Gay Marriage moving towards federal law

[gunnyrogers55]

I'm from mass and no one up here likes doing gay marriage.. no wants to A have it in the place of business cause of what the public might think and B churches and most religious views do not accept this.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm from mass and no one up here likes doing gay marriage.. no wants to A have it in the place of business cause of what the public might think and B churches and most religious views do not accept this.

You call an evenly split electorate "most"?

Really don't care if your private business doesn't want our money. Plenty of businesses do. Churches were never part of the equation.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Question: Is the crux of the issue that homosexuals want equal rights or do they want their unions accepted by society as a whole as being "normal and moral"? If anyone responds to this perhaps you could include your sexual orientation.

 

[Synthaholic]

Question: Is the crux of the issue that homosexuals want equal rights or do they want their unions accepted by society as a whole as being "normal and moral"? If anyone responds to this perhaps you could include your sexual orientation.

I think they want both, of course, but would settle for equal rights now and work on widespread acceptance later.

I'm extremely straight. Which means I find the thought of two men having sex together disgusting, but I understand that it's not my business what two consenting adults do.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Question: Is the crux of the issue that homosexuals want equal rights or do they want their unions accepted by society as a whole as being "normal and moral"? If anyone responds to this perhaps you could include your sexual orientation.

I think they want both, of course, but would settle for equal rights now and work on widespread acceptance later.

I'm extremely straight. Which means I find the thought of two men having sex together disgusting, but I understand that it's not my business what two consenting adults do.

I understand what you're saying. I also agree that it's not my business what anyone else does in the privacy of their own home. I just think that asking for anything more than legal equality is pretty unrealistic.

 

[Montrovant]

Question: Is the crux of the issue that homosexuals want equal rights or do they want their unions accepted by society as a whole as being "normal and moral"? If anyone responds to this perhaps you could include your sexual orientation.

I think they want both, of course, but would settle for equal rights now and work on widespread acceptance later.

I'm extremely straight. Which means I find the thought of two men having sex together disgusting, but I understand that it's not my business what two consenting adults do.

I understand what you're saying. I also agree that it's not my business what anyone else does in the privacy of their own home. I just think that asking for anything more than legal equality is pretty unrealistic.

I agree that the idea of widespread acceptance is unrealistic at this time, but if it is ever going to happen, it has to start somewhere. If there are those who think they can get acceptance of homosexuality soon, they may be extremists where this issue is concerned, but I think that it is important to have people who are extreme or at least unrealistically idealistic as well as people who are more realistic in their expectations. The idealists may not accomplish a lot, but they can stand out as examples of what to eventually work toward. (Disclaimer! : I'm talking about the majority accepting homosexuality, not any particular sexual practices or personalities.)

I agree with Synthaholic's comments. I am also a straight man. I don't care if two men or two women fall in love, have sex, whatever. It's not my concern; and there's little enough happiness to be found in this life, I'm not going to worry about trying to prevent others from finding it where they may.

 

[M14 Shooter]

SSM is going to be settled by the courts. The legislatures won't touch this one; trust me.

Legilsatures touch this all the time, both directly in terms of legislation and indirectly in terms of constitutional amendments,

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is not the first time President Obama has said something like this.

Doesn't matter. The federal government has no power to pass any such law - this is wholly and fully within the purview of the states.

Apparently you've never heard of Full Faith and Credit?

Apparently you don't understand that this doesnt give them the power to pass a law regarding marriage as supposed by the post I responded to.

Let's say we have two couples that get married in Massachusetts, one couple is gay and the other straight. The straight couple's marriage is recognized in all 50 states, the gay couple's marriage only in a small handful. Why is this? Is it because of a state law or an unconstitutional Federal law?

Its because states do not have to recognize priviliges/immunities granted by other states that the state itself does not grant. This is why CA doesnt have to recognize my OH CCW license.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you (and in more than one instance too I might add). They have declared that marriage is a fundamental right. Why do you think that interracial marriage laws (that varied state to state) were struck down?

Marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilge granted by the state - it exists ONLY because of the legislation that created it and it exists only for so long as said legislation remains in place. As such it is a -privilege- granted by the state because states do not - indeed, cannoit - grant rights.

If marriage, as a legal ionstitution, were fundamental right, it would exist absent any such legislation. It cannot, and so it is not.

Don't ya'll have even a basic understanding of what you are arguing?

See above. My understanding certainly far exceeds yours, as your response will so very clearly illustrate.

And speaking of interracial marriage, your "argument"...

You may try to actually -refute- my argument at your lesuire.
When everyone is treated exactly the same under the law, there can be no discrimination.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Legality is not.

Correct, THAT is determoned by the majority.