Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, then. So Catholics think that when a man or a woman believes that he or she is in a committed sexual relationship with another man or woman, that that’s always bad.

If you want to restrict the rights of a class because of religion, you can do that – but you’ll need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
It has nothing to do with religion. Where is sexual preference listed as a protected class in the Constitution? There is no basic right of people to marry someone of the same sex, and it is contrary to human dignity, basic biology and common sense.
 
Eh… no. Loving v Virginia established marriage as a right, not heterosexual marriage as a right. You are reading something into the decision which is not there. If you think otherwise, please provide the citation that refers to the principle that marriage is restricted to a couple involving a man and a woman.
Actually, to apply it to same-sex unions is “reading something into the decision.” There is no evidence that the justices defined marriage as “the union of two people regardless of gender.” In fact, it is correct to assume that the justices were referring to marriage as currently defined by society - the union of a man and woman.
 
Not so much. See Matthew 19:8. Unless you think Christians are bound by Mosaic law, of course.

Given this argument, and the analogy between gay marriage and interracial marriage (with Loving v Virginia as precendent):

The Supreme Court has ruled in Bob Jones University v. United States, that it is within Federal authority to strip a religious institution of its tax exempt status when that organizations practices are contrary to established public policy.

In it, Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status, and rightly so, for its interracial dating ban.

My question is, and no supporter of gay marriage has addressed:

Given these legal precedents, what is to prevent the Federal government from stripping the Catholic Church of its 503(c) status for not performing gay marriages??
Nothing. The Church is not above the law.
 
Since the US Constitution doesn’t require marriage to be of opposite sexes, why is this a problem?.
The US Constitution also doesn’t require marriage to be of two consenting humans. 🤷

Your point is moot.
 
Hmmm if in “real biology”, some animals have homo-sexual behavior, shouldn’t we be smelling each other’s gluteus maximus too (just like dog’s), or maybe we can eat each other (just like some squids) or better yet eat our young (like some birds and fish) because since animals do it, we can do it too because it’s “natural”. Are we losing our common sense or what here?!
 
I beg to differ. The same amendment granting religious freedom grants people a license to call absolutely anything else they want a “right”. The issue of it being a right is to be debated in the public square.
Fine, I should have added to that “…and have each of these ‘rights’ legally recognized”, but I’m surprised if you really didn’t see that’s what I meant. Anyway, if the issue of what is a right is to be debated in the public square, I don’t see what part tyrannical judges would have in the whole process.
 
It has nothing to do with religion., There is no basic right of people to marry someone of the same sex, and it is contrary to human dignity, basic biology and common sense.
Love is better than hate. If you have ever actually researched biology, you will find that there are thousands of animals that participate in homosexual activities with their species. Common sense says that science supports arguments for gay rights.

And it has everything to do with religion. I am a huge activist for gay rights. Recently, this battle became even more personal and important to me when I found out that one of my family members is gay. So naturally, I want to bring down all the obstacles I see that keep homosexuals from gaining their rights. And the biggest obstacle I see is, without a doubt, religion.

I want to give a solid argument for my idea that if religion did not discriminate against gays, then same-sex marriage would have been legalized years ago.

First, it is important to understand why religions such as Christianity are not ok if you are gay. In Catholicism, sex is moral only if it includes all three of these traits: the couple is married, the emotional connection between the couple is being enhanced, and the couple is open to the possibility of creating children. Gays cannot pro-create, so therefore it is immoral for them to waste their precious little spermies. A Christian will probably point to the many Bible passages in the Old Testament where it says if you commit sodomy, you will be stoned (stoning was the usual punishment if you broke any one of God’s Laws…I guess there were a lot of rocks around). Leviticus 18:22 says “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination.”

Times change and society evolves. At the time, I guess it made sense to do everything you could to pro-create, because there really weren’t that many people at all compared to today. Having lots of gays in a small village would decrease the chances of the village’s survival. But we don’t live in villages with a few hundred people. We live in cities, and there are millions upon millions of people. The world is overpopulated as it is. The world could definitely use a few more gays. Anyways, my point is that just because your holy book says it doesn’t mean it should apply to today’s society.

Now, if monotheistic religions would hold the belief that gay sex is wrong without discriminating against actual gay people themselves, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem (although I still wouldn’t agree). “Hate the sin, love the sinner” is a common Christian motto. But this phrase runs into a problem when you apply it to gay people. Because being gay is not an action. It is an integral part of who some people are. Many heterosexual couples would consider the love for their partner as a characteristic that defines them. It’s the same situation for gays. Besides, common sense says that if you hate what a person is doing, then chances are you don’t exactly love the person, either.

