CDZ Support for Gay Marriage grows

[Porter Rockwell]

Gay Marriage Around the World

Support for equality grows every year with a total of 30 countries legalising it so far. The number increases every year and the countries that are hostile seem to be places which are ruled by religious extremists .

This is backed up by polling which shows support at around 2 thirds in favour in Australia,US and up to 80% plus in Sweden.

I cant see this trend being reversed and can see the majority of nations having similar laws in the next decade.

In the spirit of all men being created equal should the US and EU countries take steps to encourage this ? What would you like to see ?

For myself I think it can be difficult to overturn prejudice and I dont really know whether the stick or carrot is the best way forward.

It is my opinion that America was founded as a very special place and it can only be understood by reading this sermon that was delivered in 1630 by John Winthrop and quoted all the way up to the time of JFK and Ronald Reagan:

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

What we base our decision on is not dependent upon what other countries do or do not do. When America observed their founding principles and remained true to the goals and objectives upon which we were founded - and the direction the colonists began in, this nation was blessed above all the nations of the earth. We should base our decisions upon what is right and what is wrong.

For the Christian, homosexuality is a sin. In its proper perspective, however, no sin is greater than another, so it is immoral to single out people based upon their homosexuality and treat them any different than any other sinner. We tolerate people who abuse alcohol, destroy their bodies with cigarettes and drugs; we even tolerate inter-racial marriage. People who eat like pigs, adorn their bodies with body piercings and have tattoos are all committing sins. So, the gay people get no special condemnation for their sins and Christians should not treat the gay any different for their sins.

As a pragmatist, I know that the word prejudice is when you hold a belief without thought, knowledge, or reason. So, I have given this much thought outside my own belief as a Christian.

America is headed toward socialism. We all throw money into a big pot now and expect the government to hand us a Social Security check when we get old enough. That system is only viable when people put money into that pot. If you're gay, you do not reproduce. If you don't reproduce, there is no working generation to pay into the pot so that Social Security remains viable. That is worth thinking over.

Before you say to me that it is not your responsibility to reproduce for your fellow Americans benefit, then I would counter as to why we are headed toward socialism then. Why should your fellow man put money into any pot, by force, for the benefit of others when it offends his moral beliefs? If I put money into insurance premiums and that money is paid toward sex change operations or paying for diseases transmitted via sexual intercourse, am I not being forced to subsidize a practice that is morally unacceptable? I'm not claiming to be right on this, just showing a couple of instances where it is not cut and dried. How far we go in any "acceptance" of gay marriage or a gay lifestyle deserves asking really uncomfortable questions.

Taxation is not a pick and mix. We vote for parties with different spending plans and choose the one most aligned to our values. If you object to money being spent on birth control or sex changes then vote for the party that is against that. If there isnt a party then set one up.

In terms of your socialism thoughts it puzzles me. Insurance schemes are how you deal with some of lifes misfortunes. Socialism is how we deal with some of that. We are all going to get old or sick. We pay into a fund to cover us from those eventualities.The UK welfare state protects us all by virtue of its size and makes us a civilised and caring society. The NHS protects us all and has never caused anybody to go bankrupt.

Gay folk arent asking for any handouts. They just want the equality they are entitled to.

Therein is the root of socialism. Nobody is entitled to any portion of what I have earned.

off topic

I agree; I'm just responding another poster's musings. The more of his stuff I respond to, the further off course we go. Maybe that last post will pacify him.

 

[Blackrook]

Gay Marriage Around the World

Support for equality grows every year with a total of 30 countries legalising it so far. The number increases every year and the countries that are hostile seem to be places which are ruled by religious extremists .

This is backed up by polling which shows support at around 2 thirds in favour in Australia,US and up to 80% plus in Sweden.

I cant see this trend being reversed and can see the majority of nations having similar laws in the next decade.

In the spirit of all men being created equal should the US and EU countries take steps to encourage this ? What would you like to see ?

