Same-Sex Marriage General Discussion Thread

[INDY500]

I don't think you actually believe in "defending traditional marriage."

Because you know that phrase is a crock of shit and little more than saying "state's rights" when the subject is segregation.

That's simply not true.

Dan Qualye (as a famous example) and conservatives were, and still are, just as vocal in supporting marriage when the subject is divorce or single mothers. GWB and conservatives fought to get the marriage penalty removed from the federal tax code. And we'll be there as polygamy tries to get its nose under the tent too.
They're different arguments but the commitment is no less.

 

[Irvine511]

But you and I both know that discriminating against gay people doesn't defend anyone's marriage. All "defending traditional marriage" means in a political context is "keep fags out."

That simply is true.

 

[cobl04]

Irvine I met a gay couple with kids the other day. And I was so sad - their lives are already ruined. They will never make a contribution to society. Won't you think of the children?!

 

[Irvine511]

And to think, they brought a child into the web of sin, perversion, and war against nature. Children are not pets. When will they learn?

 

[anitram]

But you and I both know that discriminating against gay people doesn't defend anyone's marriage.

That is exactly it.

INDY, what does the legalization of gay marriage have to do with defending traditional marriage? Is there a limited number of marriage licenses so that every time a gay couple gets married, a straight couple is left out in the dust? Every time a gay couple gets married, a straight couple has to get divorced to offset it?

I mean, in all seriousness, how does it affect you, as a married man, at all that two guys or two gals get hitched in your town or your county or your state or your country?

 

[Irvine511]

My sense is that INDY's opposition is more of a cultural position/alignment, similar to most GOP politicians. And this is FYM, and he's outnumbered, so I can understand makin an argument in order to make an argument. That's why we're all here.

I find it hard to believe that someone who believes so sincerely in the rights of the individual and worries about how much taxes reduce our "freedom" would fail to see how a religious conviction is justification for discrimination.

This really is one of the simplest issues out there. The contortions people will go to to either hide their own homophobia or to locate themselves along a cultural fault line (single mothers! Black poverty! Murphy Brown!) is becoming comical.

 

[BoMac]

I don't understand the phrase "traditional marriage". What is that exactly? is this the same traditional marriage that has evolved over time? Is this the same traditional marriage for which marrying for love is a relatively recent development?

 

[BVS]

My sense is that INDY's opposition is more of a cultural position/alignment, similar to most GOP politicians. And this is FYM, and he's outnumbered, so I can understand makin an argument in order to make an argument. That's why we're all here.

I find it hard to believe that someone who believes so sincerely in the rights of the individual and worries about how much taxes reduce our "freedom" would fail to see how a religious conviction is justification for discrimination.

This really is one of the simplest issues out there. The contortions people will go to to either hide their own homophobia or to locate themselves along a cultural fault line (single mothers! Black poverty! Murphy Brown!) is becoming comical.

Excellent

 

[BVS]

That's simply not true.

Dan Qualye (as a famous example) and conservatives were, and still are, just as vocal in supporting marriage when the subject is divorce or single mothers.

Conservatives are vocal about divorce? Now I know you aren't serious.

 

[digitize]

Why isn't there a campaign to ban second marriages? Or marriages where the husband and wife don't intend to have kids?

 

[Irvine511]

Why isn't there a campaign to ban second marriages? Or marriages where the husband and wife don't intend to have kids?

i'm going to argue the other side, as an exercise.

answer: while divorce is always sad, a second marriage at least shows a willingness to give it another try and hopefully with better results. even if a husband and wife don't intend to have kids, at least it is the correct "form" of a marriage. it is important to maintain this model so that our children't don't become confused and the definition of marriage isn't diluted.

also, we could ask NOM themselves, they have a "marriage talking points" on their webpage:

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

Marriage Talking Points - National Organization for Marriage

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

That's simply not true.

Dan Qualye (as a famous example) and conservatives were, and still are, just as vocal in supporting marriage when the subject is divorce or single mothers. GWB and conservatives fought to get the marriage penalty removed from the federal tax code. And we'll be there as polygamy tries to get its nose under the tent too.
They're different arguments but the commitment is no less.

Here's a novel suggestion: How about Dan Quayle and conservatives in general keep their noses out of other people's love lives. What makes you guys think you have the right to dictate what constitutes "traditional marriage"?

