Gay Marriage

Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. To allow gays to marry, are we not offering additional marriage options?

I think any moral stand taken would be hypocritical, especially since anti gay marriage people are called 'bigots' and other nice names.

Surely a gay man who is against polygamy for moral reasons is as much a bigot as a catholic who is against gay marriage.

You can make arguments against polygamy saying it will cost money society, but all marriage does, and homosexual marriage will cost society, so i dont see that as a valid argument.

 

26 pages and I still have read no good reason as to why we should deny gay couples the same rights of straight couples. Or why straight couples should have these benefits over gay couples.

 

shouldnt it be left up to the states to decide?

 

So I should have to agree with a decision because the states have decided? How would anything change that way?

 

no, you dont have to agree with it. But, we all have to accept the decisions of states. We can protest them, and try to change them, but at the end of the day, we have to 'accept' their law, as long as its law.

 

No. A polygamist can still marry one persone he loves. A homosexual cannot.

 

This is not logic. This is fitting a square peg in a round hole (no jokes please.) The comparisions are only from people who do not understand gay people at all.

Polygamy harms. So does incest. Read Walrus's post. It was quite succinct and logical. Photo still continues to make sense.

No one has given a SINGLE workable reason how Gay Marriage will in any way "harm" hetero marriages. NONE.

 

All men have the same rights. To Marry a person of the opposite sex. Both Polygamists and homosexuals arent allowed to marry the people they love.

A polygamist isnt a polygamist if he is married to 1 person.

 

no, sorry, its not.

Please, stop being so small minded. There are many instances where polygamy is forced, that is not consensual. There are many instances where incest is force(rape), that is not consensual. THOSE cause harm.

If i can find two women who want to marry me, who the hell are you two tell us no? You have no more right to tell me no than jerry falwell has to tell Photo No.

I honestly dont see what this has to do with making gay marriage legal. Society does not deem gay marriage acceptable.

As sera said earlier, change is inevitable, but America isnt ready for gay marriage.

 

Gays aren't asking to marry "People" only "The Person." Big difference.

 

Is there any evidence to suggest that some persons are only attracted to and in love with groups of people, rather than individuals?

 

why is it different?

 

What kind of question is that? You think someone who wants to marry 2 people only love them because they are 2 people instead of loving each one individually?


Now i have a question, are you against states deciding if gay marriage should be allowed? If so, what do you want..a federal amendment making it legal?

 

I am merely pointing out the glaring distinctions between marriage (as it is), gay marriage, and polygamy.

I am against state rights in this case, so, yes, I want a federal ammendment. If state laws differ in regards to homosexual marriage, the homosexual is not protected by marriage in the same way heterosexuals are. I am asking for the same marriage rights and protections, not special or extra ones.

 

You make it sound as if there is a difference between those involved in gay marriage and polygamy.

Marriage is a states issues, why shouldnt it be a states issue? Yeah, you arent protected everywhere, but so what? Many peoples rights arent protected everywhere in the country. Atleast you'd have a chance to be protected then.

There is absolutely ZERO chance for a federal amendment allowing gay marriage in the next 50 years in this country. Your best chance is go with states rights.

You are asking for federally protected rights, marriage is not protected federally

 

There is! I am not attempting to pass a moral judgement or to argue pro/con polygamy, but there is a difference, just as gay marriage is different from hetero marriage. Ignoring differences would not help to further the cause.

This is not entirely true. Again, I go back to the Supreme Court Case, Loving v Virginia. The Supreme Court clearly decided that marriage rights are not always best served by state rights, and they ordered that the State of Virginia change its marriage laws and reverse the convictions of Mr and Mrs Loving.
Here is a quote from the Supreme Court:

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed."

Despite this, I agree that states rights is much more of a possibility in recognizing gay marriages, and would be the best place to start.

 

Now we're onto something interesting.

Do you see differences between marriage/gay marriage/polygamy other than the sex/quantity of the participants?

You have taken a case which clearly and undeniably says the violation is based solely on racial discrimination.

I'll point you to the 15th amendment.

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."


Race is protected by the US constitution. Sexual Orientation is not.

This statue does NOT apply to gay marriage.

It does, of course, say that the state's can be wrong because they violate the federal constitution. This in no way says that the right of Marriage should be made a federal issue, but that the USSC can adjudicate constitutional issues when they arise.

 

Correct! But what I would argue is that homosexuality is similar to race in that they are immutable and unchangeable, and the Constitution protects us all from discrimination based on immutable differences. In fact, this argument is not mine, but was offered by Julian Bond, the heterosexual, black, civil rights leader and board chairman of the NAACP.

Nikki Giovanni, poet, and distinguished Virginia Tech professor, and African-American, said, in regards to gay rights being civil rights, "Thats what we've been fighting for," and "if Matthew Shephard isn't Emmett Till, then who is he? They beat that boy's brains out because he was gay. They lynched Emmett Till because he was black. If we don't see that, what are we looking at?"

This is NOT an attempt to EQUATE the issues of Matthew Shephard and Emmet Till to gay marriage. It does suggest similarities between the two separate struggles for civil rights.

Is Gay Rights a Civil Rights Issue?Ebony Magazine July 2004, v59, i9, p142(4)

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will again repeat that I do not know enough about polygamy to engage in meaningful argument.

That being said, I see all kinds of differences, even among the different marriage arrangements, not to mention between them.

Legally, why are some citizens denied the right to marry ONE person that they LOVE? That is my question. Therefore, the only differences that are noteworthy are the sex/quantity of the participants.

 

I agree, which is why scientists have gone fanatic over finding a gay gene. There is no scientific evidence to show that being gay is based on genetics that i know of.

many people point to hormonal differences, but everyone has different hormonal levels and its hardly conclusive evidence.

Now, if they ever found a spot in genes which is 100% conclusive to affect sexual orientation, then they would be protected by the constitution, IMO. To my knowledge, they havent found any conclusive evidence.

To my knowledge, many states have statutes that make gays a protected class and put them in the hate crime legislation.

The question is then whether homosexuality is a choice or not.