For myself I think it can be difficult to overturn prejudice and I dont really know whether the stick or carrot is the best way forward.

The world is changing and many just can't accept it. Especially on terms of equality.

Maybe some see the world as a zero-sum game? If someone they don't like wins, that means they must have lost something.

Change comes slowly and is not always welcomed by some. The same people kicking against equality now were probably outraged when black folk got the vote in the 60s.

That is a lie. Equality for blacks is not at all the same as allowing men to marry men.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Be pretend married. I just roll my eyes

How does pretend marriage work out for you?

ZING!

excellent!

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

 

[impuretrash]

It's not acceptance that is growing. It's fear to stand for what is right.

 

[DOTR]

The US allows gay marriage and society hasn't yet fallen apart.

it hasn’t?

 

[DustyInfinity]

How does pretend marriage work out for you?

ZING!

excellent!

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

 

[Lysistrata]

ZING!

excellent!

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

 

[alang1216]

The US allows gay marriage and society hasn't yet fallen apart.

it hasn’t?

View attachment 289577

It hasn't. Now if you wanted to outlaw clowns, I'm with you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):

"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."

What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?

You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?

Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

ZING!

excellent!

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

I have been married for 24 years and have managed to withstand the LGBT "aggression" towards my marriage. In fact I am not aware of any straight couple who have been affected by a Gay marriage. Perhaps you could share your experience in this respect ?

 

[alang1216]

ZING!

excellent!

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

If marriage was solely a religious issue, you'd be correct. In our society, marriage brings many non-religious rights and benefits. Until the state is out of the marriage business entirely, everyone (almost everyone) must be allowed to marry.

 

[Lysistrata]

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):

"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."

What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?

You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?

Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.

Who is in this "society" that determines who they want to accept? We all are. You are only one individual in society. An LGBT person who wants to marry someone of the same sex is also just one individual in society. You don't have any great right to speak for all of us. Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court rule on same-sex marriage under the Constitution, a good segment of society has accepted it, including religious institutions.

BTW: if your use of the term "you" means me, I'm a heterosexual woman.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):

"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."

What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?

You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?

Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.

Who is in this "society" that determines who they want to accept? We all are. You are only one individual in society. An LGBT person who wants to marry someone of the same sex is also just one individual in society. You don't have any great right to speak for all of us. Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court rule on same-sex marriage under the Constitution, a good segment of society has accepted it, including religious institutions.

BTW: if your use of the term "you" means me, I'm a heterosexual woman.

Actually the majority of Americans support same sex marriage.There is no credible argument against it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):

"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."

What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?

You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?

Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.

Who is in this "society" that determines who they want to accept? We all are. You are only one individual in society. An LGBT person who wants to marry someone of the same sex is also just one individual in society. You don't have any great right to speak for all of us. Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court rule on same-sex marriage under the Constitution, a good segment of society has accepted it, including religious institutions.

BTW: if your use of the term "you" means me, I'm a heterosexual woman.

First, my response is generic. So, great you're a heterosexual woman. Now let me answer the rest of your issue:

I am a gun owner that takes Liberty seriously. I've had to defend my life before. But, not all people like firearms. So, I respect that and don't do business with people where me and ccw aren't permitted (sic.) I have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. Others have rights as well.

An employer, under a de jure / lawful interpretation of our Constitution has the Right to run their business as they see fit. Now, I realize that they don't, but I still support their Right and would fight for it if asked. That means they should be able to say no to you if they don't want to do business with you and no if they don't want to hire you. I support that Right even when I'm the one they are saying no to.

If a county court clerk does not want to issue you a marriage license to marry someone of the same sex, then vote against them in the next election. If a state denies you the license, go to another state. If an insurance company does not want to sell you a policy, go to another insurance company. If you cannot find acceptance for something, then society is telling you no.

