Users who Dugg This
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12544 Followers
Standing My Ground
4858 Followers
assassyn360Feb 12, 2012
I agree they are human rights. Free choice to decide who you want to love has been a battle throughout history, especially in the US. It is truly pathetically sad it is even debated in modern America.
JLF2035Feb 12, 2012
I find it really disturbing, that in a country that prides itself on freedom, that this is even an issue.
norman619Feb 12, 2012
It's not an issue. Gays have been free to marry, adopt, and live their lives. Saying gays were not allowed to marry is an outright lie.
JLF2035Feb 12, 2012
LOL. whatever you say dude.
norman619Feb 12, 2012
PLEASE show me the law that prevents gays from getting married. That stops them from finding someone to marry them. You DO understand that you can get married w/o a certificate from the state... right? You have NEVER needed the OK of the state to marry.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
diefreeFeb 12, 2012
It's called equal protection under the law. You've been shown this fact numerous times Norman yet you continue to lie.
JLF2035Feb 12, 2012
And yet they won't get the same rights and benefits that regular married couples get, because the government doesn't recognize it.
As usual you sound like an ignorant moron.
gianpoFeb 12, 2012
You are such a f**king retard. I see you repeat that stupid comment every time gay marriage is brought up. Yes gay marriage isn't illegale but that doesn't make it legal either. If when gay people can get Married And get the same benefits and writes that straight people get that's when it will be not unconstitutional.You are not allowed to give rights to one group of people and deny it to another group.Marriage is not just a Religious institution is also a legal binding contract That brings along with it some benefits that gay people aren't allowed to have.
heresy_fnordFeb 12, 2012
@norman619, I see where you're going with this you f**king failure at life. You're playing the "a gay man can marry a women all he wants" game. f**k you. We want for gay men to be able to marry other men. We want lesbian women to be able to marry other women. And that isn't possible yet across the nation.
norman619Feb 12, 2012
Wow... All of you guys know I'm right. That there is no LAW that prevents same sex couples from marrying so instead of discussing this civilly with me you go into personal attacks. It's pathetic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
MusicManGPFeb 12, 2012
You know you're mincing words trying to present this as if gay couples can get married just as easily as straight couples, and you know that is not true. You also know that people are talking about state recognition of marriage, not just having a ceremony.
You're right, you are pathetic.
diefreeFeb 12, 2012
Norman really lying after being repeatedly shown the facts on how you're wrong is very cowardly.
stubearFeb 12, 2012
They aren't seeking the right to marry, they are seeking equal protection under the law so they can claim the same benefits heterosexual couples do. Why do you have so much trouble giving gay couples these same rights? What harm will it do to society to allow two people of the same sex the ability to make life or death medical decisions for their partners? Are you personally affected when this happens? Does your quality of life diminish when a gay couple is allowed to adopt a child? No? Of course not. Now please shut the f**k up unless you actually have something intelligent to say. You neanderthals really need to go back to your caves.
weebitFeb 12, 2012
Sure they can get married, but it's not the same. It's just a piece of paper. Let them try to claim on income taxes, or gosh forbid if one of them got hurt bad and was in the hospital. This is where their rights are gone. They can be living together for 22 years, and that hospital will not let their partner in the door to see them in intensive care. Blood rules, and so does a marriage between a man and a woman. They have the rights to say who comes through that door, not the partner that has stuck by their side through thick and thin. That paper is worthless.
JLF2035Feb 12, 2012
norman, just stop already. You've already proven yourself to be ignorant, many time before this. You don't need to prove anymore. We all know you're stupid. You can stop now.
randomirish2Feb 12, 2012
Will you be happy to see a gay man marry your daughter then? Is that what you mean by them being 'free'? Hasn't that happened to enough conservatives who didn't want a little thing like their true orientation from getting in the way of their patrimony? With notably devastating results for all?
norman619Feb 12, 2012
Wow... your ignorance is amazing. I don't care who my daughter marries as long as he/she treats her with respect and makes her happy. That does not change the fact that there are no laws preventing same sex couples from actually getting married. What's happening is that government has been refusing to slap their seal of approval on them by giving the same tax benefits and legal safety nets for free. Same sex couples can go see a lawyer and get up wills which dictate custody, power of attorney and so on to have the exact same legal safety net in the event of a death or a divorce as same sex couples do when they get married. It's easy and inexpensive to do. The only things they wouldn't have is the tax breaks which I feel NO ONE should have.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jbellancaFeb 13, 2012
Wow that is so not true. You are very ignorant.
jarysmFeb 12, 2012
Norman, you cannot ignore what you do not understand. Marriage is a legal term of binding two people and recognizing their childeren. It allows married people to pay less in taxes, visit their family member in the hospital, benefit from their family member's insaurance, or register for adoption in all states.
