Why we should allow same-sex marriage

While watching a few news stories on the current debate on Same-Sex Marriage going on in the Supreme Court today I had a bit of an epiphany. I think we're over thinking the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

The reason I have always liked those documents is that for such great works of writing, they are beautifully simple. I think that this is the way we should look at them, that they are not metaphor, but strait forward guidelines.

When it say things like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." That's a pretty strait forward statement. We can debate whether they meant All Men, or All White Men, or however you wish to interpret it. But, I believe that we should take the words at face value. That it means All Men (all people, Mankind) are created equal and are afforded the same rights at birth.

To me, that means all people, no matter race, religion, or creed, share the same rights (under these documents at least). So, If two men, or two women, wish to marry let them. It will hurt nobody if same sex couples are allowed marriage by federal law.

Think about it, If your homosexual neighbors, co-workers, or peers are allowed to join in marriage, how would this affect you? The answer is that it won't.

To not allow same sex couples to marry, you are no better than the person who doesn't want people of other religions to be able to practice their faith. There is no difference. Granted, we don't allow religions to have human sacrifice but, then again there's really no equal to that in this instance.

Allowing same-sex marriage will not cause all the kids to be gay, it won't turn your daughter into a prostitute, and it won't make your son a sex-crazed lunatic.

If there is a group of people that you don't like, you don't hang around them, right? That doesn't mean that you don't want them to be able to exercise the same rights that you do, if it does, there's nothing I can do to help you.

This brings me to the last point, let it be known that I am not picking on Christians here. The only reason the following example is here is due to the likeliness of someone posting the same question or a variation thereof. So, without further adieu: You may say, "But, we are a Christian Nation. Homosexuality is a sin." To this I will say. Did Jesus himself not say: "In all things, do unto others as you would have them do unto you." or you may prefer: "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

In the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), Homosexuality isn't even mentioned. The four Gospels are The Chronicles of the life of Jesus Christ. If in fact Jesus was anti-homosexual, do you not think he would have had something to say about it?

So in conclusion, I can find no reason not to allow Homosexuals to get married. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your opinion on it.

Thanks everybody, and please keep it civil.

I agree, misery loves company, let them suffer with the rest of us.

I'll start the replies and follow your last request diligently, I promise.

To your topic "Why we should allow gay marriage". Well.... I know I'm about to shock some people out of their chairs... but on the level it's being challenged? They probably ought to allow it. That is, the state level. Some states are populated by a majority who see no problem and embrace it. Literally and figuratively. So be it ..and i have absolutely no right in Missouri to tell people in New York or Mass or anywhere else, what they can or can't do.

The reverse is where there can never seem to be an inch given under any circumstances. That being, if the people of the State of Missouri (Or California as the case at the Supers is) decide this state isn't among those with a population openly in favor of this, where is it the right of those elsewhere to force it on us?

Federal right? Well... No. That's the whole problem and where, frankly, I think the Gay community meets near vicious levels of push back when it's so much as mentioned. The topic itself, in my experience isn't even the issue as much as the "Right" where no such thing exists.

Now... the Constitution DOES give the states ALL powers not otherwise delegated within a narrow and limited Federal range of powers. Hence... It ought to be a state issue that states decided either way need respect in each other.

....having said that? I can't very well praise the Super Court for Heller and then say they're morons that need to go if they decide against my views on this one. I'll respect their decision in good faith, either way.

reply to post by Carreau


That was awesome. Star for that.

My wife asked me yesterday how I felt about the whole gay marriage issue. My response to her was, "I love you very much but it wouldn't be so bad to have another man around the house to help me with all the god damn chores."

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Thanks Wrabbit, as always, for your input. I tend to agree that things should be on the state level for the most part. However, I really have a hard time understanding why people would let same-sex marriage bother them so much. I do think that it would be better if it was at least taken by popular vote, the only problem with that is those who don't vote, there's a lot of them. I guess though, with such an issue, it wouldn't matter much, I think if it was put to a popular vote then it would be allowed.

Mostly I want this one to be allowed, because A. It shows that we've advanced a bit in our thinking, and B. It opens the door for other "Hot button issues" that shouldn't be issues in the first place (recreational drug use, gun control).

I just like to apply Occam's Razor when it comes to the constitution, I'm sure you do as well.

I don't see any problem with any consenting adult of any gender getting married to any other consenting adult of any gender.

reply to post by Druscilla



Most of us don't.

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Thanks Wrabbit, as always, for your input. I tend to agree that things should be on the state level for the most part. However, I really have a hard time understanding why people would let same-sex marriage bother them so much. I do think that it would be better if it was at least taken by popular vote, the only problem with that is those who don't vote, there's a lot of them. I guess though, with such an issue, it wouldn't matter much, I think if it was put to a popular vote then it would be allowed.

Mostly I want this one to be allowed, because A. It shows that we've advanced a bit in our thinking, and B. It opens the door for other "Hot button issues" that shouldn't be issues in the first place (recreational drug use, gun control).

I just like to apply Occam's Razor when it comes to the constitution, I'm sure you do as well.

I don't agree that you should let people vote on whether they get to discriminate against a group of people who aren't hurting anyone. If you can do that, then any state should be able to vote slavery back in, or to vote to take away women's votes.

reply to post by dave_welch

Well, I think that's where it gets complicated. If the topic were strictly about one state or even many states accepting and making Gay Marriage legal? It'd be a whole different thing to many people. However, it's claiming a Federal Right as a part and sourced from the Constitution. It's not the first time that argument has been suggested on a variety of things ..and that's where I think it piques a certain type of anger that is totally removed from the issue the Right is being claimed for.