As has been pointed out many, many, many, many, MANY times, traditional marriage at one time would've meant I would've been some man's property instead of anything resembling a wife. So I hope conservatives are prepared to go back to that definition if they're truly hellbent on making sure we all fit into "traditional marriages", 'cause the current definition isn't the original one.

You're not protecting anyone from anything. It's a form of discrimination and you know it. In the areas where same-sex marriage has been legalized society has been going on about as good or bad as it has before (come to my state, I can prove that to you). So what you're worried about with it being legal, I really, truly do not know.

 

[Irvine511]

Here's a novel suggestion: How about Dan Quayle and conservatives in general keep their noses out of other people's love lives. What makes you guys think you have the right to dictate what constitutes "traditional marriage"?

But when women have children without being married to their fathers, the mothers are much more likely o fall into poverty and to seek out state assistance for food and medical needs. I shouldn't have to pay for that. It comes out of my tax dollars, and I shouldn't have to pay for unaffordable children because their mother couldn't wait until that man properly married her. It's everyone's business where, when, and how people have sex because children can result and those children get paid for by my tax dollars.

And that's why gay people shouldn't try to change the traditional definition of marriage.

 

[INDY500]

I mean, in all seriousness, how does it affect you, as a married man, at all that two guys or two gals get hitched in your town or your county or your state or your country?

That is no argument. How does it affect you personally if marriage remains between a man and a woman? Most likely it wouldn't but you're thinking big picture, well so am I.

So, I'll give you a big picture answer.

1) If same-sex marriage becomes law it matters how. If it become law in Indiana or Alabama by Supreme Court decision it will divide the country the same abortion does and that divide will outlive all of us regardless of how the demographics might favor same-sex marriage in the future.

2) Marriage is not only defined by law but by religion, literature, art, music, education and societal traditions. If same-sex marriage is a civil right then the same pressures will be applied to these cultural supports to "modernize" as well.

Here is one example from Canada where you claim all is peachy with same-sex marriage.

Canadian Crackdown - Michael Coren - National Review Online

(excerpts)
Same-sex marriage became law in Canada in the summer of 2005, making the country the fourth nation to pass such legislation, and the first in the English-speaking world. In the few debates leading up to the decision, it became almost impossible to argue in defense of marriage as a child-centered institution, in defense of the procreative norm of marriage, in defense of the superiority of two-gender parenthood, without being thrown into the waste bin as a hater. What we’ve also discovered in Canada is that it can get even worse than mere abuse, and that once gay marriage becomes law, critics are often silenced by the force of the law.

Although precise figures about gay marriages in Canada are elusive, there are thought to be fewer than 30,000, after an initial surge of around 10,000 as soon as the law was passed. But if large numbers of gay people failed to take advantage of the law, the law certainly took advantage of its critics. Again, definitive figures are almost impossible to state, but it’s estimated that, in less than five years, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings — in courts, human-rights commissions, and employment boards — against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage. And this estimate doesn’t take into account the casual dismissals that surely have occurred.

The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage.

So far, churches have been allowed to refuse to consecrate same-sex marriages, but a campaign has begun to remove tax-free status from religious institutions that make this choice.

As I write, two Canadian provinces are considering legislation that would likely prevent educators even in private denominational schools from teaching that they disapprove of same-sex marriage, and a senior government minister in Ontario recently announced that if the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of homosexuality or gay marriage, it “would have to change its teaching.”

What has become painfully evident is that many of those who brought same-sex marriage to Canada have no respect for freedom of conscience and no intention of tolerating contrary opinion, whether that opinion is shaped by religious or by secular belief.

Now this isn't Canada but ask Catholics if our president respects their freedom of conscience and ask Chick-fil-a or Carrie Prejean if their contrary opinion is respected.

 

[Irvine511]

In a nutshell, we must prevent SSM because if SSM is legal than it will make life marginally more uncomfortable for those who believe SSM should be illegal.

This is a good reason.

 

[cobl04]

You can have that contrary opinion all you like. But that doesn't mean you can stop equality.

To me that all just sounds like "OOOHHHH NOOEZZZ TEH GAYS ARE TAKIN OVER!! "

If a church does not approve of it, I don't think they should have to change its teaching (though I'd certainly like to see them change it of its own will) but they shouldn't be saying anything other than "we believe marriage is between a man and a woman" when asked. We no longer live in a society where the church gets to dictate who and who will not get married.

God, if he exists, has not wiped out Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, South Africa or Sweden. The countries themselves have not imploded due to same-sex marriage being legalised.