Gay people are not qualified for that legal state at a federal level or in most states. Just like interracial couples before Loving V Virginia.
gt777Feb 12, 2012
Why do you need additional rights called gays rights? Don't standard human rights cover them all? Why must gays be so special? Must the whole world revolves around them?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gotapointFeb 12, 2012
Because those "standard human rights" don't give gays protection, as they would to women, the handicapped, and color minorities, etc.. All those other groups are allowed to marry, adopt children, have joint tax returns, have rights of survivorship when one spouse dies... all sort of things that gays aren't allowed to have. This is why it must be separate, if "standard human rights" would also cover gays - then it wouldn't be such an issue.
norman619Feb 12, 2012
What protections? They share the same RIGHTS as everyone else. Benefits are not rights. As for the legal safety nets that go along with getting married for same sex couples, those can be obtained by same sex couples by simply going to see an attorney and paying approx $400 to have the documents drawn up which would do the EXACT SAME THING.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
diefreeFeb 12, 2012
Equal protection under the law which also covers benefits. Them having to pay for same benefits violates that. Please stop trying to spread you bigoted lies.
norman619Feb 12, 2012
let me try that again cuz it's early:
What protections? They share the same RIGHTS as everyone else. Benefits are not rights. As for the legal safety nets that go along with getting married for heterosexual couples, those can be obtained by same sex couples by simply going to see an attorney and paying approx $400 to have the documents drawn up which would do the EXACT SAME THING. The ONLY thing they'd be missing is the tax breaks which I don't feel anyone should be getting.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gotapointFeb 12, 2012
I remember that argument when it was against interracial couples.. The focus changes - but the arguments don't.
And typically "standard human rights" also serve when it comes to benefits. Or do the handicapped have to pay extra to get these benefits, or minorities? Do they have to pay extra to get in to the hospital room to see their dying loved one (because they aren't a "family member")?
The "benefits" of getting married are not all this is about either. "standard human rights" also includes the right to work without harassment, to go to school and have teachers stand up to bullies with you, to be able love the soul you choose to, regardless of the external package, and not live in fear that when you're found out you will be: 1) beaten, 2) fired, 3) discharged from the military, 4) or simply harassed with no recourse against those who would hurt you or those you love.
And yes - I know some of things are changing and that is good. But these are the reasons why gay rights have to be separated from "standard human rights".
mortventFeb 12, 2012
Poor norman,
Just because you believe certain benefits are not right, the fact one group is excluded isn't a problem
But back to rights, a gay couple has none of the family rights of a hetero couple under the law when it comes to patient rights. Or many other issues.
It's not a separate but equal rights, it's separate and unequal.
leodinFeb 12, 2012
What additional rights? Gay people are only asking for the same rights as everyone else. The current stance is that being gay makes you subhuman, and so not entitled to standard human rights. Don't f**king act like your sexuality doesn't affect how you're treated.
jarysmFeb 12, 2012
Because conservatives like to deligitimize equal rights for gay people, calling them "Gay rights", and pretending they are additional to other rights.
Like you just did, or were fooled by.
mtownFeb 12, 2012
It's ridiculous that this is even an issue in the modern age. Imagine if there where different laws that and rules depending on your political preference. That would be fun, wouldn't it? No? Well sexual preference should be no different.
I don't agree with a lot of peoples choices and opinions but imagine how ludicrous it would be if I tried to claim that my choices and opinions where the only ones that mattered and everybody should be legally inclined to follow them.
salbatrossFeb 12, 2012
The better equivalent would be laws discouraging or banning left-handedness, as it's something innate and harmless. But all in all, you're right: it would be ludicrous, and it is ridiculous that we have to have these conversations in the modern world.
bobbi21Feb 12, 2012
better. Just a note though you can change your handedness early on (although I hear it messed you up if you try it later). My sister was initially left handed but my parents made her right handed. She still has pretty good function in her left but definitely a righty
chelseaelizobethFeb 12, 2012
Why should something like this be done, though? Is it really necessary? What's so wrong with being left-handed?
mhuntFeb 12, 2012
That is just messed up. Most of the natural lefties that I know who were forced to use their right hands are really screwed up.
lordharvestFeb 12, 2012
I read that as your parents going "Look we don't want a left handed freak in the family, now use your right hand"
What a way to raise a kid
bobbi21Feb 14, 2012
haha agreed. They tried the same with me but I'm stubborn. Don't get me started on my complaints about my parent's parenting skills :P
downshiftdxFeb 12, 2012
I don't disagree with your comment. I too think it is absurd that we even have to discuss human rights like this but I just wanted to point out I find it odd when people say things like "In our modern age" or "This is the 21st century! How can X still be happening?"
