terms", so the answer to your question is she started it. Learn to read and connect the dots.
Click to expand...


Actually,the thread got turned into a religious symposium when people starting spouting religious beliefs as support for a legal premise, and when Bible verses from the Christian religion were cited. Dogmom's post didn't do that, nor did it have anything to do with the religious views posted.

Perhaps you should follow your own advise.:)

So, do you have any reasoning based on legal premise for the opposition to same sex marraige?
 
jillio said:
Actually,the thread got turned into a religious symposium when people starting spouting religious beliefs as support for a legal premise, and when Bible verses from the Christian religion were cited. Dogmom's post didn't do that, nor did it have anything to do with the religious views posted.

Perhaps you should follow your own advise.:)

So, do you have any reasoning based on legal premise for the opposition to same sex marraige?
Click to expand...

Yes, the majority of the voters don't want it. If you don't like any law, vote to change it. Until then follow the law. Very soon there will be ten constitutional amendments to be voted on in the state of Texas, if a voter is on the wrong side of the final count too bad.
 
rolling7 said:
Yes, the majority of the voters don't want it. If you don't like any law, vote to change it. Until then follow the law. Very soon there will be ten constitutional amendments to be voted on in the state of Texas, if a voter is on the wrong side of the final count too bad.
Click to expand...

It hasn't even come up for vote under the majority of the voters. And the majority of the voters in, gee, let's say, Vermont, did want it. Or did you forget that the state of Vermont grants marraige licenses to same sex couples? And was the first state to do so.

Since when is law left to the majority of voters to decide? I don't remember getting to vote on heterosexual marraige. I don't remember getting to vote on mandatory car insurance.

What choice does a gay couple have but to follow the law? Can you explain to me how they could get the legal rights that a heterosexual couple has by just acting like they are married? Sorry, gotta have a marraige license to get those benefits. So the "follow the law" statement just doesn't make much sense.

I'll ask again...do you have anything based on legal premise that would support opposition to gay marraige? I haven't seen anything yet.
 
BTW: if you did read it, dogmom DID call those religious beliefs a "myth". Wonder why!
 
rolling7 said:
BTW: if you did read it, dogmom DID call those religious beliefs a "myth". Wonder why!
Click to expand...

No she didn't. You might want to go back and read it again. And you might want to check out her post following that saying that religious views have no place in determining legality.

But, even if she did, there is no empirical proof for the views being spouted, so they are, in effect myth, or story.

But, we are discussing the legality of same sex marraige, which has virtually nothing to do with religion.
 
You have not seen anything yet because your eyes are shut. Remember when women could not vote? Did Congress give them that right? NO! It was put before the entire counter and all voters has a say. Mandatory car insurance! There is NO federal requirement! But if it were to go before ALL voters it would pass, no doubt. Know how many people are in Vermont? Less that the CITY of Houston. If the vote was put before ALL VOTERS, I've no doubt which way the vote will go.
 
jillio said:
No she didn't. You might want to go back and read it again.

But, even if she did, there is no empirical proof for the views being spouted, so they are, in effect myth, or story.

But, we are discussing the legality of same sex marraige, which has virtually nothing to do with religion.
Click to expand...

Then why did she bring "religious terms" into it? Why did she attack religion as being a "myth"?
 
To all ADers, it would seem that AD is famous for going off topic but those that complain about such are the very posters who take the thread off topic.
 
jillio said:
It hasn't even come up for vote under the majority of the voters. And the majority of the voters in, gee, let's say, Vermont, did want it. Or did you forget that the state of Vermont grants marraige licenses to same sex couples?
Click to expand...

Vermont wasn't passed by voters.

Since when is law left to the majority of voters to decide? I don't remember getting to vote on heterosexual marraige. I don't remember getting to vote on mandatory car insurance.
Click to expand...

Prop 8

What choice does a gay couple have but to follow the law? Can you explain to me how they could get the legal rights that a heterosexual couple has by just acting like they are married? Sorry, gotta have a marraige license to get those benefits. So the "follow the law" statement just doesn't make much sense.

I'll ask again...do you have anything based on legal premise that would support opposition to gay marraige? I haven't seen anything yet.
Click to expand...

DOMA
Click to expand...
 
rolling7 said:
Then why did she bring "religious terms" into it? Why did she attack religion as being a "myth"?
Click to expand...