 

[cobl04]

Also, Richard Dawkins, the world's most passionate atheist, the man who thinks you're delusional if you believe in a deity, has been married three times and divorced twice.

But a gay Christian couple can't get married?

 

[digitize]

It's not hard to imagine why a marriage with Richard Dawkins may be problematic

 

[BoMac]

Here is one example from Canada where you claim all is peachy with same-sex marriage.

Canadian Crackdown - Michael Coren - National Review Online

Of course you would cite Michael Coren, a member of the Christian right who appears regularly on Canada's answer to Fox News.

When we "claim" that all is "peachy", it's because the end-of-the-world rhetoric against same-sex marriage by those on the right has not come to fruition. Allowing gays to marry has not resulted in any of the dire circumstances espoused by some.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

But when women have children without being married to their fathers, the mothers are much more likely o fall into poverty and to seek out state assistance for food and medical needs. I shouldn't have to pay for that. It comes out of my tax dollars, and I shouldn't have to pay for unaffordable children because their mother couldn't wait until that man properly married her. It's everyone's business where, when, and how people have sex because children can result and those children get paid for by my tax dollars.

And that's why gay people shouldn't try to change the traditional definition of marriage.

Oh, right, of course! Wow, it's amazing how much chaos you guys tend to cause all us straight people, apparently.

And yeah, why should we help them? It's not like it'd be the Christian thing to do or anything, after all.

Now this isn't Canada but ask Catholics if our president respects their freedom of conscience and ask Chick-fil-a or Carrie Prejean if their contrary opinion is respected.

1, I don't respect those people's opinions one iota. But I'm not stopping them from having said opinions. Lack of respect for one's opinion is not equivalent to forcible silence. Don't worry, you and your buddies there will still be allowed to be against gay marriage all you wish. Nobody, to my knowledge, is having any intent of stopping you from feeling as you do.
2, you have sat here using religion as one of your reasons for being against gay marriage, made constant statements about how religion needs to be more involved in our government, and yet you are actually complaining about Obama's "lack of respect" for Catholics' "freedom of conscience" and fretting over the government possibly telling churches they HAVE to marry same-sex couples should it become legal nationwide?!

No. Sorry. You can't have it both ways. You want religion to be more involved in the state? You want Christian values to rule the nation? Then don't complain about the idea of the state getting involved in your religion in return (which will happen if religion gets more closely involved with the state, be sure of that). And nobody has been suggesting that if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide that churches should have to follow suit to begin with, so you're worrying over nothing! See, that's the beauty of that whole "separation of church and state" thing you often have issues with.
3, not only is Carrie's position silly, but she's a hypocritical airhead. That's another big reason nobody likes her. If you're making some "moral stand" against same sex marriage and trying to present some good "Christian" image, then my advice is to be extremely careful about the types of tapes you put out there, genius woman.

Honestly, if the best you can get for your side is Carrie Prejean and Dan Quayle, both of whom are dumb as dirt, then that should tell you something about the anti-gay marriage stance.

it became almost impossible to argue in defense of marriage as a child-centered institution, in defense of the procreative norm of marriage, in defense of the superiority of two-gender parenthood, without being thrown into the waste bin as a hater.

Translation: Waaaah, we can't feel like we're better than other people anymore if gay marriage becomes legal!

As I have often noted many times on here, I knew plenty of kids that came from "traditional" homes whose lives turned out like crap. Just because your parents are married doesn't mean you're going to automatically have a better life by default.

Procreative? So, when are you going to make the straight marriages where people can't physically have children, or choose to not have children, illegal, then? I'm not exactly itching to have children, so if I get married and choose to never have kids, is my marriage going to be of less value than that of those who have kids? I'd really like to know the answer to that.

And the two-gender thing? Yeah, 'cause naturally a kid who grows up with two dads or two moms will never, EVER interact with anyone of the opposite gender of their parents in their lives. No family members or friends or teachers or whomever who can help them with any gender-related topics or issues, who can teach or raise them to be upstanding boys and girls. No, apparently that can only happen if they live in the house with the kid.

Yeah. Sorry. None of the anti-gay marriage arguments put forth wash. They've all been debunked numerous times. The bottom line is there is absolutely NO justifiable reason to deny two consenting adults the right to get married. None. You can personally continue to freak out and be against it for whatever reason you want, but it is not your place to actively deny them a right/privilege that you are fortunate enough to participate in. If you do that, that is discrimination, and that is illegal and wrong.

