The way I see it, marriage is a sacrament of the church. Meaning, the government does not have the authority to legislate on this matter.
Civil union is another issue altogether. I don't condone homosexuality, but I am also not a homophobe. I don't think it is right to deny gay couples the right to form a civil union, which would allow them to take advantage of tax benefits, among other things.
However, I do think adoption by gay couples should be illegal. This is probably contradictory to what I just said, but so be it.
Libertarians would say... I think the bill is ridiculous. I don't approve of gay marriage, but I disagree that the government should be wasting their time on a bill that means nothing to me. Gay people can do whatever they want, as long as they don't try to marry me.
Religious conservatives would say... allowing gay marriage delineates the role of marriage. Marriage is for the procreation of children, it is not merely a sexual contract between people. Because "marriage", as supported by scripture/teachings of most religions, is not intended to between cowboy and cowboy. Therefore, gay "marriage" should not be allowed, these unions are not afforded the same rights since they are not equal to the normal definition of marriage. If our country does not uphold the difference between what is right and wrong, our society will crumble, much like the Anglican Church. Our children must know between what is right and wrong.
Liberals... this bill is ridiculous. Marriage is about love. Since two men can love each other just the same as a man and women, they should enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual union.
I prefer the second argument. Good on you Will, but I will be the even bigger bigot. A civil union for gays will be considered a defacto marriage... implying that gay unions are ok, just, morrally justified. These civil unions should be banned as well... for our children's sake.
This is one of my most liberal opinions. I have no problem with anyone getting married, because it is none of my business. Who is going to lose sleep thinking about people you don't even know getting married? They let serial killers get married and have conjugal visits. Are gay people worse than that?
The argument that allowing gays to marry would degrade the value of marriage in America makes no sense. My marriage has nothing to do with your marriage, and so on. Not even the huge divorce rate or shotgun weddings, or anything else "degrades marriage," because one couple's divorce or marital behavior does not add, subtract, or any way affect the state or value of my own marriage.
One may find homosexuality to be evil, and another may find someone who hates people for their sexual preference to be evil. It's all just opinions, and since it is not based in fact, it has no right to be tampered with by government legislation.
I'm not a master debater, so there may be holes in my argument, but either way I think it's wrong to deny gay people to get married. There.
I will whole heartedly and vehemently stand against any bill which encroaches on the rights of any hot, 18-25 year-old, sexually liberated, American lesbian. You go girls!
Ryan and Stephen pointed out I had not responded to the question, so here is my quick response:
If one takes time to read the constitution, they will see that it was written in a way as to put restrictions on the government, not the people. The right to free speech is saying the government cannot deny our right to free speech, therefore putting a restriction on government. We can go on and on about how the constitution puts restrictions on the government, not the individual. Having said this, you can see why I would oppose any ammendment to the constitution which would put a restriction on an individual. It is un-American, and complete donkey crap. Government is there to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. Period.
You're right TC, government should not be in the business of restricting what we can and cannot do. I'm not sure I agree that a gay marriage ban restricts our right to Life, Liberty and Property. Yes, the government should not being telling us who and how we associate with people. A gay marriage ban does not restrict these choices. Rather, it sets qualifications for the title of marriage to be granted.
Marriage is a licensed contract, as is becoming a doctor, CPA, real estate agent, etc. Generally, a couple is not "Married" until the local government has licensed them. I don't think that denying gay couples the same license as married couples is a constitutionally restrictive policy. The same with denying a drug dealer a pharmaceutical license. Drug dealers cannot distribute heroine at Revco, because it is wrong. Gay people should not be licensed to get married, because it is wrong.
Further, many oppose gay marriage because of the risk of limiting our religious rights (an explicit Constitutional Right), a far greater no-no than denying Tommy and Richie wedding bands. Read this article on the issue: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6941 In the article, you'll see the ramifications of gay marriage. Also, read the comment at the end of the article. The consequences of gay marriage have already been felt in Canada.
Don't worry Will, me and you are still right.
I agree with Pat that a State should have the right to decide this issue. In fact, the Constitution explicitly lays out States' Rights. But, a liberal Federal Government and Court system has held these rights hostage. We should've won the War between the States.
Ryan, your argument is too deep in the Realm of Liberal to deserve a reply.
back to the issue of making a constitutional ammendment banning gay marraige. that is not what the constitution was written for. it was written to put restrictions on the government. it would be like writing an ammendment saying "no one under the height of 6'0" can get a CPA licence," or "no gay people can get a CPA licence."
But you are right that an amedment should not be passed on the Federal level. That is rediculous. This matter should be decided on by the State and local governments.
But you are right that an amedment should not be passed on the Federal level. That is rediculous. This matter should be decided on by the State and local governments.
12 comments:
The way I see it, marriage is a sacrament of the church. Meaning, the government does not have the authority to legislate on this matter.
