Homosexual marriage

I'm 100% positive that you're wrong. All the proof you need is a reading of the actual law, which defines marriage according to the sex of the parties, not their orientation.

So the question naturally arises why homosexuals are the target of people arguing against legal recognition of same-sex couples' marriages?

The obvious answer is that the vast majority of same-sex couples would likely be homosexual (and some perhaps bisexual) in orientation.

The deeper answer is that it's based in animus toward those who engage in same-sex sexual behavior, with that animus often founded in religious beliefs.

Allow me to split hairs. It's discrimination based on the sex of each party to the marriage contract, but the courts have taken differing views on whether it constitutes 'gender discrimination', which had previously been interpreted narrowly as a discrimination that disadvantages persons of one sex as compared to the other, and most commonly as a law that unfairly disadvantages women generally as compared to men. A law that equally disadvantages both sexes would not be gender discrimination under this interpretation.

Questions arise from this, though: What rational basis is there to discriminate based on the sex of the spouses? Does the law use sex to target a suspect class of people? These are relevant to the level of judicial scrutiny that justices should apply when hearing associated cases.

 

You state gender has nothing to do with how one lives yet you claim homosexuals suffer gender discrimination. Homosexuality is not a gender it is a lifestyle and IMO nothing more than a sexual fetish.

 

The issue should never reach the state legislature .. but if there is a vote on it, you are morally obligated to vote that the state treat all marriage the same if you believe in the constitution - individual liberty and freedom from religion.

When you vote in a referendum .. you are authorizing the state to impose your will on others through use of coersion, fines, violence, or imprisonment.

There is a difference between having a belief (I do not approve of sodomy), and forcing that belief on others.

If you are going to vote that the state enforce your beliefs on others you should be able to give a justification why. "I do not approve of sodomy" does not cut it. This is a personal belief.

Belief in individual freedom only for things you approve of is not belief in individual freedom at all.

 

No it is not discrimination it is Adam & Steve wanting to change the traditional definition of marriage which is between a man and woman. Personally I think the definition of homosexual should be changed to a fetish because it is aberrant to typical human sexual behavior and should be done in private between consenting adults. It does not deserve to be institutionalized.

 

The state has no business defining a union of two people and giving benefits to those two people exceeding that of a single person.

Why should a married couple get more benefits from the state than a person who chooses to remain single. This is discrimination.

 

They are attracted to the each other in the same way that heterosexuals are attracted to each other. Thus raising the status just a little bit above your dismissive classification of "fetish".

The traditional definition of marriage has been changed numerous times, the argument is irrelevant unless you believe men marrying underage girls is a traditional worth protecting.

Try again.

 

Why not? It is in the State's best interest to support procreation and that can only happen between a man and woman.

 

I agree with supporting procreation. Benefits should then be given after said "procreation" not before. Just because folks marry does not mean they have kids.

Gay couples with children should also be given the same benefits.

The benefits are then related to "procreation", not to the type of union folks have.

 

In what manner, specifically, is it raised "just a little bit above" that of a "fetish"?
Please explain your rationale.

 

Of course it's not a gender. It's a sexual orientation. So you could make the rhetorical point that they don't suffer gender discrimination (well, maybe also[/] gender discrimination), but it's meaningless because they do suffer discrimination.
I don't think sexual orientation is a fetish... I'd think pretending to be straight when one is really gay would be a twisted fetish... and one people like Mr. Bachmann endorse for some odd reason.

By becoming secular government, the state changed the definition of marriage, if that's your issue.
I, in fact, a straight man, got married by a judge in a secular ceremony-- no God involved at all. What do you think about that?
Since the church is not involved at all in what constitutes a legal marriage, it's input is meaningless. A church can decide for itself whether to endorse or officiate a marriage. The state decides what's legal.

And who wants traditional marriage anyway? Selling your daughter to a man for a cow; the man will take several concubines but kill her if she even covets another man; she won't inherit property, will be dependent on male children in old age.
I certainly hope your church doesn't still support that.

By this logic, shouldn't we ban fertility treatments, artificial insemination, surrogate mothering, and adoption? All of those are other ways to have children (one is a way to have children without increasing the population).
And do people need incentives to have children?
It seems to me most people who have a lot of children live in the most underdeveloped areas and in poverty. People who don't have kids seem to be well-off. If incentives were a big deal, we'd see the opposite.
By the way, in my case, my wife and I pay higher taxes due to being married.

 

It actually encourages marriage. Government will either discourage or encourage marriage with it's policies. It should be beneficial for people to stay together instead of divorce, or get married instead of shacking up. Kids from broken homes are at high risk for a very bad life.

 

It is already explained quite clearly in the sentence before.

 

Really? You mean this sentence "They are attracted to the each other in the same way that heterosexuals are attracted to each other.", then if you do, then your sentence is not accurate or does not accurately represent the entire spectrum of heterosexuals. A greater percentage of heterosexuals will become attracted to the opposite gender for reasons of 'pro-creation' especially when the question or issue of 'marriage' is concerned.

 

Then there are those who have no interest in children.

Your argument is a nonpoint.

 

I don't think so. You'd have to compare this world to one without marriage.
I don't believe that we'd see fewer people desiring children without marriage.
And we certainly don't see fewer people having sex without children in mind with marriage in existence.

Marriage was created for property rights and the transfer thereof.
It still exists for that purpose, whether a family unit has children or not.
Adding gay families into the mix would have no effect.

 

Now that we have states with gay married couples, we'll see how that works out.

But as I said before, the gay movement (most of them) is statist in nature. Once gay unions are allowed in a certain number of states, conficts will arise with those marriages not being recognized in non gay union states. The statist gay crowd will then seek to dragoon those states, by federal law, into recognizing gay married couples. This is no different that the Fugitive Slave Act that made non slave states unwilling agents in the slave trade.

While the gay movement bases their case on civil rights, they will in no way respect the civil rights of others, nor the right to differ in opinion or refuse to recognize those unions as valid. These are not libertarians, they are leftists and statists. They see the cohersion of government as the only way to advance their agenda.

 

Allowing gay marriage does not degrade your civil rights in any way shape or form. They resort to coercion because the state that is responsible for granting them such rights is denying them such rights. There is not a vast conspiracy, the reasons for pursuing the issue through legislation is the the same reason why minorities pursued their civil rights through the same method.

Try again.

 

Um...:

You can't have it both ways. If the state is involved with 'encouraging marriage', then it's involved, period.

You made a statist argument (quoted first above), and then followed it up with one complaining that the movement for equal marriage is a statist movement.

That's called hypocrisy.

 

What are you talking about ??

The state does not encourage folks to stay together. State benefits are not a significant factor in limiting divorce.

Kids from broken homes are not at a "high risk" .. higher risk perhaps.

Why would the state encourage hetero couples to stay together for the kids any differently than homo couples ?

 

I agree with most of the above.

I would like to point out that I have 4 shotguns, 3 rifles, 6 handguns, a crossbow, and a compound bow. I drive a truck(as well as a toyota camry)and I love country music.

I guess I'm only 2/15ths man, lol

 

marriage and procreation have nothing to do with each other. Do you somehow think that only people who are married are able to conceive a child?

 

Because some folks have babies out of wedlock does not mean society should redefine the institution of marriage to include homosexuals.

 

You twit! I'm talking about the libs pushing for federal laws forcing states to recognize the gay marriages performed in other states. That has nothing to do with individual states deciding what defines marriage for their state.