 

[martha]

You guys, come on. My husband and I just celebrated our 23rd wedding anniversary. But every day, every day, we look at each other and weep a tear. We know that the states that allow the gays to marry are slowly destroying the holiness of our own marriage.

It's sad. Just sad.

Spoiler

 

[INDY500]

This really is one of the simplest issues out there.

Then why does it lose every (30 to be exact) time it's put to the vote of the people?

 

[Irvine511]

Then why does it lose every (30 to be exact) time it's put to the vote of the people?

because THE PEOPLE are always right. the Civil Rights era taught us this when Kennedy freed the slaves.

a vote against SSM is a vote against my kids being gay. it's amazing the power that 5% of the population has, and why it's a call to arms that even in a state like NC over 40% of the population will vote for the rights of such a tiny minority. whenever we vote on minority rights, the minority always loses, thankfully. but we must be vigilant. might always makes right, and democracy means having a direct vote on the issues and the courts are filled with unelected, unaccountable tyrants who should never take minority rights into consideration. it's all mob rule. because i don't want my kids to be gay.

you know that as well as i do.

of course, i wouldn't have wanted VA to have voted on interracial marriage in the 1960s in the era of Loving vs. VA.

TOTALLY different. i'm not a racist. conservatives haven't been officially racist since 1989. TOTALLY different.

 

[INDY500]

2, you have sat here using religion as one of your reasons for being against gay marriage, made constant statements about how religion needs to be more involved in our government, and yet you are actually complaining about Obama's "lack of respect" for Catholics' "freedom of conscience" and fretting over the government possibly telling churches they HAVE to marry same-sex couples should it become legal nationwide?!

No. Sorry. You can't have it both ways. You want religion to be more involved in the state? You want Christian values to rule the nation?

Which is exactly what I never said. I believe democracy works best in a religious (pluralistic) society. The Founders thought the same. That isn't support for a state religion.

Then don't complain about the idea of the state getting involved in your religion in return (which will happen if religion gets more closely involved with the state, be sure of that).

I understand there are two equations to religious freedom codified in our Constitution. There can be no "establishment of religion" NOR, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor... any "prohibiting the free exercise of." I was referring to the recent HHS mandate that religious organizations supply contraceptives against their religious conscience.

And nobody has been suggesting that if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide that churches should have to follow suit to begin with, so you're worrying over nothing!

See, that's the beauty of that whole "separation of church and state" thing you often have issues with.

"I often have issues with."

3, not only is Carrie's position silly, but she's a hypocritical airhead. That's another big reason nobody likes her. If you're making some "moral stand" against same sex marriage and trying to present some good "Christian" image, then my advice is to be extremely careful about the types of tapes you put out there, genius woman.

Honestly, if the best you can get for your side is Carrie Prejean and Dan Quayle, both of whom are dumb as dirt, then that should tell you something about the anti-gay marriage stance.

Oh,oh. Personal attacks, the debate must not be going well for you.

Just because your parents are married doesn't mean you're going to automatically have a better life by default.

Non sequitur. No one says that.

Procreative? So, when are you going to make the straight marriages where people can't physically have children, or choose to not have children, illegal, then? I'm not exactly itching to have children, so if I get married and choose to never have kids, is my marriage going to be of less value than that of those who have kids? I'd really like to know the answer to that.

Non sequitur. No one says that.

Yeah. Sorry. None of the anti-gay marriage arguments put forth wash. They've all been debunked numerous times. The bottom line is there is absolutely NO justifiable reason to deny two consenting adults the right to get married. None. You can personally continue to freak out and be against it for whatever reason you want, but it is not your place to actively deny them a right/privilege that you are fortunate enough to participate in. If you do that, that is discrimination, and that is illegal and wrong.

Two adults? What are you going to say when Muhammad moves here from Myanmar with his 3 wives and expects his marriage to be respected? You gonna "freak out" and "deny them a right/privilege that you are fortunate enough to participate in"? Wouldn't that be "illegal and wrong"?

Translation: Waaaah, we can't feel like we're better than other people anymore if gay marriage becomes legal!

I've been nothing short of civil and respectful in this debate. Fully understanding this is an emotional issue, if that can't be reciprocated that tells me it's time to "ignore" the same-sex marriage thread so it can be 100% dissent-free.

