What is REALLY at issue with the Same-Sex Marriage debate?

[OtherCheek]

That event occurring 2000 years ago has nothing to do with the persecution and bullying today of those who chose to love.

Now you are talking about rights instead of validating behavior by changing the definition of a term. Which is it? Rights, or validation by changing the meaning of a term? You can have your real rights as far as I'm concerned, but why do you need the term as well?

[Cow Poke]

Now you are talking about rights instead of validating behavior by changing the definition of a term.

Oh, the irony.

[Vivian]

So, it's not really about rights, then. It's more about validating a particular behavior? Then we should talk about gay validation instead of gay rights when it comes to this issue.

Hey OC!

I like this!

I would say that from the side of those supporting gays, it is about rights - does not our constitution claim that we all have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And so from their perspective, by saying that gays cannot be married, we are trying to take away their unalienable right to happiness.

Thus not allowing gays to marry is unconstitutional. The only way that gay marriage could be unconstitutional would be for homosexual acts to be illegal. And as we know they are not.

However, from the anti gay marriage side, is it not about behavior? Those against gay marriage are against it because they believe that homosexual behavior is unnatural, should be illegal, and they do not want the sanctity of marriage dirtied by an immoral-should-be-illegal behavior.

I would say that given the issue of rights and the issue of validation of behavior those against gay marriage are wrong on all accounts.

Shalom!

[Cow Poke]

I would say that from the side of those supporting gays, it is about rights - does not our constitution claim that we all have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And so from their perspective, by saying that gays cannot be married, we are trying to take away their unalienable right to happiness.

Ever heard of NAMBLA? A bunch of grown men believe they have a right to have sex with underage boys. Are you going to take away their unalienable right to happiness?

[Vivian]

Now you are talking about rights instead of validating behavior by changing the definition of a term. Which is it? Rights, or validation by changing the meaning of a term? You can have your real rights as far as I'm concerned, but why do you need the term as well?

Ah, the term you are referring to is 'marriage'? Gosh what an interesting thought! Claiming that those supporting gay marriage are trying to change the definition of a word!

I offer, friend, that the religious movement has changed the definition of many much more important words, such as God (Elohim), Lord (Adonai), salvation, sin, repentance! Society changes the meaning of words in every generation, sometimes it is good as grow in our ability to love and understand, and sometimes it is bad, as limitation in love and understand is victorious.

In my tradition, we work to conserve the original meaning of more important words - or rather liberate words from dead meanings that they have taken on as those who work according to the antichrist try to keep humanity bound and not moving forward as God intends. Keeping them bound to limited, outdated and archaic understandings and love.

I would say we are not trying to change the definition of the term marriage -we are trying to liberate it from the narrow, ignorant perspective that has it imprisoned!

Yes! Let us liberate the meaning of marriage from those who hold it hostage to dead ideas! Set marriage free!

Sorry OC - nothing personal, but I could not resist! But you see, what is considered normal, what many are holding to as normal and natural, even saying this is what God wants, is actually the aberration. The constitution is right - the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right, bestowed upon creation by the creator. Those working to impede the pursuit of happiness by law abiding, and loving citizens, are the sinners.

;)

Shalom!

[Vivian]

Ever heard of NAMBLA? A bunch of grown men believe they have a right to have sex with underage boys. Are you going to take away their unalienable right to happiness?

If you read my post you would not ask this. I said that homosexual sex (implied between two consenting adults) is legal. The behavior called homosexuality has already been validated by the law, under these conditions. The behavior that you are speaking of is illegal, is invalid behavior and so is not allowed under the constitution in one's pursuit of happiness.

While this conversation with you is permissible, it is not beneficial! So I will no longer reply though I could! Unless your comments wise up.

Shalom!

[Cow Poke]

If you read my post you would not ask this. I said that homosexual sex (implied between two consenting adults) is legal. The behavior called homosexuality has already been validated by the law, under these conditions. The behavior that you are speaking of is illegal, is invalid behavior and so is not allowed under the constitution in one's pursuit of happiness.

Other illegal things have been legalized because of Constitutional challenges. You seem focused on the "pursuit of happiness".... You're going to let a little thing like the "laws of man" interfere with your liberation campaign?

[Vivian]

Other illegal things have been legalized because of Constitutional challenges. You seem focused on the "pursuit of happiness".... You're going to let a little thing like the "laws of man" interfere with your liberation campaign?

