Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ilovejesus1234
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorolfr said:
One of the main functions of the courts, especially the Supreme Court, is to interpret the constitution.
Click to expand...
Or to change it (adapt it) to match what it perceives as the most current twists in social mores
 
I see and I think I may support you on this, seeing as how society always wants to do this and when we let them do it they can’t do very good…Therefore the moral is we should apply our morals to when we vote so we could guide them through that. But one opposing argument, are there any websites that show what gay couples seem to miss out on when they cannot get married, financially, socially, mentally, economically etc…Hope this isn’t bothering you, I am just starting to get it you know?

**
May I get some help on this question.**
 
Ilovejesus1234 said:
I see and I think I may support you on this, seeing as how society always wants to do this and when we let them do it they can’t do very good…Therefore the moral is we should apply our morals to when we vote so we could guide them through that. But one opposing argument, are there any websites that show what gay couples seem to miss out on when they cannot get married, financially, socially, mentally, economically etc…Hope this isn’t bothering you, I am just starting to get it you know?

**
May I get some help on this question.**
Click to expand...
If the question is “what might gay couples miss out on if they can’t get married?” The answer is, nothing more than anyone else might miss out on by not being married. A mother living with her son or daughter is not allowed to marry them. Is she missing out on something? Maybe. They can’t put her on their health insurance, for example. The same is true of two brothers sharing an apartment. Is that a reason for allowing any two or more persons to marry? Not at all. Marriage is a natural institution arising from the complementary and procreative nature of man and woman, and their ability to bear children and form families. It is not a mere social construct for the purpose of distributing government benefits.
 
Thorolfr said:
One of the main functions of the courts, especially the Supreme Court, is to interpret the constitution.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Sometimes one feels they will find an implication from the document for the matter at hand, no matter how remote from the intent of the document such implication may be. The framers of the constitution must be scratching their heads (:confused:) when they contemplate the “foresight” that such court reasoning suggests they had, and on the matters to which their words are now applied.
 
Rau said:
In general, legislatures can readily put courts back in their box, by passing relevant laws. The difficulty arises when courts “deduce” rights by reference to a Constitution - overcoming that requires the Constitution itself to be clarified - which is notoriously difficult. The leaps made by courts in this regard are somewhat breathtaking, wandering far from matters which ever crossed the minds of the framers of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Right, I should have been more clear - most arguments that the courts make in these cases reference the constitution, which is why they are hard to over turn.
 
JimG said:
If the question is “what might gay couples miss out on if they can’t get married?” The answer is, nothing more than anyone else might miss out on by not being married. A mother living with her son or daughter is not allowed to marry them. Is she missing out on something? Maybe. They can’t put her on their health insurance, for example. The same is true of two brothers sharing an apartment. Is that a reason for allowing any two or more persons to marry? Not at all. Marriage is a natural institution arising from the complementary and procreative nature of man and woman, and their ability to bear children and form families. It is not a mere social construct for the purpose of distributing government benefits.
Click to expand...
Ok wait I do believe that things like this may happen where it does reduce the idea to marriage to a mere economical benefit, I get that… but mostly all over the world incest, marrying animals, and other stupid things is illegal. I am not rejecting this church teaching but I am just wondering about it. There is nothing wrong with being a doubting Thomas(reference from bible).

So pretty much as of now we should not allow gay marriage because it is mainly for reasons like economical reasons, but also it doesn’t really work right, two men or women cannot get married, sure, they can be in love. As friends though, but no anymore than that, by getting intimate it makes it immoral…Though I have one question other than economic rights, is there anything else that gets cut off when gay marriage is illegal, like will they be arrested in public if they hold hands, will they arrested for living together, or just arrested for doing what couples do like kiss and stuff or does the illegalization only apply to not recognizing it as marriage and nothing more. Hope this makes sense.
 
Ilovejesus1234 said:
Ok wait I do believe that things like this may happen where it does reduce the idea to marriage to a mere economical benefit, I get that… but mostly all over the world incest, marrying animals, and other stupid things is illegal. I am not rejecting this church teaching but I am just wondering about it. There is nothing wrong with being a doubting Thomas(reference from bible).

So pretty much as of now we should not allow gay marriage because it is mainly for reasons like economical reasons, but also it doesn’t really work right, two men or women cannot get married, sure, they can be in love. As friends though, but no anymore than that, by getting intimate it makes it immoral…Though I have one question other than economic rights, is there anything else that gets cut off when gay marriage is illegal, like will they be arrested in public if they hold hands, will they arrested for living together, or just arrested for doing what couples do like kiss and stuff or does the illegalization only apply to not recognizing it as marriage and nothing more. Hope this makes sense.
Click to expand...
The only reason I was addressing economic issues is because you asked this:
“But one opposing argument, are there any websites that show what gay couples seem to miss out on when they cannot get married, financially, socially, mentally, economically etc…Hope this isn’t bothering you, I am just starting to get it you know?”
It’s true, marriage has and is intended to have financial and social benefits, because it is the only institution going back for millennia that is intended to further family and the continuance of civilization. Same sex marriage cannot do that.

No, nobody is being arrested for living together now, heterosexual or homosexual. Nobody will be arrested for holding hands. Public displays of affection are not necessarily in good taste, but they are not illegal.
 
Is there anyway that there is a link that states this, I just want to be sure, but anyway how else will marriage be demoralized or lose its meaning if no other laws get passed concerning marriage of inanimate objects, poligemy, incest etc. I think the farthest we will go for the is will be pretty much gay marriage as a society. At this current time I oppose gay marriage and want to vote against it because of reasons such as: it isn’t right, two homosexuals cannot do the same thing heteros can do, mainly it is for economic reasons, I do not recognize it as a true marriage so I vote against it. And other reasons probably. But still I just want to make sure that when I vote against this I am not cutting off the right to be publically or privately intimate.
 
When there was a large march in Paris in opposition to same sex marriage, it was not widely covered by the media. Even less widely covered was the fact that a great many homosexuals turned out to protest against same sex marriage:

newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5455
 
I wanted to add also, why else should it be illegal especially if its true love between two people, I mean it is true love but I don’t want to support it because it isn’t right and moral, it isn’t the same as heterosexual marriage. It is basically saying once it is legal that it is the same as heterosexual marriage which isn’t true.

Why else should it be illegal, especially if the two are in love with each other.

I feel like another reason they get married is because of love.
 
Ilovejesus1234 said:
…Why else should it be illegal, especially if the two are in love with each other.
Click to expand...
You ask the wrong question. The better question is “why should the State endorse a sexual relationship between two men (or women)”? What would be the purpose?
 
But to answer your question I did not think of that, I was asking because I would think marriage would be a symbol of just romantic love between two people, so I would guess if it was illegal, I would imagine they would guess that they wouldn’t be able to have something that would prove how much they love each other or something…I don’t know, I would guess this is why most heterosexual couples get married.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top