Same-Sex Marriage, How long till it's legal

Tigger said:

Some of us believe more in our Morals, Values, and Principles than we do in the ideas of Freedom or Liberty. I understand that's not a very popular concept in this country anymore, but there are still some of us who see the world that way.

Click to expand...

Bigotry does not = "Morality".

digsbe said:

I don't think the federal government should force states to go against their constitutions and votes. I also don't think it would be right to wait until the Supreme Court is stacked with liberal judges who will warp the Constitution. If the states decided to Amend the Constitution and make sexuality a protected entity under the equal protection clause then that would force the states to allow homosexual marriages. I think that would happen sooner than all states changing their view.



As long as we are a democracy morals, values, and principals will run things. However, these things can change over time. The principal that the government should not bar two homosexuals who love each other from marrying and recognizing that they are committed to the same marital values that heterosexual couples have is what many (including myself) are now believing. Upon these principals and values do we believe that homosexuals should have the right to marry.

Click to expand...

So....if a state passed a Constitutional amendment that banned inter-racial marriage....or even further defined marriage a a union between a white man and a white woman....you would be ok with that?

Tigger said:

LOL. Then you have no concept of what Morals and Values truly are, CC. Doesn't surprise me in today's society, but it does disappoint me. Then again there aren't many people in this day and age who are willing to put Principles before their own pleasure, so it probably shouldn't be surprising to me.

Click to expand...

Actually, you have consistently demonstrated that you do not understand the concepts of morals and values. We've been down this road before, Tigger. You can't win since you are wrong.

Tigger said:

I'll be popping something other than champagne that day.




Yep. Who knows, maybe this is the issue that sets the Third American Revolution into motion. Each side has won one of the first two, and there's going to have to be a deciding game one of these days.




At least until their neighbors dragged them out of their home and lynched them.

Click to expand...

See, here's the problem with your position, Tigger. No one really cares what your positions are, because anyone who reads them recognizes that not only is this NOT what the US is about, it is not what the US has EVER been about. Your beliefs are your own and do not speak for the majority of folks, Every post you make PROVES my position that morals are relative. You are a walking, talking mass of self-refutation.

Tigger said:

Well, we keep springing up, so that should tell you something.

Click to expand...

Sure. That people with extreme views that no one takes seriously will always exist. They do serve a purpose though. An example of what NOT to become.

misterman said:

I find lots of hetero marriages to be "icky" too.

Click to expand...

It's not about "icky". It's about the preservation of the species both biologically and morally. A same-sex couple cannot (without medical assistance) propegate the species. A gay couple can't do it at all (no womb at the inn). Therefore a society that accepts the idea of same-sex couples sufficiently to allow them to become any significant percentage in the population risks doing great damage to its ability to continue to exist. Especially in this day and age where fewer and fewer heterosexual couples are having larger families. The acceptance also damages the core morals and values of the society, undermining the foundation that society was supposed to be built upon.

ChuckBerry said:

How convenient.

Click to expand...

You God and I parted company after He failed to be able to find and mercy for the most truly good and faithful of His servants that I've ever met; my father. If your God couldn't find any mercy for him, there's no chance He's got any place for me in His heart. That sent me on a roughly 27 month search for where my Spiritual life lays. It isn't with any organized religion.

disneydude said:

Bigotry does not = "Morality".

Click to expand...

No, but Acceptance doesn't equally Morality either.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Actually, you have consistently demonstrated that you do not understand the concepts of morals and values. We've been down this road before, Tigger. You can't win since you are wrong.

Click to expand...

I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind, CC. Never have been. All I'm here to do is ensure that when you folks stand in front of your Creators you have no capability to say.... "But I didn't know that....."

CaptainCourtesy said:

See, here's the problem with your position, Tigger. No one really cares what your positions are, because anyone who reads them recognizes that not only is this NOT what the US is about, it is not what the US has EVER been about. Your beliefs are your own and do not speak for the majority of folks, Every post you make PROVES my position that morals are relative. You are a walking, talking mass of self-refutation.

Click to expand...

They may not be what the US is about, but some of us answer to a higher power than any man-made State. They ARE what the US SHOULD be about, and that's all I really care about.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Sure. That people with extreme views that no one takes seriously will always exist. They do serve a purpose though. An example of what NOT to become.

Click to expand...

If you say so. Just make sure they bury you folks with a lot of sunscreen.

Tigger said:

Therefore a society that accepts the idea of same-sex couples sufficiently to allow them to become any significant percentage in the population risks doing great damage to its ability to continue to exist.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the percentage of gay people would grow significantly if same sex marriage were allowed? How come this has not occurred in the countries that have legalized same sex marriage? Why has no society that has embraced same sex marriage fallen off the earth?

