Gay marriage

[bio-chem]

because those that do not have any such beliefs are then having the will of others imposed on them. it's the inherent problem when using non-facts to make real world decisions that most certainly effect the quality of life of others.

All laws have the community beliefs imposed upon others. You are advocating anarchy, and no laws. I believe I should be allowed to trade stocks with insider information. Don't judge me! you are imposing your beliefs on me and effecting my quality of life!

 

[troubador]

All laws have the community beliefs imposed upon others. You are advocating anarchy, and no laws. I believe I should be allowed to trade stocks with insider information. Don't judge me! you are imposing your beliefs on me and effecting my quality of life!

This is equivocation. In LAM's post he refers to religious beliefs and here you use a much broader definition of beliefs. Obviously all laws are based on something people believe in but the rationale or motivation behind those beliefs aren't always equal. Laws, especially prohibitions, should not be based upon emotions or religion but reason and evidence. If someone is prohibited from doing something on the basis of the mob's religion, that is most definitely having religion imposed upon them. The fact that it is a law is irrelevant.

 

[bio-chem]

This is equivocation. In LAM's post he refers to religious beliefs and here you use a much broader definition of beliefs. Obviously all laws are based on something people believe in but the rationale or motivation behind those beliefs aren't always equal. Laws, especially prohibitions, should not be based upon emotions or religion (completely your opinion and nothing in our laws, or constitution supports this) but reason and evidence Reason and evidence? really? Reason is subjective and evidence is always changing. Science learns new things daily that proves what we thought yesterday to be inviolate. If someone is prohibited from doing something on the basis of the mob's religion Hard to call it a mob's religion when Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Athiests have all voted against Gay Marriage., that is most definitely having religion imposed upon them. The fact that it is a law is irrelevant.

Total bullshit. You can't say to someone their beliefs are invalid because they originate with religion, but someone else's beliefs are valid because they don't. Everyone gets to chose for themselves what they want to base their beliefs on. Religious beliefs are categorically protected in the first amendment.

 

[DOMS]

This is equivocation. In LAM's post he refers to religious beliefs and here you use a much broader definition of beliefs. Obviously all laws are based on something people believe in but the rationale or motivation behind those beliefs aren't always equal. Laws, especially prohibitions, should not be based upon emotions or religion but reason and evidence. If someone is prohibited from doing something on the basis of the mob's religion, that is most definitely having religion imposed upon them. The fact that it is a law is irrelevant.

So only religious beliefs shouldn't be acknowledged? Yeah, in Africa there are plenty of non-religious guys running around raping infants. Are those okay? How about the great many non-religious people on the globe that feel that women are a second class? Is that okay? How about the non-religious belief in Thailand (that's also a law) that says you can't talk shit about the king?

You should at least be honest that they issue is simply that people are basing some of their decisions on a theist belief system. You know, instead of trying to mask is intellectualism or something similar.

 

[exphys88]

Being Catholic or Jew is different than being Gay. why do you confuse the two? It's up to the Priest, or Rabi to decide if they want to marry that couple. the law has nothing to do with it.

Of course it's different, but the point is that in the US you don't get to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, or sexual preference. Are you suggesting that we should be able to discriminate based on any of these? Or just sexual preference?

 

[exphys88]

So only religious beliefs shouldn't be acknowledged? Yeah, in Africa there are plenty of non-religious guys running around raping infants. Are those okay? How about the great many non-religious people on the globe that feel that women are a second class? Is that okay? How about the non-religious belief in Thailand (that's also a law) that says you can't talk shit about the king?

You should at least be honest that they issue is simply that people are basing some of their decisions on a theist belief system. You know, instead of trying to mask is intellectualism or something similar.

If your only reason to deny a group of people something that others get is a religious reason, it's unconstitutional.

A perfect example would be a religious majority deciding that blacks and whites can't marry because its against their religious values. They should be able to refuse to marry them in their church but they don't get to write legislation preventing them from them getting all the benefits that other people get.

 

[exphys88]

Total bullshit. You can't say to someone their beliefs are invalid because they originate with religion, but someone else's beliefs are valid because they don't. Everyone gets to chose for themselves what they want to base their beliefs on. Religious beliefs are categorically protected in the first amendment.

Nobody is saying their beliefs are invalid, were saying you don't get to force someone else to live by your beliefs. You don't have to marry a guy if you don't want to, and your church doesn't have to sanction the marriage.