 

[maycocksean]

Two adults? What are you going to say when Muhammad moves here from Myanmar with his 3 wives and expects his marriage to be respected? You gonna "freak out" and "deny them a right/privilege that you are fortunate enough to participate in"? Wouldn't that be "illegal and wrong"?

It will at least be easier to defend based on scripture, so there's that.

 

[Irvine511]

The free exercise of my religion requires me to be free of married homosexuals.

It's really a simple issue.

 

[Irvine511]

It will at least be easier to defend based on scripture, so there's that.

Agreed. Religious people like us do need to be aware that when we argue for Biblical marriage, historically that means one man an many wives. At least even in this situation a penis goes inside a vagina, so god likes it. It does become an issue, though, where we require the law to ensure that our religious views are reflected by law. What, then, of Muslims? Knowing that we have the right god, we should put these issues to a vote as well. That way we'll prove to Mohammad and his wives that though we admire their opposing genitalia, they still displease us and should please stop.

My religious freedom means the law tells me I am always right.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Which is exactly what I never said. I believe democracy works best in a religious (pluralistic) society. The Founders thought the same. That isn't support for a state religion.

Yeah, everyone can follow whatever religion they wish, but do you think this nation was founded on Christian principles and should incorporate them into our laws?

I understand there are two equations to religious freedom codified in our Constitution. There can be no "establishment of religion" NOR, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor... any "prohibiting the free exercise of." I was referring to the recent HHS mandate that religious organizations supply contraceptives against their religious conscience.

I know what you were referring to. What I was getting at was that you have an issue with that, fine. There's a valid concern there. But if you do indeed think Christian beliefs should help guide our government, then you're advocating at least some mix of church and state.

And I'm simply saying that if that's the case, then don't be surprised when things like Obama getting involved in the religion/contraception issue happen as a result. If church can influence the state, then state can influence the church. Don't like it? Then we should keep the two as separate as possible.

You can be as Christian as you please in your personal life. But your faith should not be the basis for our lawmaking process. Nor should the Muslim faith, or the Jewish faith, or any other faith. And should an atheist run things, they shouldn't make their laws based on the simple fact that they're atheists, either.

"I often have issues with."

Well, you often seem to think that religion is equal to morality. I know you're fine with people following other religions, but I also recall us having discussions where the implication seems to be that we're more moral if we have religion in our lives.

Plus, in part, the "you" was a general "you" as well. It wasn't flat out directed at you specifically.

Oh,oh. Personal attacks, the debate must not be going well for you.

No, it's going fine for me. Come on. Honestly. You can't find better people to support your side than those guys?

I'm sorry, but I'm tired of this. In order to get respect one has to earn it. And those people haven't earned it. Quayle felt the need to go after Murphy freaking Brown, a fictional character, for promoting the "wrong lifestyle" by having a child out of wedlock. On a TV show. And Carrie Prejean made herself look like a fool every time she was on TV (the infamous Larry King interview comes to mind).

I'm tired of the anti-gay rights people complaining that their feelings are being hurt when people attack their beliefs on this issue. Really? What about the feelings of gay people, who are being told flat out, via the recent article you shared, that their relationships are "inferior" to straight people's because they don't have all the proper "requirements"? Gay people have been killing themselves because they've been told that they don't deserve the same rights as anyone else. If a lesbian's partner is dying in the hospital, she cannot go see her because their relationship is not recognized. I just saw a letter in the recent USA Today where someone said that it was good that the Boy Scouts were keeping their ban on letting gays in, because if gays were allowed to be part of the scouts that apparently meant that straight kids would have to fear being hit on or sexually harassed by gay people as a result. I don't know about you, but I find all of that pretty freaking offensive.

So I'm not too bothered about claiming people like Quayle and Prejean are less than brilliant. They've yet to prove otherwise.

Besides, I thought relying on celebrities to help one's opinion was generally frowned upon.

Non sequitur. No one says that.

What do you mean, no one says that? You yourself noted that with this from the previous page:

Dan Qualye (as a famous example) and conservatives were, and still are, just as vocal in supporting marriage when the subject is divorce or single mothers.

They're opposed to divorce and single mother households. Why? Because they think children should grow up in two parent homes. And I've heard that argument made by many on the anti-gay side for god knows how long now.

Non sequitur. No one says that.

It's not a non-sequiter, it's pretty relevant, actually. The article you linked to stated that marriage was important because of its procreative aspects, right? And that's why gay couples shouldn't get married, because they cannot actively produce children the natural way. Am I correct that that's the argument?