She didn't. She simply said that people believed myths regarding other people's behaviors and that some of those myths had a religious base.

Why can't you stay away from the religious arguments? Legality of same sex marraige has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Do you have anything to support opposition to gay marraige that doesn't have it's foundation in your religion? If so, please present it as a legal argument. Otherwise, the religious stuff doesn't hold water. Your religious beliefs can be used to guide your behavior. You cannot use them to determine the behavior, or the fundamental rights of anyone else.
 
TXgolfer said:
jillio said:
Vermont wasn't passed by voters.



Prop 8



DOMA
Click to expand...

The voters could have had it put to a referendum. They didn't. Same sex marraige is legal in Vermont. Can you cite any horrid consequences that have come from that that have affected the heterosexual, or the religious, population in any way, shape, or form?

And it still has not come up as a votable issue to the majority of the voters.

DOMA. It will be overturned before long, as well. The whole idea of denying an entire population a right granted to every other person in the country is absurd, not to mention a few other things, as well.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20035398-503544.html



So what is your legal premise for opposing gay marraige?
Click to expand...
 
rolling7 said:
To all ADers, it would seem that AD is famous for going off topic but those that complain about such are the very posters who take the thread off topic.
Click to expand...

You mean like with this post?

I am perfectly on topic. I am discussing gay marraige, and the fact that since the state grants the marriage license, it is a legal issue, not a religious one and religious objections apply only to the person with the belief, not to everyone else.
 
rolling7 said:
You have not seen anything yet because your eyes are shut. Remember when women could not vote? Did Congress give them that right? NO! It was put before the entire counter and all voters has a say. Mandatory car insurance! There is NO federal requirement! But if it were to go before ALL voters it would pass, no doubt. Know how many people are in Vermont? Less that the CITY of Houston. If the vote was put before ALL VOTERS, I've no doubt which way the vote will go.
Click to expand...

All voters have not had a say. And if you will double check the stance that the majoriy of Americans take on gay marraige, it is pro, not con. A recent poll showed a majority of voters in 26 states to be in support of gay marraige.

We are talking state, here, rolling. States grant marraige licenses. Drop the federal strawman. It has nothing to do with anything.

Can you tell me what horrible consequences the state of Vermont, or it's heterosexual residents have suffered as the result of legalizing gay marraige? How did it have a negative impact on the hetereosexual couples?
 
um.... I understand there's controversial issue with gay marriage and uh... some religious anecdote forbidding it but um.... would this be a problem for you if gay marriage is held at government court rather than church?
 
Jiro said:
um.... I understand there's controversial issue with gay marriage and uh... some religious anecdote forbidding it but um.... would this be a problem for you if gay marriage is held at government court rather than church?
Click to expand...

Whether or not someone gets married in a church is up to that particular church's leader. There are plenty of GLTB friendly churches that can be chosen for the ceremony. Heck, there was even an article in the news today about someone calling for the rights of GLTB in the name of Allah. Yep, a born and raised Muslim. But the fact still remains, that the ceremony, no matter where it is held, is not what determines whether one is married or not. A legally binding license, in the form of a state document, is what determines the marraige. A preacher can't marry a heterosexual couple without one and have it hold up as a legal marraige.

So, it all comes back to legal premise. If your religion tells you gay marraige is "wrong", then don't marry a person of the same sex. If you aren't approving of the rights of the GLTB population, then don't join a GLTB friendly church. The fact of the matter is, gay marraige does not infringe on the rights of anyone to practice their religion or to be in a heterosexual marraige.
 
Post #1:

"What Is the Big Deal With Gay Marriage?
Why are some people against this? For example, lets say 2 gay people youve never met and most likely never will meet, decide to get married. What business is it of yours? Why would you even care?"

Nothing about legal reasons. The question was why some people (not governments) were against gay marriage. Why do people care?
 
jillio said:
Whether or not someone gets married in a church is up to that particular church's leader. There are plenty of GLTB friendly churches that can be chose for the ceremony. But the fact still remains, that the ceremony, no matter where it is held, is not what determines whether one is married or not. A legally binding license, in the form of a state document, is what determines the marraige. A preacher can't marry a heterosexual couple without one and have it hold up as a legal marraige.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top