Let’s put dogma aside for now and look at the actions of religion concerning gays.

Just a few hundred years ago, you would be burned for being gay. The word “faggot” actual refers to a bundle of sticks that was used in burnings. Luckily, people aren’t killed for being gay anymore…well, not nearly as many people. There have been relatively recent murders and beatings in America due to discrimination against gays. The tragic case of Lawrence King, an eighth grader who was killed by a fellow classmate for being gay, is a terrifying example of this.

Of course, this case is an extreme situation. But I know people who are discriminated daily in their schools and workplaces because of their sexual orientation. People lose their jobs for being gay. They can be kicked out of their churches. My great-aunt, who was an otherwise wonderful lady, left her church until it kicked the gays that were going to it out. Churches protesting funerals of gay soldiers. How those soldiers are constantly harassed in their own military groups, and how that is considered lawful. And this is advocated by CHURCHES! Religion is comforting to millions of people in the world. It is a core part of who many people are. But what if your religion denounced who you are as a sin? What would you do if, rather than giving you strength in a crisis, your faith was the cause of your crisis? The advice many gays get from their religious leaders is to change who they are. Imagine being told that to be accepted into your faith, you must live a lie. That is no way to live at all.

You know something is wrong when gay teens are four times as likely to commit suicide as their peers. Imagine how you would feel if you were constantly harassed for being “different” – not just by your peers, but by your parents. Imagine finally being brave enough to show who you are – only to be rejected by those you love, even thrown out of the house. Imagine feeling so isolated that you wonder if anyone gives a damn whether you are alive – or dead.

It just plain sucks. And I know that if religion didn’t make being gay socially unacceptable, then Lawrence King would still be alive.

So I do get considerably angry when my Catholic school puts how being gay is evil into its curriculum every year, because I know this perpetuates the discriminatory attitudes that hurt a lot of people I care about. That’s not ok with me. Religious leaders should be teaching acceptance, not hate. People shouldn’t have to choose between living honestly and living in their faith. It’s hard for me to hear my friends and family being called evil in the name of God. But I know the hate that religion creates is the real evil. I just want to break down and cry sometimes because of all this. But I will always keep fighting, and I will never shut up, because I give a damn about equality. And so should you: wegiveadamn.org/
 
No religion in the US will be forced to change their religious practices. It would be a violation of the First Amendment. The courts have ruled on this many times.
Unless some people, lawyers and judges get it in their head that the First Amendment must be struck down because religion isn’t a right. And they’ll keep coming back and keep getting favorable opinions, introduce a constitutional change, convince states to vote for the constitutional change until the First Amendment is repealed.

People keep dismissing such thoughts as silly and “no one” is suggesting that. They haven’t lived long enough.
 
Hmmm if in “real biology”, some animals have homo-sexual behavior, shouldn’t we be smelling each other’s gluteus maximus too (just like dog’s), or maybe we can eat each other (just like some squids) or better yet eat our young (like some birds and fish) because since animals do it, we can do it too because it’s “natural”. Are we losing our common sense or what here?!
Humans have evolved, and at one point, our ancestors may have had similiar behavior. But if humans have been gay ever since they have existed, that points to that it is natural. You are right though, murder is “natural” as well. Just because something is natural doesn’t make it moral.

But sex isn’t murder. Who cares where people stick things, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone? That’s personal business. Love is personal business. The happiness and sexual activity of two males or females does not affect anyone else. I honestly don’t see why the Church cares so much besides the fact that it is obsessed with people’s sex lives and virginity.
 
Love is better than hate. If you have ever actually researched biology, you will find that there are thousands of animals that participate in homosexual activities with their species. Common sense says that science supports arguments for gay rights.
Abnormal activities that occur among animals are not a justification for sanctioning abnormal activities that occur among humans. I have a dog that eats feces…I wouldn’t use that as justification for a human eating feces.
blacktiger:
And it has everything to do with religion. I am a huge activist for gay rights. Recently, this battle became even more personal and important to me when I found out that one of my family members is gay. So naturally, I want to bring down all the obstacles I see that keep homosexuals from gaining their rights. And the biggest obstacle I see is, without a doubt, religion.
So, naturally, you would be arguing for the rights of a man to marry a boy if one of your family members was a pedophile, right? Your arguments make no sense.

And, it isn’t a love versus hate thing. I don’t hate anyone, I just don’t think there is any value to society to sanction homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual relationships. Sexual preference is not a protected class, and there is no reason to include same-sex couples in the definition of “marriage.”
 