This whole "It's a RIGHT!" bit is going entirely too far ...and if we can begin reading new things in as rights because we think they should have been included or were simply overlooked (looking at history doesn't support that idea) then where does it stop for new ones? State level...is supposed to be easy to change and adapt. Federal Constitutional law is supposed to be VERY HARD to change or adapt ....that's where I think this really never had a place at the Federal level. Including DOMA.

(Yup.. I say federally blocking it was as wrong as federally protecting it. Federally staying out of local business among citizens is the ticket.)

The problem I have for gay marriage is that is is not fair. Im male, im not gay but putting up with women is no picnic. Im sure its the same the other way around. coexisting with the opposite sex is something that just has to happen to procreate.

In my opinion, at least visible where i live in Vancouver B.C where homosexuality is not only tolerated but flaunted, the gay lifestyle seems irresponsible and selfish. Im not talking about aids and all that jazz (no pun intended) but the fact that they were given life through procreation now they wish to live designer lives full of new legislation and medical technology to give them the best of both worlds and if anyone says anything against it then they are bigots or homophobic.

If you want to be gay... be gay. You want to be married... sure, its just a piece of paper. But NO! they want to be considered normal and have normal families. So I don't think it will end there. Next it will be same sex addoption, then same sex gene splicing, and then some new technology that allows men to carry eggs and women have semen. Its a slippery slope, one that could end in bio-shock

Hate me all you want, I hate nobody, not gays not Nazi's not Stephen Harper.

reply to post by kaylaluv


You're right, that's why I think that it's one of those times where it should be on a federal level. The problem is, when you start doing things on a federal level, it becomes a slippery slope. If you do this on a Federal level, it may open the door for less humanitarian things to be passed at a federal level. But, I don't think that allowing such things to be put to a vote would ever cause things like slavery to come back, or abolish equal rights. Way more people would vote against slavery or repealing equal rights than the idiots that would vote for such a ridiculous idea.

reply to post by FirstCasualty


Well, that all sounds good, but I bet there were people who said the same thing about the Equal Rights Act. If you replace "gays" with "blacks" in your statement, you may see what I'm getting at. Where does it stop? It may be news to you that there are thousands, maybe millions of gays who have normal families, work normal jobs, and are just as much as a normal and productive members of society as you or I.

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by FirstCasualty

 

Well, that all sounds good, but I bet there were people who said the same thing about the Equal Rights Act. If you replace "gays" with "blacks" in your statement, you may see what I'm getting at. Where does it stop? It may be news to you that there are thousands, maybe millions of gays who have normal families, work normal jobs, and are just as much as a normal and productive members of society as you or I.

What!!!?

I tried to convey my opinion fairly without judgement, your response was nothing but trolling.

Are you saying that you thing i have a problem with interracial marriage based on what i said? read it again then you obviously missed something.

.... replace gays with blacks.... WTF

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

You're right, that's why I think that it's one of those times where it should be on a federal level. The problem is, when you start doing things on a federal level, it becomes a slippery slope. If you do this on a Federal level, it may open the door for less humanitarian things to be passed at a federal level. But, I don't think that allowing such things to be put to a vote would ever cause things like slavery to come back, or abolish equal rights. Way more people would vote against slavery or repealing equal rights than the idiots that would vote for such a ridiculous idea.

I don't know, there are some states in the South that I'm not so sure about....

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The reason I disagree with you over "Rights" is that we have had to include a few things into our constitution where it was left out due to the time period it was written in.

Take for example, a common hot topic here. The first and 2nd amendment. We have a lot more means of communication than we did in the 18th century. But those new ways of communicating are covered under the first amendment, or at least they should be, correct? When the 2nd was written, they were thinking of powder and ball weapons. Obviously, we don't use those much anymore, and under the 2nd amendment we are allowed to own more modern weapons. So why can't we do the same thing here? We all know Homosexuality existed at the time, though people weren't open about it, so it may have never entered their minds. It does state that all men are created equal. There was a time, some members on this sight surely remember (maybe you do, I don't know how old you are) when blacks weren't allowed into the same restaurants, bathrooms, movie theatre's, ect as whites were. Today, racial equality seem a no-brainer to most of us, but at the time, it was common that blacks weren't afforded the same rights as whites. We've grown past that point with race, why can't we do it with sexual orientation?

reply to post by kaylaluv


Well, stereotypes are funny and all, but they're rarely correct. If it was put to a vote, don't you think more minorities would show up to vote on it than those who wish to take their rights? I don't. By the way, I live in the "south".

reply to post by FirstCasualty


No, I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to what you said about the gay community being selfish and flaunting their sexuality. Do you think the same wasn't said about minorities during the civil rights moviement?

I don't see how anything I said constitutes trolling.

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by FirstCasualty

 

No, I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to what you said about the gay community being selfish and flaunting their sexuality. Do you think the same wasn't said about minorities during the civil rights moviement?

I don't see how anything I said constitutes trolling.

I didnt say anything about vlacks being selfish.
I do.t see where you got that from at all.

How were blacks selfish? You tell me. You said it.

reply to post by FirstCasualty


By the way, I see what you're saying, but, we don't allow human cloning, right? So gene-splicing and all that, probably won't happen in your or my lifetime.

Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to adopt. I know several strait parents who probably shouldn't be parents. They're terrible people, yet they were allowed to procreate. And, unfortunately there are not enough strait parents to adopt all those poor kids who have no parents. I know plenty of homosexuals who would be great parents.

You seem to be of the Idea that homosexuality is a choice, I could be misunderstanding you there.

reply to post by FirstCasualty


I didn't say they were, I was just trying to show you how you're discriminating against homosexuals just like those who weren't for civil rights were discriminating against blacks, and I be there were people like that using the same arguement.