The fact that Loving vs Virginia shows that denying someone a marriage based on race is wrong. Put aside the race issue this case shows that the government considers marriage a right. Or at least something that cannot be legislated against.
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
A Constitutional 'Right?'
The legal 'institution' (using the term lightly) of 501c3 tax exempt status as it applies to churches is meant to serve a specific purpose. Any church which does not serve that purpose may not enter the 501c3 institution; though such churches retain the right to freely associate as they please.
Likewise the legal institution of marriage is meant to serve a specific purpose. Couples who do not wish to serve that purpose have no business being in the institution, though they retain the right continue freely associating and cohabiting with whomever they please.
Now please, I beg you, stop with the analogies and stick to this topic.
I don't even support hetero marriage for the sake of equality, so it doesn't follow that I would now support gay-marriage for equality.
Last edited by Jerry; 10-17-09 at 11:44 AM.
You didn't respond to my last three points, but there is one that I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on. Why is this your business? If banning same sex marriage hurts gays and doesn't effect you at all, why should society take your opinion into account at all on the matter? Or do you feel it does effect you? If so, how?
We decided that the church we wanted to run was not the sort of 'business' (using the term lightly again) the state wanted to promote. So we did not enter the legal institution. As a result we do not benefit from any of the financial buffs or legal protections, and that's our choice.
We have a cafe and book store attached to and run by the church, which pays the bills. We pay land tax, the clergy are "employees" of the business and pay income tax, etc.
If a gay couple decided they don't want to be monogamous or raise children, that's fine, but they have no business entering a legal institution promoting monogamous couples raising children; just like our church has no business entering the 501c3 if we're not going to do what 501c3 is meant for.
We are only talking about a word.
IMO gays can have all the same civil rights, but not the word.
First, I do not oppose gay-rights. You may note that my objections regard each and every single couple who have no intention of being monogamous and raising children. That includes heteros. That includes mixed races. That includes gays. A childless gay couple is equal in every way to a childless hetero couple in that ALL childless couples are equally worthless.
Second, if I opposed gay "marriage" simply because I'm hetero, then gays only desire "marriage" because they're homo. As if that doesn't shut down your intellectual apathy, your reasoning fails to explain heteros who support gay "marriage", nor homosexuals who oppose gay "marriage".
I'll just vote to oppose because what do I care, it doesn't affect me.
Could you please link to your post where you asked Dav why he made this thread, if gay-marriage is non of anyone's business?
Last edited by Jerry; 10-17-09 at 03:20 PM.
If I'm correct, the main reasons you oppose it are:
a) Most gay couples aren't monogamous
b) Most gay couples don't raise children
Aren't those true of all types of couples?
Would you support recognition by the state of gay marriage if such recognition required adoption?
Specifically, if anyone is knowledgeable on the subject, what specific advantages do legally recognized couples have? If the reasons for those advantages are a and b above, wouldn't it be fair to offer those same advantages if they can offer evidence that they do not fall into the categories specified?
One last thing: How are you and everyone else with a similar stance as you hurt or disadvantaged such that we should not extend the advantages to them?
Last edited by Lord Voldemort; 10-17-09 at 04:18 PM.
No children, no "marriage". Rather the couple is gay/same-sex or not is irrelevant. Heteros should NOT marry if they are not going to be monogamous and raise children.
Marriage is a sociological organism, and as an organism it must reproduce, by definition. Natural procreation is not the only way the couple can "reproduce". Adoption is no less valid than natural birth.
Please note that I already oppose artificial insemination for any couple, gay, straight or otherwise, for reasons completely unrelated to gay-marriage, so please don't be surprised when you read me opposing the marriage of a gay couple when they plan to use invetro to reproduce.
I want emphasis placed on couples raising children. I want additional support given to these couples so that the divorce rate (and the subsequent juvenile crime/suicide/ teen pregnancy/teen-abortion rate) is drastically reduced.
IMO we are all harmed by perpetuating the existing 50% divorce rate if we simple give gays "marriage" for the sake of "equality", because doing so feels good, but ignores the real problems.
Last edited by Jerry; 10-17-09 at 05:43 PM.
Yes....under the Equal protection clause. Anytime the government grants rights or privileges, it cannot under the US Constitution deny those rights to any cognizable group without there being ( at a minimum) a legitimate state interest for doing so. More likely Gays would be analyzed under the second tier of equal protection requiring an "important governmental interest" for the restriction. I doubt there is even a legitimate basis that could be upheld.
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!