But, the gov can't refuse marriage to a group of people based on religion. Nobody has yet given a reason other than religion as to why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

 

[DOMS]

If your only reason to deny a group of people something that others get is a religious reason, it's unconstitutional.

Incorrect. It's only unconstitutional if goes counter to something in the actual Constitution. You'd think that would be kind of obvious...

A perfect example would be a religious majority deciding that blacks and whites can't marry because its against their religious values. They should be able to refuse to marry them in their church but they don't get to write legislation preventing them from them getting all the benefits that other people get.

You think that people that don't want races intermingling is strictly a religious thing? Really? And yes, any such law would be unconstitutional, but wouldn't necessarily spring only from religion. But again, this is little more than a red herring trying to avoid bio-chem's point.

 

[Zaphod]

The whole point is how does gay marriage affect you? If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex.

 

[bio-chem]

The whole point is how does gay marriage affect you? If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex.

As to the point the Supreme Court Justices were making in their line of questioning. It's not about it's effect upon me as an individual but upon society as a whole. Cell phones have been around longer than gay marriage. The effects are not completely known now are they? There are plenty of examples of why it's not acceptable, but you will try and give a counter example of a beloved uncle who has been sleeping with the same man in a loving relationship for 150 years, or some bull shit, so it's really not worth it.

 

[LAM]

So only religious beliefs shouldn't be acknowledged?

IMO they would carry the least amount of weight when designing any political or economic policy as they are not based on rational thought.

and my lack of beliefs is not the same as another who has adopted religious beliefs as they do not require anyone to change anything in their life making conformity rather effortless. it doesn't get any less intrusive then that.

 

[fit26]

The whole point is how does gay marriage affect you? If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex.

How about kids right to have mom and dad? What if those kids are not gays? We should not force these kids to live with gays. It is so funny. They think they should have right to marry,but they don't want to give these kids right to have mom and dad.

 

[DOMS]

IMO they would carry the least amount of weight when designing any political or economic policy as they are not based on rational thought.

and my lack of beliefs is not the same as another who has adopted religious beliefs as they do not require anyone to change anything in their life making conformity rather effortless. it doesn't get any less intrusive then that.

So you think it should carry less weight? What about what they -- the religious people -- think? Oh, so because you think their beliefs count for less, they don't?

 

[Zaphod]

How about kids right to have mom and dad? What if those kids are not gays? We should not force these kids to live with gays. It is so funny. They think they should have right to marry,but they don't want to give these kids right to have mom and dad.

Gay parents don't have any ill affect on how their children turn out. If you are so worried about a child's right to have a mom and dad then you should work on fixing what's causing so much divorce. There is your family killer.

 

[Zaphod]

As to the point the Supreme Court Justices were making in their line of questioning. It's not about it's effect upon me as an individual but upon society as a whole. Cell phones have been around longer than gay marriage. The effects are not completely known now are they? There are plenty of examples of why it's not acceptable, but you will try and give a counter example of a beloved uncle who has been sleeping with the same man in a loving relationship for 150 years, or some bull shit, so it's really not worth it.

What is the effect of gay marriage on society? Or are you going to prattle on about how it affects the rotation of the earth?

 

[exphys88]

How about kids right to have mom and dad? What if those kids are not gays? We should not force these kids to live with gays. It is so funny. They think they should have right to marry,but they don't want to give these kids right to have mom and dad.

So kids should not be allowed to be raised by their mother only? Should we remove kids from a single parent home? How bout kids raised by their grandparents?

 

[exphys88]

Incorrect. It's only unconstitutional if goes counter to something in the actual Constitution. You'd think that would be kind of obvious...



You think that people that don't want races intermingling is strictly a religious thing? Really? And yes, any such law would be unconstitutional, but wouldn't necessarily spring only from religion. But again, this is little more than a red herring trying to avoid bio-chem's point.

No, I don't think it's just a religious thing. I'm saying that just because you don't agree w something doesn't mean that you get to impose those opinions on others, especially if you're discriminating against a group based on your religion. You don't get to force your religion into others, especially if you can't produce one shred of evidence that they are doing something harmful.

 

[exphys88]

Incorrect. It's only unconstitutional if goes counter to something in the actual Constitution. You'd think that would be kind of obvious...

Should we be allowed to discriminate based on religion, race or sex?