The problem with your kind of claims is that same sex marriage actually already exists within our country and around the world. As such your claims are easily disproved. For example, the first state to legalize same sex marriage has the lowest divorce rates in our country. Also, there has not been a significant increase in the number of gay people in countries that allow same sex marriage.

If you are hetero. What incentive could encourage you to engage in a homosexual relationship?

If people who have same sex relationships constitute less than 5% of the global population, does it negatively effect or threaten the world population in a significant way?

What percent of hetero couples who marry choose not to reproduce? Does their decision negatively effect or threaten the world population in a significant way?

Why is the 95% heterosexual population so obsessed over the 5% homosexual population's lives "behind closed doors"? The 95% have enough problems managing their lives behind closed doors.

When and why did you "choose" your sexual orientation?

CriticalThought said:

Are you suggesting that the percentage of gay people would grow significantly if same sex marriage were allowed? How come this has not occurred in the countries that have legalized same sex marriage? Why has no society that has embraced same sex marriage fallen off the earth?

Click to expand...

I am suggesting that over the LONG-TERM, that there may well be a significant growth in the percentage of homosexual individuals if/when the practice becomes acceptable in society. We do not yet have a large enough sample size/timeline to determine what the potential long-term effects of this sort of change in society might be. Whether the legalization of such practices in Europe is a cause of some of their social ills or a symptom of them is hard to say at this point, but it cannot be denied that the countries which choose to accept it are generally much more Socialist than those that do not.

Removable Mind said:

If you are hetero. What incentive could encourage you to engage in a homosexual relationship?

Click to expand...

Those of us who are fully hetero wouldn't be affected. Those who are on the fence about their choice of partners very well might be affected by the social stigma and the lack of acceptability of a homosexual relationship.

Removable Mind said:

If people who have same sex relationships constitute less than 5% of the global population, does it negatively effect or threaten the world population in a significant way?

Click to expand...

At 5%, probably not. At 10% it could definitely be an issue. Especially with the fact that more and more couples are choosing to not replace themselves via their offspring (having less than 2 children).

Removable Mind said:

What percent of hetero couples who marry choose not to reproduce? Does their decision negatively effect or threaten the world population in a significant way?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the numbers are specifically, but I do remember seeing something in recent years that indicated that the majority of American married couples were not replacing themselves (choosing to have less than 2 children). There are/were a number of reasons for this including the 2 income family and the general disinterest in parenting compared to career orientation.

Removable Mind said:

Why is the 95% heterosexual population so obsessed over the 5% homosexual population's lives "behind closed doors"? The 95% have enough problems managing their lives behind closed doors.

Click to expand...

Because we're concerned that those doors are going to be thrown wide open and create an even larger problem.

Removable Mind said:

When and why did you "choose" your sexual orientation?

Click to expand...

Probably about age 11 or 12, when my parents sat down with me and explained the basics of human sexuality and what is/isn't appropriate. They also discussed the consequences of choosing poorly in decisions related to such things.

If you are hetero. What incentive could encourage you to engage in a homosexual relationship?

If people who have same sex relationships constitute less than 5% of the global population, does it negatively effect or threaten the world population in a significant way?

What percent of hetero couples who marry choose not to reproduce? Does their decision negatively effect or threaten the world population in a significant way?

Why is the 95% heterosexual population so obsessed over the 5% homosexual population's lives "behind closed doors"? The 95% have enough problems managing their lives behind closed doors.

When and why did you "choose" your sexual orientation?

Tigger said:

Those of us who are fully hetero wouldn't be affected. Those who are on the fence about their choice of partners very well might be affected by the social stigma and the lack of acceptability of a homosexual relationship.

At 5%, probably not. At 10% it could definitely be an issue. Especially with the fact that more and more couples are choosing to not replace themselves via their offspring (having less than 2 children).

I'm not sure what the numbers are specifically, but I do remember seeing something in recent years that indicated that the majority of American married couples were not replacing themselves (choosing to have less than 2 children). There are/were a number of reasons for this including the 2 income family and the general disinterest in parenting compared to career orientation.
Because we're concerned that those doors are going to be thrown wide open and create an even larger problem.

Probably about age 11 or 12, when my parents sat down with me and explained the basics of human sexuality and what is/isn't appropriate. They also discussed the consequences of choosing poorly in decisions related to such things.

Click to expand...

Tigger, your parent gave you a little talk and they convinced you that you should be a heterosexual?

As for the other comments in your reply...

Ever heard of the term "homophobic"?

Removable Mind said:

Tigger, your parent gave you a little talk and they convinced you that you should be a heterosexual?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that so much as they reinforced my view that I prefered the idea of being with a girl, and considered the alternative to be quite disgusting.

Removable Mind said:

As for the other comments in your reply... Ever heard of the term "homophobic"?

Click to expand...

