Ban On Gay Marriage Struck Down

There's always going to be some die hard extremist who opposes everything, but the fact of the matter is that gay marriage really hurts nothing. People say it's against religion but I fail too see how religion has anything to do with it. They're not going to force anyone to be gay, if it's against your religion just don't do it. All the guys are worried, "What if a gay guy hit's on me?". In all honesty, anyone that asks themselves that question isn't going to be hit on by a gay guy. Everyone makes the the same argument, it will degrade the sanctity of "marriage". Marriage is nothing but a legal contract, how was that sacred in the first place? The only thing sacred is the emotional bond shared between two people, and same sex couples are always going to have that whether or not the state recognizes it

The same religions people claim it's against are the same religions that never once said "It's not ok to own other human beings as slaves" so the "it's a religious moral argument"

Essentially until someone sits down with the 85 matters-of-fact that the judge outlined as to why he did this ruling, they need to sit down and STFU.

It's not us they have to convince, it's the judge. However they won't convince the judge because all their premises are false. They should just be happy that in MOST modern industrialized countries they get to marry who they want. They aren't born and then their parents get together with other parents, and decide how they should be married in order to strengthen their families financial security, or to keep in good relations with friends of the family dating back decades.

If someone opposes gay marriage they are, in most cases, one of the following:

Ignorant.
Willfully ignorant (an *** in otherwords who ignores facts)
or probably repressing sexual urges (which has been documented scientifically as well as demonstrated naturally time and time again from evangelicals from Republicans, to Ted Haggard time and time again)

So the more people argue against gay marriage, the more damage they do to themselves. Just let 2 people love each other and have emotional/financial security as well as the same protections that other families have through marriage for raising children and protecting them.

You do not have a right to take away the rights of others because you don't want to do something you are in no way going to be forced to do. So either destroy those 85 matters of fact or STFU. Seriously.

/discussion

You realize I'm supporting gay marriage, don't you?

WOO! GO IOWA!

It only took what... 43 years? For us to have another civil rights movement so to speak to help give an oppressed minority equal rights in something not only symbolic for one's relationship, but legally defined and credited as marriage, so that they may share the same legal benefits as those who are heterosexual.

Slowly but surely, I feel we're taking decent turns for society. Now if only we would reduce the degree of online interaction with others so we won't have continuous generations of social awkwardness and ineptness.

I'm sure once this all blows by the next great movement in 30 years will be started by these guys:

http://www.nambla.org/matters.htm


Society evolves over time right?

I could take the philosophical route here and debunk NAMBLA on the basis that "love" based on something as superficial as age is not love. If they want to have sex with minors the age of consent in Europe is 16 for the most part; and they can enjoy a whole 2 years until they lose interest.

Legally, It's a completely shallow and lust driven relationship that often violates age of consent laws(when it's 18 like in the U.S. that's always). There are no laws in place that bar homosexual marriage as pointed out 100 times in this thread; was simply a matter of actually GIVING homosexuals the rights long overdue. NAMBLA's case would require overturning age of consent laws.

Also, http://www.gaychristiansurvivors.com/

When people start actually reading the bible before promoting legislation they should actually study what's in there; 'cuz God has no problem with homosexuality. Before arguing against this, follow that link, read through all the articles, and be prepared to submit an informed rebuttal or I'm just going to ignore it.

Scholarly essays are awesome too, but that site covers pretty much every angle of the subject matter without having to read 20+ pages on a single point. Though, if you're truly interested there are some very extensive essays on the topic.

/sigh

I had intended to avoid posting in this thread but oh well... there's that!

You're a bigot for even tacitly comparing the two things. Have a nice day.

I've yet to hear a valid argument (in general) not based on religion. If there is one, I'd like to hear it.

Easy.

Some people find homosexuality to be immoral.

For the state to sanction homosexuality is the equivalent of the state supporting the lifestyle as a moral lifestyle.

People don't want the state to support what they see as immoral.

Using existing laws as a basis, people feel like morality can be legislated.

Even if you don't agree, this can be viewed as a valid argument.

But those people you are talking about find Homosexuality immoral because of religion.

^^^^^^^^^^^

On what grounds is it immoral? Ilvex pointed it out, but just wanted to echo his bravo if you will.

This is undoubtedly true for the vast majority, but as with anything it cannot be universally true for everyone who thinks this way.

I think most people have come across those who are not religious at all but still view homosexuality in a negative way.

Morality is an opinion of the individual. Something can be considered immoral by simply deciding it is immoral.

And this has been, and always will be my point. When the constitution doesn't specifically address something, then it is left up to the states to decide. You think sales tax is wrong? You can move to a state that doesn't have sales tax. Stop trying to impose broad federal law on something that should be left up the the republic.

And you're a bigot for not recognizing that a man can love a boy in states who's age of consent is under 18.

Your asking serious questions, please respond seriously.

If you make the claim that all people who find homosexuality immoral are racists then you need to be able to back that up with reasoning that makes sense.

Just to point out a flaw in that argument btw. Race is a state of existence and cannot be argued as moral or immoral.

Marriage is an action, and therefore its morality can be questioned.

You ain't got no pancake mix!

You can say on the flipside that disallowing homosexuals to marry, disrespecting/hating homosexuals could be seen as immoral as well.
there are always two sides of a coin with this.

if you think homosexual and automatically think of two guys having sex, you obviously aren't mature enough to make a valid decision in any case.
morality is subjective.
our government is there to dictate what the society as a whole deems as moral and immoral.
just because a group of individuals as a minority don't like something that they typically never see or deal with outside of the boob tube doesn't make their decision more valuable than a state senator, judge, or legislature in general.
most people against homosexuals are armchair warriors who can't make a valid argument outside of the "relgieon sez itz r bad so i say it ar bad...two guys kissing ewww"

essentially individuals like this don't have much of a grasp on reality, hence their belief system and values.

In the California case was it not a majority that voted it down in the first place?

I would also be hesitant to claim someone doesn't have a "grasp on reality" simply because they have a different opinion on a particular subject than you do.

If someone doesn't have a grasp on reality wouldn't that mean they are mislead on all subjects? Would that mean that if you agree with them on anything that you also would lack a grasp on reality?

So California precedes over the US Government now? ICIC.
The ban was taken down on the federal level.
not the state level.
Just because it was voted by a "majority" in California doesn't mean that it would be voted for by a "majority" in the rest of the country, or the rest of the world on that matter.
take only one phrase i stated at the end and make it your whole argument right?
pfft.
i said: most people against homosexuals are armchair warriors who can't make a valid argument outside of the "relgieon sez itz r bad so i say it ar bad...two guys kissing ewww"

essentially individuals like this don't have much of a grasp on reality, hence their belief system and values.

people who hate homosexuals just due to the fact that they can only come up with the mental image of two guys *** don't really have much of a grasp on reality.

strawman more.

also, can I hear your actual opinion on this?
because it seems like you are just pointing fingers and trying to stir up ***.
i don't want to hear a "valid argument" i would like to hear your opinion on the whole situation.
might not reply to your next one, so if it's buried I won't if it's still relevant to the current conversation I will continue.
got a bday party to attend to and such.