But evidently the judge is.
Um…the judge is a part of the law system. But that still doesn’t make him above the law. What crime did the judge commit that he isn’t being punished for? Please explain.
 
He stated no such thing.
He certainly implied it.
What he stated was the facts.
No, he didn’t. What he said was that “homosexual activists voted” to change the status of homosexuality. That implies that “homosexual activists” somehow took control of the conference. Its a rather strange claim, and made without any supporting facts.
Hopefully you did not believe that homosexual behavior was removed because of a peer-reviewed scientific study and after a long and reasoned debate.
Honestly, I don’t know. I wasn’t there, and I was quite young at the time. However, there have been no “facts” presented to say that removal of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder wasn’t warranted.
 
Humans have evolved, and at one point, our ancestors may have had similiar behavior. But if humans have been gay ever since they have existed, that points to that it is natural. You are right though, murder is “natural” as well. Just because something is natural doesn’t make it moral.

But sex isn’t murder. Who cares where people stick things, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone? That’s personal business. Love is personal business. The happiness and sexual activity of two males or females does not affect anyone else. I honestly don’t see why the Church cares so much besides the fact that it is obsessed with people’s sex lives and virginity.
From an evolutionary standpoint, same-sex unions are obviously abnormal.
 
Abnormal activities that occur among animals are not a justification for sanctioning abnormal activities that occur among humans. I have a dog that eats feces…I wouldn’t use that as justification for a human eating feces.

So, naturally, you would be arguing for the rights of a man to marry a boy if one of your family members was a pedophile, right? Your arguments make no sense.

And, it isn’t a love versus hate thing. I don’t hate anyone, I just don’t think there is any value to society to sanction homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual relationships. Sexual preference is not a protected class, and there is no reason to include same-sex couples in the definition of “marriage.”
In response to your first paragraph, I already responded to that in a previous post.

In resposne to your second paragraph, I am soooooooooo TIRED of this slippery slope argument. I have heard it literally hundreds of times. There are LOGICAL reasons why incest and pedophile marriages are not allowed to occur (such as birth defects, children can be easily taken advantage of, rape is bad, etc.) If there is a LOGICAL reason to prohibit gay marriage, please tell me. I fail to see one. No where did I say I supported pedophiles. You know it. I know it. So let’s stop it with this slippery slope bs and give me one logical reason why gay marriages would be very harmful to society.
 
I think the Judge did answer that question in the context of the State institution of marriage.
No, absolutely he didn’t. Tell me, what is the purpose of marriage? What is the nature of the marriage relationship?
What you’ve pointed out is that sex, which gay couples are perfectly capable of having, was and still is important to marriage. This has never been tied to a State requirement to bear and/or willingess to bear children in the United States.
I think you’re being deliberately obtuse. We had a society, fifty years ago, in which sex outside marriage had dramatic negative social consequences, and in which illegitimacy was frowned upon. The “ability or willingness” is frankly stupid. Obviously, having someone sign a piece of paper stating they intended to have children is meaningless, because you can’t judge someone’s sincerity. Ability is still a medical determination that isn’t at all easy to arrive at conclusively. It wouldn’t make any sense to guage these things, because they can’t be enforced or determined. That doesn’t mean that the purpose and meaning of marriage was not intimately tied to procreation. We know that because marriage was the only socially accepted vehicle in which people could procreate. As the judge notes, marriage was also one of the few accepted social opportunities for women.

Now, that has passed. There isn’t any reason for blood tests, since no one is waiting for marriage to have sex. There isn’t any reason for consummation to be a requirement, since procreation is not the purpose of marriage. And we have made divorce no fault, so you don’t need a reason to get out - and the old reasons, infidelity, no sex, no children, don’t define the civil relationship anymore. Tell me what is left?
Oh? So free speech isn’t a fundamental right just because what one person says has no meaning to me?
Good grief. This isn’t a speech issue. We are talking about a fundamental right - marriage, and trying to discern what marriage means to the judge. I can explain exactly what every other fundamental right entails, and why it is important. But I have no idea what the judge thinks a marriage is, what its social purpose is, etc. In other words, I think the ruling stands for the proposition that marrriage, as traditionally conceived, is a defunct institution, with no independent meaning or social consequence, other than labeling people married gives them government benefits.

It should be simple, shouldn’t it? What is marriage? What is its definition, its function, its limitations? All I see is that two people of legal age can call themselves married if they want. How is that a fundamental right? How is it anything?

You don’t have to oppose gay marriage to recognize this fairly obvious gap in reasoning, just as I don’t have to support gay marriage to recognize that the legal character of marriage has changed over the last generation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top