thats just typical the bigotry argument and if you dont agree with something like gay marriage then your labelled a bigot and why cant people understand not everyone agrees that gay or marrying as gay is normal as it is not what god has intended in his grand design!

Gay Marriage
Posted by arminius!

I have been asked what I think about the Massachusetts court ruling requiring same-sex marriage. I've resisted responding, because this is an issue where all my liberal/conservative/libertarian leanings collide. So, my position is muddled, to say the least.

Many of my last remaining liberal beliefs revolve around feminism (though, not the feminist movement) and gay rights (though, not the gay rights movement). I do not think that gay marriage represents a threat to straight marriage. I don't think being gay is a choice, so I don't think making the lives of gay people easier or more attractive will convert a single straight person. I didn't choose to be straight, and therefore don't have any reason to believe that gay people chose to be gay. I don't buy into the whole idea that a charismatic teacher or other leader can recruit you to be gay--in college, I had some of the greatest teachers on earth, whom I would have followed to my death, but not a one of them could have convinced me that it would be really cool to put a c*** in my mouth. So, from the "moral hell-in-a handbasket" side of things, wherein we are all slouching toward Gommorrah and all that, I am on the side of same-sex marriage, because I don't think that same-sex marriage in and of itself is leading down that path.

On the libertarian side, I am for as least intrusive government as possible. Once government has decided to stick it's nose into something and grant or deny it (and there is ample justification for that in the case of marriage, because it emcompasses contracts and property inheritance), then that something should be granted to the broadest spectum of the citizenry that would be applicable. If the state governs marriage between a man and a woman to ensure that contractual obligations and property inheritance are maintained in a just and non-chaotic fashion, then those reasons are sufficient justification to extend those benefits to same-sex relationships. The state is not mandating that religious groups recognize same-sex marriages, only that the state does; this is in essence the state witnessing a contract between two parties. I have no problem with that -- provided that is where we stay -- how soon till a religion's refusing to sanction a gay marriage becomes a hate crime? -- unfortunately, I would say sooner rather than later. That has me concerned.

But, oh, the conservative side of my three-sided coin is very confused....

I can say pretty unequivocally that I am not in the It's Morally Wrong camp. (Sorry, Mr. Derbyshire.) Or maybe, if I am in the It's Morally Wrong camp, I am so used to that camp being empty and forsaken I forgot I was in a camp. Gay people are going to do what they are going to do, whatever the state says about it. Just like straight people will and do. They can do it in the context of marriage, or outside of it. If marriage from a conservative point of view is a God-endorsed way of channelling the sex drive to a greater social and spiritual good, then surely gay people would benefit from the channelling as well? If marriage lessens promiscuity among gays and gives them a greater stake in the social mainstream (as it is designed to do for straights), then what's not to like? Well, see below for my caveat on that....

My biggest issue with this from the conservative side is well stated today by Jonah Goldberg:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20031121.shtml

There's an interesting contradiction at the heart of the gay marriage debate. Everyone agrees that we are well on our way to living in a country where allowing same-sex marriage is the law of the land, and yet virtually no major national politician and neither of the major political parties supports the idea.
That is what disturbs me most. The left today relies on the unelected judiciary to force upon the citizens things that they would never vote for, that their elected leaders would never vote for, and would never survive a real national debate. The left learned their lesson in the days of desegregation and the abortion rights campaigns -- and that lesson is, if the people don't like what you stand for, bypass them and force it on them through the courts. Because the left knows better than the people, by jove. And the sooner the people realized that and stopped resisting, the better....

There is nothing at all in the Massachusetts constitution or the US one for that matter that forces the state to recognize same-sex marriages. You won't find the words anywhere in it. Four schmucks in black robes have decided the issue for the nation, based on essentially nothing but their own whim. As I stated above, I am confused about whether or not it is the right thing to do. But I know this is the wrong way to do it. If the Democratic Party endorses gay marriage, it should have the balls to stand up and campaign for it. But instead, it lies low, mumbling out of both sides of it's mouth, hoping the courts will do it's dirty work for it. Then, it can throw up its hands, and say, The courts mandated it, there's nothing we can do.....

