Oh, please point out the scientific arguments-and do include your references. I’ve been hunting for years and have never found any from any objective sources. Every argument I have ever found, when drilled down to it’s originating premise, boils down to “God Said So”, which of course is all well and good for me, but not for the Constitution.Why is it so important for gay people to “marry” anyways? Just because it “feels” good, even though there’s scientific, socilogical, religous and philisophical arguements stating it may not be a good idea?
Feelings and emotions are not really governmental concernsI guess it depends on how you frame the right.
Straight people have the right to marry the person whom they love and to whom they are sexually attracted. Gay people, not so much.
Which arguments do you claim are valid? Only ones that agree with you? Is scientism now the master of the land? If science claims something can be done does that mean society must embrace it as legitimate?Oh, please point out the scientific arguments-and do include your references. I’ve been hunting for years and have never found any from any objective sources. Every argument I have ever found, when drilled down to it’s originating premise, boils down to “God Said So”, which of course is all well and good for me, but not for the Constitution.
Yes, and what research study isn’t biased in some way ? Of course there’s the old saying, lies, darned lies and statistics.Oh, please point out the scientific arguments-and do include your references. I’ve been hunting for years and have never found any from any objective sources. Every argument I have ever found, when drilled down to it’s originating premise, boils down to “God Said So”, which of course is all well and good for me, but not for the Constitution.
If you’re American, maybe you should read your Declaration of Independence again.Feelings and emotions are not really governmental concerns
there is no requirement for you to be in love, happy, or attracted to each other.
If I fall in love with a man who is not my current husband, do I have the right to be married to him in addition to my husband?Straight people have the right to marry the person whom they love and to whom they are sexually attracted. Gay people, not so much.
Perhaps you should.If you’re American, maybe you should read your Declaration of Independence again.
When we’re talking about biology and genetics, I’ll stick with science.Which arguments do you claim are valid? Only ones that agree with you? Is scientism now the master of the land? If science claims something can be done does that mean society must embrace it as legitimate?
We already do, for the most part, have equal treatment.When we’re talking about biology and genetics, I’ll stick with science.
You do not have to embrace anything that violates your moral code. You don’t have to marry a gay person, you don’t have to attend a wedding between two gay people, you can even stand out on the sidewalk with a sign about how they’re all going to Hell if that’s what you want to do. You are free to choose all those things.
Equal treatment does not mean that everyone has to stand up and say how wonderful it is. Equal treatment means only that-that everyone in civil society is treated in the same way. As long as there is even one hurdle that one section of society must jump that doesn’t exist for all others, then equal treatment does not exist.
“for the most part” isn’t equal treatment under civil rights laws.We already do, for the most part, have equal treatment.
You said that feelings and emotions are not a governmental concern. It appears (although I could be wrong) that your nation was founded, in part, on the basic principle that allowing people to pursue the emotion of happiness is, in fact, a concern of the government.I don’t see in there a *requirement *to be in love, happy, or attracted to each other. Steveanderson is right that the government is not concerned with such “requirements.”
And it’s the *pursuit *of happiness, not happiness itself. If you want to argue that gays should be allowed to pursue happiness by marrying each other, I will in turn have to apply the “pursuit of happiness by being allowed to marry any person” rule to all citizens, regardless of age, current marital status, and biological relationship.
Whose science? If science says infidelity lowers blood pressure does that mean infidelity is good?When we’re talking about biology and genetics, I’ll stick with science.
OK.You do not have to embrace anything that violates your moral code. You don’t have to marry a gay person, you don’t have to attend a wedding between two gay people, you can even stand out on the sidewalk with a sign about how they’re all going to Hell if that’s what you want to do. You are free to choose all those things.
If a homosexual person claims they want to marry another homosexual person where do you get the notion that is unequal treatment?Equal treatment does not mean that everyone has to stand up and say how wonderful it is. Equal treatment means only that-that everyone in civil society is treated in the same way. As long as there is even one hurdle that one section of society must jump that doesn’t exist for all others, then equal treatment does not exist.
I underlined the part secularists reject.Perhaps you should.
First of all, we operate under the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.
Second, the exact wording in the Declaration is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
What exactly are you advocating, then?“for the most part” isn’t equal treatment under civil rights laws.
The population of State X is predominantly atheist, other than the fact they don’t believe in God-they’re good citizens. They work hard and they pay their taxes. These good people in State X have decided that all those who wish to have religious marriages must have a separate ceremony, performed by a Justice of the Peace and have a legal contract drawn up before they will qualify as being married in the eyes of the law. Clearly, the good people of State X is violating the law by imposing those restrictions, even if they would counter that the restrictions are really not burdensome.What exactly are you advocating, then?
It sounds to me that most of the benefits can either be drawn up in legal documents (that striaght people should have anyways) or more policy options from insurance compaines. Neither of which affect a large segment of the population nor are good enough reason to legalize gay marriage.
I’m assuming that everyone will have the Justice of the Peace ceremony, and those religious folk are just going one step further to have their marriage blessed by some religious institution.The population of State X is predominantly atheist, other than the fact they don’t believe in God-they’re good citizens. They work hard and they pay their taxes. These good people in State X have decided that all those who wish to have religious marriages must have a separate ceremony, performed by a Justice of the Peace and have a legal contract drawn up before they will qualify as being married in the eyes of the law. Clearly, the good people of State X is violating the law by imposing those restrictions, even if they would counter that the restrictions are really not burdensome.
It’s not that it’s hard to do, it’s not that it’s terribly expensive, it’s simply that one group of people is being asked to do something that other groups of people living in the same state and paying the same taxes are not being asked to do.
Whether it sounds unfair or not, in this country such a law would be unfair, because it would be discriminatory. It would be imposing a requirement on those who want a religious marriage that doesn’t exist for those married by a JOP.I’m assuming that everyone will have the Justice of the Peace ceremony, and those religious folk are just going one step further to have their marriage blessed by some religious institution.
Doesn’t sound unfair at all to me, and I think this is practice in parts of Europe.
And come to think of it, what’s the minimum reuirements to be validly married in the eyes of the government/church? I don’t think they set the bar that high. The church does require a waiting/preperation period, but a $100,000 ceremony/reception with 500 guests are not required.
How exactly is it unfair? I think you are confusing “sacraments” with civil contracts.Whether it sounds unfair or not, in this country such a law would be unfair, because it would be discriminatory. It would be imposing a requirement on those who want a religious marriage that doesn’t exist for those married by a JOP.
If you married in the Catholic church, you didn’t have to do anything else to be considered married-you didn’t have to have another civil ceremony did you? That was my analogy. If a law were passed that all those married in religious ceremonies had to have separate civil ceremonies and civil legal documents drawn up the uproar would be deafening-and well justified.How exactly is it unfair? I think you are confusing “sacraments” with civil contracts.
People get married in their church, synagogue, mosque, temple or whatever to have the official blessing of their diety (and probably because that’s what their family wants as well). Specifically, as Catholics, we believe the sacrament provides a supernatural bond and a source of grace. So, if a segment of the population thinks this is neccessary, who really cares?
The state is interested as to property rights and tax puproses. In a lot of cases it’s just a “sign on the dotted line.” The state obviously does not care if you have a religious ceremony or not.
So, I think the analogy you propose is faulty as it compares apples and oranges. The church, in theory could care less about property matters.
All that being said, we are back at square one. What’s to stop any two or more people living together and coming up with a basic set of legal contracts that provide something roughly eqivalent to marriage?
The D of I says that the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right… not happiness itselfIf you’re American, maybe you should read your Declaration of Independence again.