It isn't, and should be available to all gay couples
Being gay is wrong, so they can't get married
The sanctity of marriage. No, I wasn't laughing. I was coughing. *cough* ... see?
It will set a bad example for Christian youth
I don't honestly have a good reason, but I still say no
Other (please explain)
Perhaps, but it has been "because" for the majority of human history. Opposition to homosexuality is as ingrained as is the existence of it.The most reducible answer that I've seen thus far might be inferred simply as: "because".
None, other than perceptually.What form of power and/or control by 3 percent of the population have over the 97 percent that can and/or will cause the majority to want to succumb to a lesser moral standard (defining standards claimed by many non gays)?
Many beleive that in the last 50 to 100 years, modern societies have eroded the intitution of marriage, and many see allowing SSM as going further down the rabbit hole to the point that it will eventually become inconseguential or disappear altogether.By the sheer act of allowing gay marriage, how will the moral fabric of non gay members of society be effected?
As for things that I believe are ACTUALLY eroding the institution of marriage, you could start with divorce rates, and dumb **** like the bachelor, the bachelorette, and who wants to marry a millionaire
Last edited by StillBallin75; 05-31-11 at 08:46 AM.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause
There is no such thing as equal discrimination under our Constitution. The law used to be written that any person could marry someone of their own race. That is equal discrimination. The Supreme Court overturned those laws in Loving versus Virgina.
But of course, I bet you could be the typical social conservative and not give a crap about our Constitution unless it is serving your interests.
My position is that there is a majority conclusion that people (in general) don't have the ability to define the institution of marriage for themselves. There is no legal precedence for it. I doubt that we'll ever see a Constitutional Amendment defining what marriage is. Consequently, the institution itself will be subject to very diverse views and beliefs.
If I grew up in a neighborhood that is predominately gay, which also had a high number of gay marriages. As a straight man, regardless of their views on what constitutes marriage would be relativity no interest to me for one really important reason. Their views, their values, their principles would never alter my perceptions and understanding of what the institution of marriage is for me...BECAUSE I'm not gay. I can't be co-opted or influenced to be other than heterosexual.
I don't bear the responsibilities of any other couples marriage...and nor they with mine. We are all so busy trying to just live life that the details fade with the seconds, minutes, hours, and days.
As I've said before...and most will disagree, but in regards to homosexuality's role in humanity, even with all it's mysteries, it's controversies, it's social stigmas - it's shameful that homosexuality is still viewed with so much dark age thinking, fear, myths, superstition, and personal insecurities still cripples the minds of many in a highly advanced civilization.
We live in a society where many refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that "circumstance of birth" exist when the "preponderance" of evidence leans more to the building scientific research that that is indeed the reality of humanity's existence.
Humanity is currently incapable of living in a world without "unnecessary" prejudices and discrimination.
People will leave claw marks in an effort to resist change. But change won't wait for any of us.
Mac...your right, "it is what it is." That said, can anyone ever accept, "we are what we are?"
Last edited by Removable Mind; 05-31-11 at 09:46 AM.
Would you have a problem with that Mac? Because I really don't see how that would be unfair or discriminatory to anybody in society. You'd still be a Christian, you'd just have to pretend to be an atheist and publicly renounce God to get married.
I don't see a problem with that, and I don't see why you would... Equal rights and all that.