 

[LAM]

So you think it should carry less weight? What about what they -- the religious people -- think? Oh, so because you think their beliefs count for less, they don't?

your joking right? because when solving a problem I will utilize empirical and objective data every single time over the subjective.

 

[troubador]

Total bullshit. You can't say to someone their beliefs are invalid because they originate with religion, but someone else's beliefs are valid because they don't.

And I didn't. Reason is totally objective. What's your educational background?

So only religious beliefs shouldn't be acknowledged?

No, lot's of other beliefs should be ignored because they're stupid, religious or not.

 

[troubador]

What is the effect of gay marriage on society? Or are you going to prattle on about how it affects the rotation of the earth?

He doesn't know. That's why this thread is verging on devolving into subjectivism, everyone's opinion is equally valid or some other stupid hippie shit.

 

[Aries1]

So far all the research suggests kids raised by gay parents do just as well as those raised by heterosexuals.

Religious value? What makes you think you get to impose your religious views on others?

As a teen kids are uncomfortable enough. Can you imagine the ridicule? Research can be biased, not to mention, how do you judge "just as well"? Seems like cruel and unusual punishment for any child.

 

[Aries1]

Because the only reason that people oppose gay marriage is their religion or tradition. Those are not reason enough to pass legislation to prevent someone from marrying.

Should we be allowed to pass legislation preventing interracial marriage?

Give me one legitimate reason why they should not be allowed to marry.

Speaking on purely biological terms, I was taught in college that inter-breeding could yield some very strong children(much like the mixed breed canine). Marriage between races could yield a strong, less disease prone race of homo-sapiens.

Homosexual relationships will never yield offspring. This is because ejaculating into another man's anus(an orifice designed to excrete waste)will not fertilize an egg. Thus, homo-sex is literally biological suicide/homicide. Again, speaking purely biological, homosexuals bring nothing to the table when furthering the human race is the topic. Even at the cellular level reproduction is the #1 topic at hand, be it healthy cells, transformed cells, or even viruses.

Forgive me if I sound robotic.

 

[DOMS]

No, I don't think it's just a religious thing. I'm saying that just because you don't agree w something doesn't mean that you get to impose those opinions on others, especially if you're discriminating against a group based on your religion. You don't get to force your religion into others, especially if you can't produce one shred of evidence that they are doing something harmful.

You're free to vote for and against the laws you choose to. It's that simple. The Constitution is there to help prevent said laws from being against those laws that counter to basic rights. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, no system is perfect. The majority sorts things out eventually. Or do you believe that blacks are still property and that women are second-class citizens?

What you're talking about is the very thing you profess to be against: forcing your beliefs on others.

 

[DOMS]

Should we be allowed to discriminate based on religion, race or sex?

Of course not.

 

[DOMS]

your joking right? because when solving a problem I will utilize empirical and objective data every single time over the subjective.

Objective? Is that were you're being when you pull the race card for Obama? Or when you won't condemn him when he does the same things that GWB did?

Objective, my ass.

 

[DOMS]

No, lot's of other beliefs should be ignored because they're stupid, religious or not.

And who gets to decide what is "stupid"? You?

Good god...

 

[Aries1]

Gay parents don't have any ill affect on how their children turn out. If you are so worried about a child's right to have a mom and dad then you should work on fixing what's causing so much divorce. There is your family killer.

How exactly do you come to this realization?

 

[Zaphod]

How exactly do you come to this realization?

Name one way gay parents hurt their children. I can't think of a single way.

 

[Getbig2]

Ill say this as simple as possible, and what I believe. There are 2 types of genders male and female. we make babies when the two OPPOSITES mate, like what GOD or others say NATURE intended. It doesnt matter race, color, religion, beliefs, etc etc etc. Only that it requires a male and female to reproduce( sperm and egg if you prefer). Male and Female is natural people. Two males or two females dont reproduce naturally because thats not how its intended. We can try through scientific ways but its still not the natural original way. No matter what race, color, religion, etc etc etc you are, no one can deny that theres only male or female, and those two together are natural since the beginning of time. That is a fact and no one can change it outwise. People try to change things and add this and that, but if we get down to the basics it comes down to a male and female is natural! No other way my friends. People try to add that the govmt should mandate blah blah, or that religions shouldnt judge blah blah, or that what if this and that scenario blah blah, but it still comes down to a simple male+female is the only true natural way. Just my opinion friends.