The truth is most of the world is not socially or culturally advancing at anywhere near the rates of change we are seeing in technology and collective human knowledge. Pockets of people in affluent educated areas are moving in the general direction we want to see thanks to an increasingly integrated and connected society, but cultural traditions and norms fight back hard and resist change.
The fact that we have to even consider whether human rights apply to gays or anyone else illustrates the point that we may be modern, in the sense that we are more advanced technically than our ancient ancestors but I don't think we are truly civilized yet.
mikielunaFeb 12, 2012
Well said!
sab0tageFeb 12, 2012
In the UK straight couples can get married and gay couples can have a civil partnership, the benefits are identical but it's mainly the label and location where you can have the "ceremony" performed that are different AFAIKT.
I personally think it's f**ked up; as a straight, completely non-religious person who doesn't believe in the sky-fairy, I have absolutely no desire to be married in a church or otherwise have a religious ceremony, so a civil partnership would suit me but I can't have one! Likewise I am sure there are some gay couples who consider themselves religious (even if their religion despises them) who would like to be married in a church, but can't.
gkiltzFeb 12, 2012
That's the most important part of the California ruling. Gay rights is part of equal protection under the law. 50 years overdue.
rudegarFeb 12, 2012
do Gay Marriages don't violate the copyright infringement owned by religious people then?
aristotle0dudeFeb 13, 2012
So what about heterosexual rights?
Please, there are "HUMAN" rights. Your sexual preference is your business.
digitonicFeb 12, 2012
The problem is not that Christians/religious people hate gays directly. The problem is that
such people have an unjustified FEAR of the wrath of God upon this nation--because the Bible seems to state that increased homosexuality precedes God's judgment. It is a fear driven hate, and as long as people are afraid of "God's wrath" over such a silly thing, we will always have this struggle. This is the issue that needs to be addressed if we want to engender lasting change.
justinr93Feb 12, 2012
lmao it took em this long to figure that out?
StonnaFeb 12, 2012
If they were called civil unions instead of marriage pauly D and vinny could get one and have their own show. Allowing civil unions gives us more freedom
norman619Feb 12, 2012
Nothing is stopping a gay couple from finding someone to perform the wedding ceremony, renting a space, and getting married. You have never needed the stat's OK to marry anyone.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtownFeb 12, 2012
But you need the state's OK when it comes to marital status involving taxes or the rights to make medical or legal decisions involving your spouse, so having a marriage that is not recognized by the state is pretty much useless. Any two people can live together, sure, but we are talking about rights here.
norman619Feb 12, 2012
"But you need the state's OK when it comes to marital status involving taxes or the rights to make medical or legal decisions involving your spouse"
Taxes yes. The other stuff? No. You can easily go see an attorney and have them draw up all the legal documents to give you and your same sex partner the EXACT SAME legal safety nets you are talking about. You don't even have to be married to have them. You can simply be cohabiting. It will only run you between $300 - $400 to get this tone.
The tax thing has always bothered me. Government shouldn't be in the business of approving any kind of adult relationships at all. This practice has gone unchallenged for forever and needs to be taken to the supreme court.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mortventFeb 12, 2012
wrong
Gay couples get none of the same rights in regards to hospitals and such. Even with a civil union, they are denied the right to see a loved one as they lay in their death bed.
