Rights homosexuals miss out on

[Rau]

Also doesn’t banning same-sex marriage and other bans basically go against some amendments? Forgive me for saying this but I know for sure there is something in our constitution saying we can’t mess with certain rights for a person or people. I am not to informed on this so you guys may need to correct me.

Huh?

Do you think the good folks who wrote the US constitution thought 2 men could marry each other? Is that what you think they meant? Wow! Do you think they wanted everyone in society to view 2 men (or 2 women) entering into a sexual relationship as a natural societal unit.? Do you think that they meant to broaden marriage so that we are all required to view 2 mean (or women) “marrying” as a normal means of family formation, identical to the man+woman union intrinsic to our nature?

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

Please don’t be rude, Jesus was never rude to people he was teaching even if they didn’t understand it or questioned him. This applies for us today.

But yes I do get what you mean, so you’re saying that their intention wasn’t to allow it to be like this when making the constitution correct? Also do you know what the specific amendment or bullet point in the constitution that somewhat says ," People are free to have rights" or something like that.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

Please don’t be rude, Jesus was never rude to people he was teaching even if they didn’t understand it or questioned him. This applies for us today.

I wanted to reword this, seemed invalid. A good catholic never is stern when he is talking with his fellow catholic about a case they are having trouble with. I accept the church teaching, but I want to understand why I should. Let us talk like two friends, and not make up excuses of why we should be rude or stern to each other, when I specifically said I don’t like that.

 

[AyJSimon]

Huh?

Do you think the good folks who wrote the US constitution thought 2 men could marry each other? Is that what you think they meant? Wow! Do you think they wanted everyone in society to view 2 men (or 2 women) entering into a sexual relationship as a natural societal unit.? Do you think that they meant to broaden marriage so that we are all required to view 2 mean (or women) “marrying” as a normal means of family formation, identical to the man+woman union intrinsic to our nature?

Do you think the good folks who wrote the US Constitution intended that all future generations of Americans analyze policy through the lens of what would’ve been appropriate in the 18th century? Do you imagine the Framers always themselves held themselves to the customs and traditions of the 16th century?

I think the people who openly pine for life the way it was in the 1950s are weird. But they look quite normal and reasonable next to the people who wish we could all live like it was still the 1780s.

 

[WilliamOK]

Also doesn’t banning same-sex marriage and other bans basically go against some amendments? Forgive me for saying this but I know for sure there is something in our constitution saying we can’t mess with certain rights for a person or people. I am not to informed on this so you guys may need to correct me.

What exactly is banned? Gays can already do whatever they want. What they are really asking for is laws to force everybody to call it marriage.

Saying it is “banned” is their deceptive and biased way to present the situation. You could just as easily say that in many states now there is a “ban” on treating husband-wife couples as different than same-sex couples, even though in reality they are different.

Whoever you’re talking to is probably talking about amendments that were designed to prevent racial discrimination. And racial discrimination has nothing to do with marriage meaning husband and wife.

You’re going off into legal left field. Please, just stick with asking your liberal or gay friend or whoever they are why you should support a law that commands us to treat 2 men the same as husband and wife. Because the bottom line truth is that is what gay marriage law does.

 

[AyJSimon]

What exactly is banned? Gays can already do whatever they want. What they are really asking for is laws to force everybody to call it marriage.

Saying it is “banned” is their deceptive and biased way to present the situation.

You could just as easily say that in many states now there is a “ban” on treating husband-wife couples as different than same-sex couples, even though in reality they are different.

Whoever you’re talking to is probably talking about amendments that were designed to prevent racial discrimination. And racial discrimination has nothing to do with marriage meaning husband and wife.

You’re going off into legal left field. Please, just stick with asking your liberal or gay friend or whoever they are why you should support a law that commands us to treat 2 men the same as husband and wife.

No law is being proposed that would force you to call it “marriage” a union between two men or two women. Nobody cares what you or your church think about it or want to call it. But then, that’s what’s really upsetting you, isn’t it? The idea that the government doesn’t recognize your veto power on its own definition of marriage.

 

[WilliamOK]

Huh?