If you knew someone that was proud of their heritage, but was not unfair toward others, you might get an inkling of what I'm saying. Such an individual would be called a racist - even though they may have black friends. But, if people knew that individual was opposed to inter-racial marriage, they would become persona non grata... any Rights be damned. It is a simple lesson. Sometimes you cannot impose yourself on society. And if there is nowhere you can go to buy what you need or live like you want, apparently society is saying no to you. Marriage is a privilege. That is why you apply for a license. If you apply for a license, you did not have the Right... I defined the term for you in an earlier post. Whether we like it or not, a substantial number of Americans feel their community standards and morals are being jeopardized by gay marriage. It's a big country and everybody needs their own space.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):

"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."

What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?

You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?

Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.

Who is in this "society" that determines who they want to accept? We all are. You are only one individual in society. An LGBT person who wants to marry someone of the same sex is also just one individual in society. You don't have any great right to speak for all of us. Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court rule on same-sex marriage under the Constitution, a good segment of society has accepted it, including religious institutions.

BTW: if your use of the term "you" means me, I'm a heterosexual woman.

Actually the majority of Americans support same sex marriage.There is no credible argument against it.

A majority of Americans thought that blacks were only 3 / 5ths of a person. Might makes right?

 

[JoeMoma]

I don't care whether Tommy is married or not!

 

[DustyInfinity]

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

So this isn't about equal rights? This is about being able to use the specific term marriage? You mention the advantages of marriage, but a civil union would remedy that situation. I'm sorry that LGBTs didn't like the definition of marriage, but they had no reason to alter it. By harm, do you mean they didn't like the fact that they could have the exact same rights with a different term. A different term for a different situation. It doesn't appear this had anything to do with rights. Altering the meaning of one of our oldest traditions was indeed aggressive.

 

[Lysistrata]

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):

"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."

What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?

You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?

Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.

Who is in this "society" that determines who they want to accept? We all are. You are only one individual in society. An LGBT person who wants to marry someone of the same sex is also just one individual in society. You don't have any great right to speak for all of us. Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court rule on same-sex marriage under the Constitution, a good segment of society has accepted it, including religious institutions.

BTW: if your use of the term "you" means me, I'm a heterosexual woman.

First, my response is generic. So, great you're a heterosexual woman. Now let me answer the rest of your issue:

I am a gun owner that takes Liberty seriously. I've had to defend my life before. But, not all people like firearms. So, I respect that and don't do business with people where me and ccw aren't permitted (sic.) I have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. Others have rights as well.

An employer, under a de jure / lawful interpretation of our Constitution has the Right to run their business as they see fit. Now, I realize that they don't, but I still support their Right and would fight for it if asked. That means they should be able to say no to you if they don't want to do business with you and no if they don't want to hire you. I support that Right even when I'm the one they are saying no to.

If a county court clerk does not want to issue you a marriage license to marry someone of the same sex, then vote against them in the next election. If a state denies you the license, go to another state. If an insurance company does not want to sell you a policy, go to another insurance company. If you cannot find acceptance for something, then society is telling you no.

If you knew someone that was proud of their heritage, but was not unfair toward others, you might get an inkling of what I'm saying. Such an individual would be called a racist - even though they may have black friends. But, if people knew that individual was opposed to inter-racial marriage, they would become persona non grata... any Rights be damned. It is a simple lesson. Sometimes you cannot impose yourself on society. And if there is nowhere you can go to buy what you need or live like you want, apparently society is saying no to you. Marriage is a privilege. That is why you apply for a license. If you apply for a license, you did not have the Right... I defined the term for you in an earlier post. Whether we like it or not, a substantial number of Americans feel their community standards and morals are being jeopardized by gay marriage. It's a big country and everybody needs their own space.

Who cares that you have a psychological thing about guns. Just don't hurt anyone else and get some counseling.

Having a business is a privilege and is subject to law.