Fundamental conservative principle that must be learned: Just because you think or feel that something is good doesn't mean it is constitutional. Just because you think or feel that something is bad doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. The constitution is the constitution; it doesn't care what you think or feel. If you want your thoughts or feelings in the constitution, change it to include your thoughts and feelings. Otherwise, follow the constitution as written. Or, just admit that we are governed by your thoughts and feelings, and quit the charade.

One more problem I have with this issue from a conservative point of view: this will bring the Religious Right back to the fore. I am a conservative for 4 main reasons: 1.) I believe that the United States is the last best hope of Man on Earth, and I am proud of my country, and that its values and heritage and citizens must be defended; 2.) I believe in the freedom of individuals as individuals, not as groups; 3.) I believe that economic freedom is as essential to individual freedom as intellectual, political, and religious freedoms are; and 4.) I believe that truth is not relative -- it may be unknown or unknowable, and there may be disagreement about what it is, but it remains all the same, no matter what we think of it.

The left, despite its holier-than-thou rhetoric, has punted on these 4 issues, leaving me to be a conservative by default.

Nowhere in that is the belief that the US is an exclusively Christian nation or that we have to legislate and enforce the Book of Leviticus. It was Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and their ilk that made me a left-liberal to begin with, and the pitiful response of the left to multiculturalism and the attacks of 9/11 that made me a conservative. As long as the focus remains on the war between the free West and tyrannical murderous Islamism, I am firmly in the conservative coalition. But if this issue helps to bring back the Bible Thumpers, I and many like me will have second thoughts. Which will bring down the conservatives, which will bring down the war, which will end civilization. So, that's bad. This is a distraction we don't need.

My caveat on whether gay people will become more mainstream by admission to mainstream institutions like marriage: I don't think they will. Men are promiscuous, women are not. Men are only faithful because women enforce it. Men having sex with men removes the brake that women put on the process. I will bet right now that 80% or more of same-sex marriages will be lesbian-based, essentially putting the stamp of the state on the monogamous relationships they already maintain. Men marrying men will be a rarity, because gay men will simply not wish to leave the all-you-can-eat sex buffet. And many of those who try will fail, or have open arrangements anyway, or be old enough that fear of lonely old age finally outweighs the drive to screw. This was a doctrinal battle -- gays fought for the right to marry as part of a broad campaign, but they will not use it as a way into the mainstream as they claim. Ideologically, they look down on the mainstream and "the breeders" who occupy it, and don't want the stable life that it promises. They will not see promiscuity as a "problem" that needs to be "solved" by marriage. After an initial burst, this trend will die out, and the activists will move on to some new pet peeve.

But, the march to use the courts to force unpopular ideas upon the citizens will continue unabated.....

You...again?



Let me put it nice and simply to you, you freaking piece of shit, the main religion against Homosexuality also deals with love and tolerance, and yet when it pertains to Homosexual marriages they get all pissed off and start screaming "nooo we can't do that! it'll destroy the world!" even though there is no proof or logical reason behind this.

If you want to bring religion into the god damn debate as to if marriages should occur, then what's to stop religion from being used in everything?
And how can one say that one religion is more important/superior/better than another? In a country based around freedom of religion you can not use religion as a basis by which to decide on laws!


I'm certain someone else can word what I just said much better...but hell, that's the way life is.

Just to play God's advocate here, tolerance of homosexuality in no way has to mean acceptance of it.

Christianity teaches to love the sinner, yet hate the sin. Yes, to Christianity, homosexuality is a sin, but no greater sin than any other. Sin is sin in God's eyes.
Christians have their own convictions they have to deal with, and their own bigotry against them also. A lot more bigotry than most gays ever will experience.

I understand where well-meaning Christians are coming from. I don't expect them to accept the homosexual lifestyle because it goes against the teachings in the Bible. I do expect them as Christians to tolerate it though, and to try to win the sinner over with the love of God.

10th ammendment.

12th ammendment.

Don't forget the 14th ammendment...

Oh, I think "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" count as well...

Some people also don't believe that marrying a person of a different race is normal or what God intended. So should we ban interracial marriages as well?