Do you think the good folks who wrote the US constitution thought 2 men could marry each other? Is that what you think they meant? Wow! Do you think they wanted everyone in society to view 2 men (or 2 women) entering into a sexual relationship as a natural societal unit.? Do you think that they meant to broaden marriage so that we are all required to view 2 mean (or women) “marrying” as a normal means of family formation, identical to the man+woman union intrinsic to our nature?

Rau, it sounds to me like ilovejesus1234 has a friend or somebody around him pestering him about gay marriage. I’m thinking these objections are things he is hearing from somebody else and aren’t really coming from him? Am I right ilovejesus1234?

 

[WilliamOK]

No law is being proposed that would force anyone to call it “marriage” a union between two men or two women. Nobody cares what you or your church think about it or want to call it. But then, that’s what’s really upsetting you, isn’t it? The idea that the government doesn’t recognize your veto power on its own definition of marriage.

I already took the time earlier to explain to you the obvious reality of how laws that say 2 men are a marriage actually have to be followed when I talk about marital insurance benefits at my job, and you said before you saw my point. So yes, of course. That’s what’s bothering me. You may not care what my church says, but I do, because I live by that. You cannot understand, maybe because you don’t want to. I took the time to engage you but you still are saying the same things again. Oh that’s right, you already said you don’t care what my church says or what I think. So… remind me again why you’re still here?

 

[AyJSimon]

Yes, of course. That’s what’s bothering me. You may not care what my church says, but I do, because I live by that. You cannot understand, maybe because you don’t want to. Oh that’s right, you already said you don’t care what my church says or what I think. So… remind me again why you’re still here?

To hold a mirror up to your ideas. I understand plenty, and believe me, your side needs it.

 

[WilliamOK]

Didn’t there used to be an “ignore” button for people who just wouldn’t listen?

 

[WilliamOK]

To hold a mirror up to your ideas. I understand plenty, and believe me, your side needs it.

But you’re going around in circles, bringing up things we already settled and agreed upon. I told you the law DOES force people to pretend 2 men are a marriage. That is the most obvious thing about gay marriage law. Why can’t you see it ?

 

[AyJSimon]

Didn’t there used to be an “ignore” button for people who just wouldn’t listen?

Do you think it strange that you actually need a button to ignore people? I don’t need one, and far fewer people around here listen to me than listen to you.

 

[AyJSimon]

But you’re going around in circles, bringing up things we already settled and agreed upon. I told you the law DOES force people to pretend 2 men are a marriage. That is the most obvious thing about gay marriage law. Why can’t you see it ?

“Pretend” how? By selling them insurance? By selling them flowers and cakes for their weddings? Let’s leave aside the fact that businesses are obliged to follow certain non-discriminatory practices - let me repeat the question that you got cute and dodged earlier - what does your God care about such things? He knows what you actually think about it - does He really care what you pretend to think about it to remain within a law you’re obliged to obey?

I don’t think a man can “marry” his border collie. But if he came into my bakery and ordered a cake for a reception following his “wedding” to his border collie, I’d just sell it to him. The fact that neither I, nor any church, nor the government, recognizes this as a marriage is irrelevant to me.

 

[vsedriver]

But the failure of the widow(er) to remarry is also intentionally denying the child a relationship with parents of both sexes. Your argument is not consistent here. If the rights of the child are paramount, then widow(er)s should be forced to remarry. If the rights of the parent are paramount, then forced remarriage is not required, and same sex adoption is allowed.

The argument from children fails in cases where the same sex couple have no previous children and do not adopt.

rossum

no it’s not. The child has had an experience of two parents. The parent did provide a parent of the opposite sex. The child lost a parent by accident. Most widows and widowers with small children do remarry. It doesn’t need to be a law. But this not the norm for most people.

it also fails if you take two siblings who have no previous children and do not intend to adopt. They should have the same rights as their position is no different than the same sex couple.

the link that makes marriage special is the fact that it is the union that produces children and where adults become a mother and a father. Any other union that doesn’t naturally change people into a mother and a father is not a marriage.