Yes, and for some of us we consider it a badge of honor.

Tigger said:

I wouldn't say that so much as they reinforced my view that I prefered the idea of being with a girl, and considered the alternative to be quite disgusting.

Click to expand...

Do you believe that you have a built in control mechanism that allows you to purposely (at will) select an opposite sex relationship and/or be disgusted by having a same sex relationship?

At this point, I have no doubt that you don't subscribe to "circumstance of birth"...but, I'm compelled to ask the following anyway. "When did you select the following immutable characteristics?":

Color of eyes
Color of hair
Height
Weight
Gender
Parents you'd be born to
Socio-economic status of parents at time of your birth
Level of social attractiveness
Intellectual capabilities

And do you believe that we are are born equal?

Your response to: Ever heard of the term "Homophobic"?

Tigger said:

Yes, and for some of us we consider it a badge of honor.

Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:

Do you believe that you have a built in control mechanism that allows you to purposely (at will) select an opposite sex relationship and/or be disgusted by having a same sex relationship?

Click to expand...

I believe that the normal state of human sexuallity is heterosexuality. I do believe that there are people who purposefully choose to ignore this state for certain social and political reasons. I also understand that there are individuals who are born with an altered psycholical makeup that creates a suggestion towards homosexuality. I also believe that psychological disorder can and should be treated and overcome.

Removable Mind said:

At this point, I have no doubt that you don't subscribe to "circumstance of birth"...but, I'm compelled to ask the following anyway. "When did you select the following immutable characteristics?":

Color of eyes; Color of hair; Height; Weight; Gender; Parents you'd be born to; Socio-economic status of parents at time of your birth; Level of social attractiveness
Intellectual capabilities

Click to expand...

I did not select any of those things any more than I chose to be born with a full facial birthmark. Those things are determined beyond our control by two forces.... Genetics and The Fates. Some of them are designed to assist us and others are designed as tests for us to overcome in the course of our life.

Removable Mind said:

And do you believe that we are are born equal?

Click to expand...

Nope. Not in the least. I never have. Of course I got a good, quick lesson in that from society because I was born with an obvious birth defect.

Tigger said:

It's not about "icky". It's about the preservation of the species both biologically and morally. A same-sex couple cannot (without medical assistance) propegate the species. A gay couple can't do it at all (no womb at the inn).

Click to expand...

Same-sex couples can have children. They can do it through artificial insemination or adoption. Surely you agree that orphans should have parents, and that raising a child is just as important to the propagation of the species as giving birth to them?

On the other hand, many straight couples cannot have children, and this is known before they get married. Post-menopausal women get married all the time.

So you're premise is crap.

Tigger said:

I did not select any of those things any more than I chose to be born with a full facial birthmark. Those things are determined beyond our control by two forces.... Genetics and The Fates. Some of them are designed to assist us and others are designed as tests for us to overcome in the course of our life.

Click to expand...

You're not doing a very good job of overcoming. You're wallowing in self-pity and alienating those around you, that's about it.

misterman said:

Same-sex couples can have children. They can do it through artificial insemination or adoption. Surely you agree that orphans should have parents, and that raising a child is just as important to the propagation of the species as giving birth to them?

On the other hand, many straight couples cannot have children, and this is known before they get married. Post-menopausal women get married all the time.

So your premise is crap.

Click to expand...

Same-sex couples cannot have children through natural means. There is almost always a potential for a child-bearing aged heterosexual couple to get pregnant. Older couples of either group are a different issue alltogether. In our current system my experience is that there isn't much difference between kids being raised by the State and/or by their parents. I would agree that it's important that children are properly raised. I don't see most heterosexual couples doing that these days, nevermind the inherent inability for a same-sex couple to do so.

misterman said:

You're not doing a very good job of overcoming. You're wallowing in self-pity and alienating those around you, that's about it.

Click to expand...

I never said that everyone passes the tests that are presented to them, now did I?

Tigger said:

Same-sex couples cannot have children through natural means.

Click to expand...

Sure they can.

Oh, wait, you mean with their own sperm?

So if a HETERO couple uses donated sperm because he's infertile, is that wrong? Is the child not real?

There is almost always a potential for a child-bearing aged heterosexual couple to get pregnant. Older couples of either group are a different issue alltogether. In our current system my experience is that there isn't much difference between kids being raised by the State and/or by their parents.

Click to expand...

Is it wrong for infertile couples to get married? Yes or no?

I would agree that it's important that children are properly raised.

Click to expand...

Then stop trying to impede it.

I never said that everyone passes the tests that are presented to them, now did I?

Click to expand...

I don't care.

digsbe said:

As the EPC is worded currently I don't think there is a legal basis for saying it includes homosexual orientation. In legal terms I don't think the federal government should have the right to pass a federal law that forces states to go against their constitutions and issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. If the federal government was the one issuing marriage licenses then this would be fine.