Because of close minded fools and idiots that think they should have been hetero
anticircleFeb 12, 2012
so i need to get a lawyer and spend my time and money to get something that someone else gets for free with little or no effort? yea that sounds like equality under the law...
shwaavayFeb 12, 2012
costs just as much to get married legally
anticircleFeb 12, 2012
in Ohio it only costs $50 for a marriage lisence, i assume the filing costs of the documents needed to garner the same rights as normal married couples would surpass that cost alone. that does not even begin to cover the cost of the lawyer who can come in at $100+/hr. so while its true that heterosexual couples do still need to pay a fee to obtain the legal benefits they gain, the cost is much smaller than must be shouldered by the homosexual couples. that doesn't even touch the fact that many rights cannot even be obtained in this fashion.
sheldonlFeb 12, 2012
Unfortunately this is human nature. There will always be one group of people who hates another group for whatever reason.
reverantFeb 14, 2012
Disagree. Don't treat them as sub-humans, but don't support their perversion and or brokenness.
motozeroFeb 12, 2012
''Imagine there are literally tens of thousands of people who, although they have never met you, don’t like you....''
Idiocracy, Does this not show the flawed system we have? Why do we blow up other countries in the name of "human rights" when we don't even understand the concept ourselves? Think about that next time our government labels a group "enemy" and your child pulls a trigger on a gun for them while breaking into a home. In the streets they call it hate and murder, but those rules seem not to apply, to the "good guy".
nogahideFeb 12, 2012
The government has always instituted policies that benefit society even if they aren't fair. Look at welfare for instance. If i'm too young or too old to drive then dont let me drive any more in the best interest of society. If the government decides that promoting the family is beneficial to society then it should do it. If society gets no benefit from it then I dont want my tax dollars paying for it. Any two, three four people of any sex should be allowed to legally bind themselves together so that they can all make decisions for each other and own each other liabilities. However, if there is no benefit to the public at large then those rules should stop at giving tax breaks and whatever else costs me money. If the Family unit benefits society then once you have kids then you should get that benefit. When children are out of the home then no more tax breaks. If studies show that two people living together and putting their assets together benefits society in some way then by all means promote it by giving tax breaks. I dont think government should be promoting things for traditions sake but only when it makes sense for our population as a whole...otherwise gov should stay out of our lives, sex or otherwise. let churches mary people, let government set partnerships rules and provide for the best interests of everyone.
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
It's not hate. It's simply about setting up boundaries for proper moral behavior. Personally, I don't care what kind of relationship you have or want. It's none of my business. But, it's my government too. And I don't want my government to sanction and even subsidize immoral behavior simply because someone calls it choice or freedom.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ninhFeb 12, 2012
Well in that case I require the government to start taxing religious groups (so called churches) since I find it immoral that they are not paying their share.
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
OK. But, you'd have to drop all that separation of church and state business. Deal?
gotapointFeb 12, 2012
I always find it funny. The separation of church and state was originally set up so the the Government could not interfere with the Church, set up by people who were persecuted for their beliefs.
Then they get all pissy cause we insist on it being a two way street.
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
There is no such thing as separation of church and state. It's not in the U.S. Constitution. It was never set up.
crunchdiggFeb 12, 2012
Luckily, people who know the law and constitution disagree with you.
davidnivenFeb 13, 2012
So, smarty. Show me where in the Constitution it says "separation of church and state".
gotapointFeb 13, 2012
You are right, it is not in the Constitution - it was in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. He wrote it to calm the fears of the Baptists. It expresses the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
It was meant, at the time, to assure that the State would not interfere with the Church.
Then they get all pissy cause we insist on it being a two way street. And then set it up as legal precedent.
sbuckley00Feb 13, 2012
Damn, gotapoint is 100 percent correct and made you look like a dum dum.
TaliscatFeb 12, 2012
Last time I looked the church was interfering already with the state trying to get their rules passed as laws
sbuckley00Feb 13, 2012
Nope, why would we? What you Tiny brain does not understand is that they should be taxed because they are an organization which bring in money in this country. That is the reason they should be taxed and has nothing to do with separation of church and state because those would be the laws in this country (if they changed.) In other words, taxing them is not specific to taxing religious organization and thus the separation still exists.
mortventFeb 12, 2012
whose morals?
Morals are not absolutes, they are individual things.
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
So, murder, slavery, rape, or any other heinous act is OK if I say it is? Great.
Is the rape, torture, and murder of a child not absolute evil if the perpetrator says so? After all, "they are individual things".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mortventFeb 12, 2012
Gays don't affect you, but closed minded fools like you do affect them.
And we had this discussion once before. Morals and Ethics vary, in some cultures it is okay to rape someone labeled "non-human" because of their beliefs or other reason. Others feel it's okay to torture in the name of good, like the inquisition and many others today. As for murder of a child, in some cultures it's a moral obligation if they disgrace the parents.
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
YOU didn't say if such evil things were OK if the individual thought so.