 

[vsedriver]

. When I speak of spousal obligations, I mean that one gender had definite duties, as did the other. For example, the wife was responsible for child care, and nearly always retained the children after a divorce. The husband was responsible to financial duties. The wife was required to follow her husband, if he decided to move. The wife took the husband’s name, and indeed was commonly referred to as “Mrs. John Doe.” etc…

However, over the past century and a half, the personal rights of women in our society have been evolving. As a result of the momentum of that evolutionary process, we find that, legally, there is no longer a gender distinction under the law. This is what you have missed in your argument. UNDER THE LAW, there is no longer any gender distinction in the marriage contract with respect to spousal rights and duties. A wife may be the primary income producer. A husband may be the primary caretaker for the children. The courts may award child custody in a divorce in any way, without regard to gender. etc.

That point is crucial, because if there is no gender distinction as to spousal duties in the marriage contract, then there is no reason to distinguish between genders when it comes to granting the marriage license. This legal distinction has nothing to do with the religious view which stands as the basis for the challenges to the changes which are going on, and it also explains why those challenges are increasingly unsuccessful.

.

there is one gender distinction you have overlooked. A man can’t give birth to a baby and a woman needs a man to get pregnant. So gender is a lot more biological than just a job discription.

 

[vsedriver]

The secular view would be that we know enough about human sexuality, and that the legal status of gender distinction has progressed, to the extent that it is time to change the law. And, that is what is happening.

Going off on a tangent about religious beliefs, or about biology, or about personal POV’S may be interesting and informative (at times). But, if the intent is to clarify what the “rights” are (or, are not), then the discussion is one about legalities, legal trends, and so forth.

It seems to me that a lot of people raise their voices and get very frustrated when they lose sight of this.

so if gender is no longer a requirement (one of each kind) Then a marriage can be what ever you want it to be. You can’t discriminate against straight people of the same sex either. If two strangers of the same gender can marry than why can’t two close blood relatives? Number and relationship must also be done away with. Otherwise the state is discriminating for no just reason.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

Everyone can you all listen please, why are we fighting? There is no use for it, AyJsimon, I can say that you don’t exactly agree with our God and Church, you may have your own religion or church you go to(or not, you could not believe in God), and that is fine. But you should always try to do nothing contrary to love of others. All I am asking you is to not insult us, okay, it hurts all our feelings, focus on building others up, not tearing down.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

What exactly is banned? Gays can already do whatever they want. What they are really asking for is laws to force everybody to call it marriage.

Saying it is “banned” is their deceptive and biased way to present the situation. You could just as easily say that in many states now there is a “ban” on treating husband-wife couples as different than same-sex couples, even though in reality they are different.

Whoever you’re talking to is probably talking about amendments that were designed to prevent racial discrimination. And racial discrimination has nothing to do with marriage meaning husband and wife.

You’re going off into legal left field. Please, just stick with asking your liberal or gay friend or whoever they are why you should support a law that commands us to treat 2 men the same as husband and wife. Because the bottom line truth is that is what gay marriage law does.

What is banned? Civil unions for gays are banned in some states, in others there is no way any gay can be allowed to have any sort of legal union with another gay. This is separate from calling marriage strictly between male and female, this is just legal stuff.

Also I have no liberal, or gay friend. I usually just talk to my mom and about this and I just make sure i have a strong case to give to others and then she inserts doubts and I bring them here so we could make sense of them and so that I can also come to a conclusion soon.

But yes I agree that marriage should be between man and woman. But doesn’t that violate our nations motto of saying our citizens have their rights and freedoms. If we are going to vote for something to be illegal we need to be looking at what we violate in our constitution.

 

[Rau]

Do you think the good folks who wrote the US Constitution intended that all future generations of Americans analyze policy through the lens of what would’ve been appropriate in the 18th century? Do you imagine the Framers always themselves held themselves to the customs and traditions of the 16th century?

I think the people who openly pine for life the way it was in the 1950s are weird. But they look quite normal and reasonable next to the people who wish we could all live like it was still the 1780s.

I am quite certain that the “right” for two men to marry was not intended to flow from anything written in the US constitution.

I cannot imagine that such a thing could be a right now but not then!

 

[Rau]

But yes I agree that marriage should be between man and woman. But doesn’t that violate our nations motto of saying our citizens have their rights and freedoms. If we are going to vote for something to be illegal we need to be looking at what we violate in our constitution.

I think we can be pretty sure that the Constitution authors understood that Marriage is between man and a woman just as you do. So we don’t need to worry about violating the Constitution!