No. You are not speaking from a place of knowing. In regards to laws allowing or disallowing gay marriage we are speaking of laws themselves, the constitution, etc. In this society, according to our present constitution, gay marriage is allowed, and will be as long as homosexual behavior is considered valid by the law.

If you want to make gay marriage unconstitutional, you have to make homosexual behavior illegal. We all have the right, according to the constitution, and according to God, IMO, to pursuit our own personal happiness. Where God intervenes is when our happiness comes at others harm or at a blatant disregard for others. Where the law intervenes is when our happiness comes from criminal activity.

There is no criminal activity in gay marriage. And there is much benefit to the happiness of others with gay marriage. Why would you think that our creator would make a law against something that brings happiness to his creation without harm? Yes, his wisdom is greater than ours, but if gay marriage brings no harm, the One True God has nothing to say against it. When the One True God did speak against homosexuality, is when it hurt others. This is no longer the case.

Shalom!

[Cow Poke]

No. You are not speaking from a place of knowing.

DRAT! I forget, Viv... You're all knowed up, and the OFFICIAL spokesperson for One True God, and we're all iggernent.


OC --- may the force be with you!!!!

[OtherCheek]

I would say we are not trying to change the definition of the term marriage -we are trying to liberate it from the narrow, ignorant perspective that has it imprisoned!

Marriage has never meant anything else but man and woman uniting, legally and lawfully. This is true in Hammurabi's secular code as well as religious code for thousand's of years. What rights are missing from right now? Any real right that marriage affords heterosexual couples can also be afforded same sex couples. But just to have a "term" to validate behavior will do nothing to give them more rights. I believe it is simply "validation of behavior" that is the issue for homosexuals, and real rights is just a ruse.

[OtherCheek]

Hey OC!

I like this!

I would say that from the side of those supporting gays, it is about rights - does not our constitution claim that we all have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And so from their perspective, by saying that gays cannot be married, we are trying to take away their unalienable right to happiness.

Why can't a civil union grant the very same Constitutional rights that the term marriage grants? What actual and real rights are missing for gays who wish to for a civil union?

Thus not allowing gays to marry is unconstitutional. The only way that gay marriage could be unconstitutional would be for homosexual acts to be illegal. And as we know they are not.

The Constitution is about limiting the power of Government. Not granting rights. It's also not about granting rights to a term. If it DOES grant any civil rights, those rights are actual, and real things, and not about having access to a term.

However, from the anti gay marriage side, is it not about behavior? Those against gay marriage are against it because they believe that homosexual behavior is unnatural, should be illegal, and they do not want the sanctity of marriage dirtied by an immoral-should-be-illegal behavior.

I'm against the term being "liberated" as you call it. Let the term be more like the Constitution--a term which defines limitations and boundaries instead of no limitations and no boundaries.

Let them behave as they like, it's the term and meaning that I wish to preserve.

I would say that given the issue of rights and the issue of validation of behavior those against gay marriage are wrong on all accounts.

Shalom!

Obviously this is more about expanding the definition of "Marriage" instead of allowing it to define limits. Are you against the preservation of all words and terms that define limits?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Disengage the government from marriage altogether and give equal rights to all consenting, adult civil unions. Let those religions and sects that support homosexual marriage do so and protect the right to withhold support among those that do not. Problem solved, from the civic standpoint.

The issue is about rights and, even more than rights, about human equality. Homosexuals don't want to be stigmatized and downgraded because of something that is innately themselves, any more than women want to be stigmatized because of their gender or black people want to be downgraded because of their skin color. Give homosexual couples all the rights of civil unions but withhold the ability to marry and the government will still be enforcing a hostile stratification that it has no business perpetuating.

The idea that the term "marriage" is somehow sacrosanct is untenable, at best. As history plainly demonstrates, that line of argument is merely the window dressing that veils a cultural caste system. It's gussied up every time that the institution of marriage is "threatened." Today, North Carolina imprinted in its constitution that homosexual couples cannot enjoy the benefits of either marriage or civil union. Previously, the same constitution refused those benefits to interracial heterosexual couples.

Sociological studies clearly find that homosexual couples pose no threat to the fabric of our society; not as couples, not as parents. The perceived threat of homosexual marriage is empirically non-existent.

—Sam

[GioD]

No. You are not speaking from a place of knowing. In regards to laws allowing or disallowing gay marriage we are speaking of laws themselves, the constitution, etc. In this society, according to our present constitution, gay marriage is allowed, and will be as long as homosexual behavior is considered valid by the law.