In order to stay within the bounds of the Constitution and not trample on the rights of the states I think the best way to legalize gay marriage would be to do so formally by amending the Constitution. You don't need the support of all the states to do so and I think it is the best approach under the current laws and how things are legally.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing though, the SCOTUS did exactly what you are saying you don't want done regarding marriage before, and very few people now would ever say they were wrong (there are a few who would).

Loving v. VA, SCOTUS did not just tell states that they simply had to stop prosecuting interracial couples who were living together as married. They forced states, even those with anti-interracial marriage laws written into their constitutions (AL's wasn't rewritten til 2002 or 2003), to allow interracial couples to get married.

This issue was not based on the sexual preferences of the people involved, but rather the race of those people and how the race of those two people wishing to enter into a marriage contract affect how that marriage contract works. Since the race of the two involved has no effect on how the contract operates, then race cannot be a factor in determining who a person can marry.

Now, relate that to same sex marriage.

The issue now would not be the sexual preferences of the people involved, but rather the sex of those people and how the sex of those two people wishing to enter into a marriage contract affects how that marriage contract works. Since the sex of the two involved has no effect on how the contract operates, then sex cannot be a factor in determining who a person can marry.

Easily transferable concept from striking down anti-interracial marriage laws and constitutional amendments to striking down anti-same sex marriage laws and constitutional amendments.

Redress said:

It would be in the hands of the state to determine who they would marry. However, the states would have to treat as married people married in other states just as most marriages are now. So a gay couple could get married in NY, go back to Bum**** Arkansas and still be married. States cannot nullify contracts from other states.

Click to expand...

I wish this were completely true.

States do not always have to recognize marriage contracts from other states. For example, if those contracts violate some laws of the state, such as age of consent laws or incest laws.

This is why I think it will take at least one more court battle after what you have described (which I view as a very likely prediction on what will happen) in order for states to be basically told outright that they have to recognize same sex marriages, even if they have laws or constitutional amendments against such marriages.

misterman said:

Sure they can. Oh, wait, you mean with their own sperm?

Click to expand...

Yes, I mean with their own sperm/eggs.

misterman said:

So if a HETERO couple uses donated sperm because he's infertile, is that wrong? Is the child not real?

Click to expand...

The child is real. That doesn't mean the child should be born.

misterman said:

Is it wrong for infertile couples to get married? Yes or no?

Click to expand...

So long as they are a heterosexual couple, no.

misterman said:

Then stop trying to impede it.

Click to expand...

Being raised properly and being raised by a same-sex couple are not compatible ideas.

misterman said:

I don't care.

Click to expand...

That's one thing we do agree on. Neither one of us gives a **** about the other one.

roguenuke said:

I wish this were completely true.

States do not always have to recognize marriage contracts from other states. For example, if those contracts violate some laws of the state, such as age of consent laws or incest laws.

Click to expand...

Are you sure?

Tigger said:

Yes, I mean with their own sperm/eggs.

Click to expand...

So if a couple is infertile and uses donor sperm, or adopts, that's wrong too?

The child is real. That doesn't mean the child should be born.

Click to expand...

But you said it's about children.

So long as they are a heterosexual couple, no.

Click to expand...

But you based that on having children. So you're full of crap on that. You have no rational reason for forbidding gay marriage over child-bearing if you don't also do it for hetero couples.

Being raised properly and being raised by a same-sex couple are not compatible ideas.

Click to expand...

Sure they are. There are plenty of normal, healthy kids raised by gays, and plenty of completely ****ed up kids raised by straights too.

That's one thing we do agree on. Neither one of us gives a **** about the other one.

Click to expand...

But see, I accept that people are different and can live their own lives. You don't. That's your problem, and it's only going to lead to even more frustration in your life, because nobody's going to actually listen to you.

Regardless of what I think, it will probably be 5-10 years. It has passed the stage of tollerance, and now is in the stage of acceptance. Homosexuality in general is starting to reach into some of the opponents and a lot of churches are coming around to homosexuals as individuals.

misterman said:

Are you sure?

Click to expand...

Pretty sure. At least for the cousins marriage.

Cousin marriage law in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The underage one seems to only open the older person up to statutory rape laws, in states that make no exception for marriage in such laws. I can't find anything saying it actually nullifies the marriage.

Another example though is transgender marriages. The federal government recognizes these marriages as far as the state recognizes the legal sexes of the couple as being opposite. They haven't, in fact, given any information on how changing a person's sex which makes a couple now same sex and married in a state that outlaws same sex marriage but recognizes sex changes as being a person's legal sex would affect those marriages legally. After all, now we would have legal same sex marriages even in states that have constitutional amendments or laws against them. And this is happening now, without any change to DOMA.