Public officials are expected to do their duty. They function as an arm of the government and are paid by the public, including people who seek marriage licenses. A public official who cannot do his or her job should quit or be fired. It is not a matter of voting them out. They are being paid to do something that they refuse to do, which, underneath, is theft. The public has no obligation to go anywhere but where they are supposed to go. The burden is not on the public. I have to go to the DMV. The office is there. I cannot be refused service. Moreover, one punk does not constitute "society."

Neither do you have any right to claim that you speak for "society." Who is "imposing" what on "society," anyway? You say that "a substantial number of Americans feel their community standards and morals are being jeopardized by gay marriage," but this is of no consequence. They are only some part of society. Others in society have other ideas. Moreover, it is unclear as to why they think so. You and your friends have enough "space," but the rest of us are entitled to our "space," too. Nobody is stopping you from having your bible marriage.

 

[alang1216]

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):

"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."

What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?

You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?

Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.

Who is in this "society" that determines who they want to accept? We all are. You are only one individual in society. An LGBT person who wants to marry someone of the same sex is also just one individual in society. You don't have any great right to speak for all of us. Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court rule on same-sex marriage under the Constitution, a good segment of society has accepted it, including religious institutions.

BTW: if your use of the term "you" means me, I'm a heterosexual woman.

First, my response is generic. So, great you're a heterosexual woman. Now let me answer the rest of your issue:

I am a gun owner that takes Liberty seriously. I've had to defend my life before. But, not all people like firearms. So, I respect that and don't do business with people where me and ccw aren't permitted (sic.) I have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. Others have rights as well.

An employer, under a de jure / lawful interpretation of our Constitution has the Right to run their business as they see fit. Now, I realize that they don't, but I still support their Right and would fight for it if asked. That means they should be able to say no to you if they don't want to do business with you and no if they don't want to hire you. I support that Right even when I'm the one they are saying no to.

If a county court clerk does not want to issue you a marriage license to marry someone of the same sex, then vote against them in the next election. If a state denies you the license, go to another state. If an insurance company does not want to sell you a policy, go to another insurance company. If you cannot find acceptance for something, then society is telling you no.

If you knew someone that was proud of their heritage, but was not unfair toward others, you might get an inkling of what I'm saying. Such an individual would be called a racist - even though they may have black friends. But, if people knew that individual was opposed to inter-racial marriage, they would become persona non grata... any Rights be damned. It is a simple lesson. Sometimes you cannot impose yourself on society. And if there is nowhere you can go to buy what you need or live like you want, apparently society is saying no to you. Marriage is a privilege. That is why you apply for a license. If you apply for a license, you did not have the Right... I defined the term for you in an earlier post. Whether we like it or not, a substantial number of Americans feel their community standards and morals are being jeopardized by gay marriage. It's a big country and everybody needs their own space.

In theory you may be justified in your beliefs, in practice, not so much.

As for the private sector, giving businesses carte blanche in the past led to all forms of discrimination, redlining, etc. A business has an obligation to operate in the public good and not perpetuate the evils of society. A bakery may not be critical but no doctor or hospital should be allowed to refuse service to someone solely based on their race, religion, gender, etc. That obligation is even stronger in the public sphere. If a county court clerk does not want to issue you a marriage license to marry someone of the same sex, even though it is the law of the land, then that clerk is not doing their job and should find another.

 

[alang1216]

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

So this isn't about equal rights? This is about being able to use the specific term marriage? You mention the advantages of marriage, but a civil union would remedy that situation. I'm sorry that LGBTs didn't like the definition of marriage, but they had no reason to alter it. By harm, do you mean they didn't like the fact that they could have the exact same rights with a different term. A different term for a different situation. It doesn't appear this had anything to do with rights. Altering the meaning of one of our oldest traditions was indeed aggressive.

I'm of the opinion only religious organizations should be able to marry people and only governments should offer civil unions. Religious marriages would not be subject to any governmental regulation and, likewise, such marriages should not come with any government benefits (e.g., tax breaks). Only civil unions, essentially contracts between 2 (or more?) consenting adults, would provide those benefits.