Interpretation of the rights of people as per our Constitution has nothing to do with religion; neither yours, nor anyone else's.

thank you, guy. i was going to say that but you took the words out of my mouth, lol.

i am a lesbian, i deal with shit from people every single day for being what i am. i never chose to be this way, yet in this supposedly "free" country of ours, i don't have the same rights as my fellow heterosexual. is that free? no. and this really even shouldn't be an arguement about religion either. its about politics and power. a marriage, as defined under the constitution, is a contracted agreement between two consenting persons. does it say anything about gender? no. though i'm sure our forefathers would drop dead once they learned how far we've come in modernizing the constitution with the times. if you don't agree with it, fine. but your opinion should be based more on morals than it should the information your religion tells you to believe.

On a tiny technical point, that's actually the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, so has no effect on law.

Yes, I know. The point I was trying to make is that was the Founding Fathers' general basis when drafting the Constitution. While it may not have any actual effect upon the law, it does embody the guiding principles in mind.

John I know this is a volatile subject but please do not bring personal insults into it.... the rest of your post was brilliant..... there was no need to bring it low with this statement.... please refrain....

Thank you....

Those who condemn homosexuality are homophobic bigots. Although there is no such scientifically established pathological fear called "homophobia," this has not prevented gay and lesbian activists from misusing science in their hugely successful effort to portray those who do not support all of their demands (same-sex marriage, homosexual men permitted to be Big Brothers, etc.) as being right-wing Christian bigots simply because they do not share the activists' values. To argue that marital sex is the best arena for the expression of sexuality, is no more "homophobic" than to say that it is wrong to have sex with young boys is "paedophobic." If there is a paranoid fear, it is a terrible "liberal" anxiety of offending homosexuals by implying that their lifestyle is any less worthy of praise than the lifestyle of married people. But what about the widely-accepted lesbian activist position that: "lesbianism is the key to liberation and only women who cut their ties to male privilege can remain trusted to remain serious in the struggle against male dominance." Isn't this heterophobic bigotry?

Nice job pasting something.

I find it interesting that there are constant references to pedophilia nearly every time I see arguments against homosexuality.

Why is it so hard for some people to differentiate between someone involving a child in a sex act, and two grown adults consenting to have sexual activity?

If one is attracted to someone of their own sex, then marital sex can't be the best expression for sexuality for that person if they're not allowed to marry someone they're attracted to, now is it?

Word. I think that it biold down to the idea that homosexuality, even if they don't consider it harmful, is perverted. The idea of 'perversion' implies that heterosexuality is what has been 'intended.' I don't believe there is any intent by God or by nature, so 'perversion' is really meaningless.

Ok, I was just looking through the religion forum and found this thread. Needless to say, it has caught my eye (mainly because I myself am a homosexual). I have read the arguments above and I would have to agree 110% with John. Christianity is but one very popular religion. A religion against homosexuality, or so it seems. I find it funny that many christians are so very much against same-sex relationships and marrage whenever their "Lord and Savior" never said one word against homosexuality. All through the Bible, Jesus Christ himself never said one word for or against homosexuality. So, if Christ is the highest authority in the Bible - why "follow" anyone else? If Christ did not mention it, but some "mortal" did, should we follow the mortal saying that we should be against homosexuality while his master said "love your neighbor as yourself"?

Moving on - as John made well to note, this is a democracy, not a theocracy. Religion does not rule the justice system or the laws which are made. Also, I would like to point out that a single person doesn't run the nation for a good reason. I have much more faith in the Supreme Court then I do in either of the other two branches. People were chanting in the news that The Courts don't make the rules, the people do. Under normal circumstances I would agree, but not whenever the rights of others are being threatened. That's why we have courts my friends, to protect the rights of the minority and the individual from the masses. The courts protect individual freedom, and such is the case here. Homosexual marrage is not that huge of a deal, other than gaining a certain civil right promised to the majority and not to this specifc minority. Not granting the gay community this would be showing favoritism, and that would be going against the sentence "all men are created equal". If all men are created equal, then ALL men should have the same rights, this includes marrage. It's very simple - to deny this simple civil right would be going against everything that the founding fathers stood for. Plain and simple.



...and one last thing. The person who said that Christians are given much more Hell than the homosexual community might want to rethink that sentence. I have never heard anything more idiotic in my entire life.

I don't know why people like to think of christians as being against homosexuality, but christian support of homosexuality and homosexual marriage has crossed party lines pretty evenly. Meaning that right-wing christians have supported gay marriage, just as left-wing christians have.