Civil union is another issue altogether. I don't condone homosexuality, but I am also not a homophobe. I don't think it is right to deny gay couples the right to form a civil union, which would allow them to take advantage of tax benefits, among other things.
However, I do think adoption by gay couples should be illegal. This is probably contradictory to what I just said, but so be it.
Call me what you will, that's just my two cents.
Libertarians would say... I think the bill is ridiculous. I don't approve of gay marriage, but I disagree that the government should be wasting their time on a bill that means nothing to me. Gay people can do whatever they want, as long as they don't try to marry me.
Religious conservatives would say... allowing gay marriage delineates the role of marriage. Marriage is for the procreation of children, it is not merely a sexual contract between people. Because "marriage", as supported by scripture/teachings of most religions, is not intended to between cowboy and cowboy. Therefore, gay "marriage" should not be allowed, these unions are not afforded the same rights since they are not equal to the normal definition of marriage. If our country does not uphold the difference between what is right and wrong, our society will crumble, much like the Anglican Church. Our children must know between what is right and wrong.
Liberals... this bill is ridiculous. Marriage is about love. Since two men can love each other just the same as a man and women, they should enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual union.
I prefer the second argument. Good on you Will, but I will be the even bigger bigot. A civil union for gays will be considered a defacto marriage... implying that gay unions are ok, just, morrally justified. These civil unions should be banned as well... for our children's sake.
Leave it to the states.
This is one of my most liberal opinions. I have no problem with anyone getting married, because it is none of my business. Who is going to lose sleep thinking about people you don't even know getting married? They let serial killers get married and have conjugal visits. Are gay people worse than that?
The argument that allowing gays to marry would degrade the value of marriage in America makes no sense. My marriage has nothing to do with your marriage, and so on. Not even the huge divorce rate or shotgun weddings, or anything else "degrades marriage," because one couple's divorce or marital behavior does not add, subtract, or any way affect the state or value of my own marriage.
One may find homosexuality to be evil, and another may find someone who hates people for their sexual preference to be evil. It's all just opinions, and since it is not based in fact, it has no right to be tampered with by government legislation.
I'm not a master debater, so there may be holes in my argument, but either way I think it's wrong to deny gay people to get married. There.
I will whole heartedly and vehemently stand against any bill which encroaches on the rights of any hot, 18-25 year-old, sexually liberated, American lesbian. You go girls!
that is pretty damn liberal.
Ryan and Stephen pointed out I had not responded to the question, so here is my quick response:
If one takes time to read the constitution, they will see that it was written in a way as to put restrictions on the government, not the people. The right to free speech is saying the government cannot deny our right to free speech, therefore putting a restriction on government. We can go on and on about how the constitution puts restrictions on the government, not the individual. Having said this, you can see why I would oppose any ammendment to the constitution which would put a restriction on an individual. It is un-American, and complete donkey crap. Government is there to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. Period.
You're right TC, government should not be in the business of restricting what we can and cannot do. I'm not sure I agree that a gay marriage ban restricts our right to Life, Liberty and Property. Yes, the government should not being telling us who and how we associate with people. A gay marriage ban does not restrict these choices. Rather, it sets qualifications for the title of marriage to be granted.
Marriage is a licensed contract, as is becoming a doctor, CPA, real estate agent, etc. Generally, a couple is not "Married" until the local government has licensed them. I don't think that denying gay couples the same license as married couples is a constitutionally restrictive policy. The same with denying a drug dealer a pharmaceutical license. Drug dealers cannot distribute heroine at Revco, because it is wrong. Gay people should not be licensed to get married, because it is wrong.
Further, many oppose gay marriage because of the risk of limiting our religious rights (an explicit Constitutional Right), a far greater no-no than denying Tommy and Richie wedding bands. Read this article on the issue: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6941
In the article, you'll see the ramifications of gay marriage. Also, read the comment at the end of the article. The consequences of gay marriage have already been felt in Canada.
Don't worry Will, me and you are still right.
I agree with Pat that a State should have the right to decide this issue. In fact, the Constitution explicitly lays out States' Rights. But, a liberal Federal Government and Court system has held these rights hostage. We should've won the War between the States.
Ryan, your argument is too deep in the Realm of Liberal to deserve a reply.
back to the issue of making a constitutional ammendment banning gay marraige. that is not what the constitution was written for. it was written to put restrictions on the government. it would be like writing an ammendment saying "no one under the height of 6'0" can get a CPA licence," or "no gay people can get a CPA licence."
Does the Constitution restrict government from banning those "incompetent" from becoming a CPA?
But you are right that an amedment should not be passed on the Federal level. That is rediculous. This matter should be decided on by the State and local governments.
But you are right that an amedment should not be passed on the Federal level. That is rediculous. This matter should be decided on by the State and local governments.
Post a Comment