Well, then, the next logical question is that if, in those people's eyes, a big part of marriage is the ability to produce children, why not go ahead and stop people who are infertile or choose not to have kids from marrying as well? You could at least argue for the infertile couple that that was due to circumstances beyond their control, but then again, science has made it possible for people to fix that problem. And even if we excuse the infertile couples because it's not their fault, well, that still leaves the couples who choose to not have kids. They physically can, they just don't want to. So why are they allowed to get married even though they're not actively procreating, but gay couples, who also aren't actively procreating, can't?

Please. I really want you to answer this. I want to know what the exact difference is. If it's not the fact that one couple is gay and another is straight, then what is it?

Two adults? What are you going to say when Muhammad moves here from Myanmar with his 3 wives and expects his marriage to be respected? You gonna "freak out" and "deny them a right/privilege that you are fortunate enough to participate in"? Wouldn't that be "illegal and wrong"?

I mentioned "two adults" because of the topic at hand-right now, we are talking about gay couples being allowed to marry. But if Muhammed came here with his 3 wives, and they're all of legal age and consenting, no, I'm not going to freak out or deny them the things I'm able to do. I really couldn't care less if polygamy is legal and they all live together. I'm very consistent in my views on this issue-I feel the same way about polygamy that I do about gay marriage or couples living together unmarried or a man and a woman getting married. It should be allowed, and the only requirements I ask for are that, again, everyone, no matter the relationship, must be of legal age and consenting.

I'd also point out that the argument could be made that polygamy is a bit different an issue from gay marriage because you can choose to be polygamous, but you can't choose to be gay, and therefore that's a factor in why the two types of marriages aren't looked at on the same level in terms of legalization by some people. But somehow I feel you're going to disagree with me on that.

I've been nothing short of civil and respectful in this debate. Fully understanding this is an emotional issue, if that can't be reciprocated that tells me it's time to "ignore" the same-sex marriage thread so it can be 100% dissent-free.

Civil, sure, but again, agreeing with articles that state the "superiority" of two gendered households, and how letting same sex couples marry will somehow bring the downfall of society, and supporting denying people the right to get married simply because it doesn't sit well with your personal beliefs, aren't exactly what I'd call respectful beliefs.

And yeah, I'm emotional about this. Recent events further make it clearer just how crazy it is we have debates over stuff like this to begin with. Denying people equal rights makes no sense at all. Again, there's no justifiable reason for it. We have so many bigger issues to worry about in this world. So many. There's enough nastiness in the world as it is, denying gay people rights only adds to it.

Conservatives talk all the time about personal freedom and keeping the government out of our lives and quote our founding documents all over the place. Well, denying people the right/privilege to marry is not allowing them personal freedom. Wanting the government to ban gay marriage is forcing the government into our lives and regulating it. The Declaration of Independence gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pray tell me how denying same sex couples marriage equality gives them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Or ignore this thread if you wish. It'd be a shame if you did, though, because I'd really like to get some answers to these questions.

 

[Irvine511]

I understand there are two equations to religious freedom codified in our Constitution. There can be no "establishment of religion" NOR, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor... any "prohibiting the free exercise of." I was referring to the recent HHS mandate that religious organizations supply contraceptives against their religious conscience.

absolutely. the existence of gay and lesbians and, worse, their desire to commit to each other for life in love is a direct violation of my right to the free exercise of my religion. if the state in which i live recognizes these relationships, it violates my religious rights and my religious conscience. it doesn't matter that my life is in no way impacted in a practical sense, it's my conscience that's impacted knowing that the state where i pay taxes is supporting these relationships and treating them as if they are equal to my own.

equal treatment under the law is against my religion.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yeah, I love that people worry about their taxes supporting things like this. Like I said in another thread, EVERYONE is paying taxes towards things they may not personally agree with. Join the club.

I would like to also note that I've been in something of a crabby mood the last couple days, hence why some of my comments yesterday may have come on rather strong. But I still stand by my overall sentiments. People can believe whatever they want about this issue. I cannot force someone to change their views.

However, if I think an argument is weak, if I think people advocating said argument aren't exactly consistent and strong in making that argument, I'm going to call them out on it. If someone finds that to be an attack, so be it. It's not my intention, but, hey, matter of opinion, I guess. It's just frustrating to me that this has to be such a big issue. It's not fair, it's not right to make people feel like, if not actually be, second-class citizens. And that's what denying them marriage equality would be doing.