If you want to make gay marriage unconstitutional, you have to make homosexual behavior illegal.

Can you make a case for gay marriage on non-legal positivist grounds? Also, even if gays should not be married it doesn't mean the government has any right to stop consentory gay sex. I believe the latter is unethical but if people want to sin and won't listen to reason, then fine.

We all have the right, according to the constitution, and according to God, IMO, to pursuit our own personal happiness.

We do. And if we don't follow God's command in doing so, God has the right to punish us for it.

There is no criminal activity in gay marriage.

You're confusing the government "allowing homosexual acts" (which I support, but they are unethical) and "marrying gays" (which I don't support). The former should be allowed, but you need to make a positive case for the latter, because it is an actual action of the state, not something simply being allowed.

And if you're such a minarchist why don't you support the removal of state-sponsored marriage completely like I do?

And there is much benefit to the happiness of others with gay marriage.

So? In some future society, there can be much benefit to the happiness of others with polygamy, incest, bestiality, and fetishistic marriages too. That doesn't make them right.

Why would you think that our creator would make a law against something that brings happiness to his creation without harm?

Because he wants us to use our bodies for their proper end. Read up on St. Thomas Aquinas' application of natural law theory.

Yes, his wisdom is greater than ours, but if gay marriage brings no harm, the One True God has nothing to say against it.

God doesn't command us based on whether or not things harm us. He commands us based on how he intends us to act. Gay sex is not how he intends us to act, so he commanded us against it.

When the One True God did speak against homosexuality, is when it hurt others. This is no longer the case.

The reason God told them not to commit homosexual acts was because it was against humanity's natural ends, which is why it is still a sin now.

[Darth Executor]

Disengage the government from marriage altogether and give equal rights to all consenting, adult civil unions.

There is no reason for civil unions (which are just government sanctioned marriage with another name). Get rid of it altogether. The government doesn't need to endorse personal relationships.

[OtherCheek]

Disengage the government from marriage altogether and give equal rights to all consenting, adult civil unions. Let those religions and sects that support homosexual marriage do so and protect the right to withhold support among those that do not. Problem solved, from the civic standpoint.

The issue is about rights and, even more than rights, about human equality. Homosexuals don't want to be stigmatized and downgraded because of something that is innately themselves,

"Innately themselves" is arguable. But I'm ok with giving the same rights to civil unions as are with marriage. What actual and real rights are missing as of today? I'm wondering about all the ramifications of civil servants no longer performing marriages, but only performing civil unions.

any more than women want to be stigmatized because of their gender

gender is a term describing limitations and boundaries. I would not want the term of male or female altered either.

or black people want to be downgraded because of their skin color.

I'm not for denying any actual real Constitutional rights. But the right to redefine a term is not guaranteed by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Give homosexual couples all the rights of civil unions but withhold the ability to marry and the government will still be enforcing a hostile stratification that it has no business perpetuating.

There is no "ability" that is being denied. Let civil unions have the rights such as to file taxes jointly etc. I think they are already granted. It is just expansion of a term that has for thousands of years been a term of limitation and distinction that I am against. It's like redefining the term "orchard" to include pine trees. Or like expanding the term conserving to include the activity of wasting.

The idea that the term "marriage" is somehow sacrosanct is untenable, at best.

Then what makes expansion of the term that once was a limiting term, tenable? I'm not calling it sacrosanct. I'm calling it a term that sets a boundary, instead of changing it to a term of new wider boundaries. Orchard's don't include pine trees, and if we changed it with legislation to "include" pine trees, then it would be made useless. And a new term would have to be made by those who want a term that DOES include boundaries. I say, let those who clamor for the change come up with their own term, instead of changing a term that has always defined limited boundaries.

As history plainly demonstrates, that line of argument is merely the window dressing that veils a cultural caste system. It's gussied up every time that the institution of marriage is "threatened." Today, North Carolina imprinted in its constitution that homosexual couples cannot enjoy the benefits of either marriage or civil union. Previously, the same constitution refused those benefits to interracial heterosexual couples.

We didn't legislate that Black people change the color of their skin, but we did legislate that they are guaranteed the same actual Constitutional rights. Is there a caste system in place in America now because Black folks never could change the color of their skin?

Sociological studies clearly find that homosexual couples pose no threat to the fabric of our society; not as couples, not as parents. The perceived threat of homosexual marriage is empirically non-existent.

—Sam

So why do they need access to the term "Marriage" if the same Constitution rights are made available to Civil Unions?