YOU said that "morals are not absolutes, they are individual things".
Well, is the rape and murder of a child always wrong for everyone?
Yes? Then they are absolutes.
No? Then each person gets to determine and morality effectively means nothing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jarysmFeb 12, 2012
David, those acts infringe on the rights and safety of the victims. They have civic weight outside of one or two religion's moral beliefs.
Homosexuality has no victim, has safety concerns no greater or lesser than heterosexuality, and infringed on no one's rights.
Is that not so?
davidnivenFeb 13, 2012
True.
So, then your assertion is that morality encompasses only those acts which involuntarily involve another person?
jarysmFeb 13, 2012
No, my assertion is that the principles of our democracy is based on more than the moral code you ascribe to. Rights, public good, and other factors that are more universall and fundamental than any one world view, but an amalgamation of multiple.
sbuckley00Feb 13, 2012
If you murder, rape or put someone into slavery then you are affecting another human being in a seriously society agreed upon way. You are forcing that upon that person. Being a gay person, you are not forcing s**t on anyone else. You are comparing apples to oranges and they clearly are not related things.
randomirish2Feb 12, 2012
There are only two sexes; I find it deeply immoral that loving someone from one or the other sex could be called a sin or 'immoral' by some religious people. It's stone age thinking. Be glad when anyone finds love, there's little enough of it anywhere.
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
Love is far more than a feeling or emotion. Otherwise, you'd be nothing more than a very complex animal that wears clothes.
jarysmFeb 12, 2012
In fact, there are not two sexes, but good thought anyway.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
salbatrossFeb 12, 2012
There are some things that are logically and universally considered immoral without regard for or recourse to religion. Homosexuality is not one of them. You have to look to your religion to explain why homosexuality is bad; therefore, it should in no way be discouraged or discriminated against by secular governments.
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
"There are some things that are logically and universally considered immoral without regard for or recourse to religion. Homosexuality is not one of them."
Who are YOU to determine that for everyone else?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
salbatrossFeb 12, 2012
"Who are YOU to determine that for everyone else?" is actually a perfect summary of my original comment.
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
I do not. Neither do you. We come together as a nation and decide collectively. The majority says that homosexual marriage is wrong.
salbatrossFeb 12, 2012
The majority once said miscegenation is wrong. People, incredibly, can be wrong sometimes.
gotapointFeb 12, 2012
And cue the civil rights movement.
salbatrossFeb 13, 2012
Also...I was so astounded that you actually think the majority's opposition to equal rights was okay, that I didn't even address your assertion: I'm pretty sure, in recent polls, opposition to same-sex marriage no longer holds the majority--or at least it's so close as to be within the margin of error.
TaliscatFeb 12, 2012
Does someone loving a member of the same sex affect you. No
So there is no moral issue to debate, it doesn't affect you.
Does your actions affect them, yes. So the immoral one is you!
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
Wrong. Looking at child pornography and ingesting meth harm no one else. No one in their right mind would suggest that such things should be legal.
Yet, is your position that such things are OK?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TaliscatFeb 12, 2012
Child porn harms the child in it, so making it is a problem. Looking at it is as well due to the harm inflicted upon the participants
And if someone ones to get stoned off their mind, let them as long as they don't endanger others.
So yes meth should be legal, it'd actually save lives vs the drug lords making a killing in money. And reduce the number of drug related killings. In fact the illegal nature of most drugs results in the same situation with prohibition.. the crooks and evil men make money and innocent people die.
seidnuFeb 13, 2012
"Looking at child pornography harms no one." WTF kind of mind comes up with s**t like that? More and more you show what a piece of s**t you are david
gotapointFeb 12, 2012
"And I don't want my government to sanction and even subsidize immoral behavior simply because someone calls it choice or freedom."
I find that statement offensive and immoral - should I say that you can't post it because "I don't want my government to sanction and even subsidize immoral behavior simply because someone calls it choice or freedom."?
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
Yes, you could say that. And then we'd have a debate about it. But, there is an amendment in the U.S. Constitution that covers such things specifically. There is no such thing for homosexuality. It was left up to the States to decide for their own people as each State sees fit.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gotapointFeb 12, 2012
As we have discussed elsewhere, if "standard human rights" as mandated by the Constitution would also cover gays - then it wouldn't be such an issue. Unless you consider gays sub-human and not deserving of "standard human rights".
gotapointFeb 12, 2012
Also, as I've said earlier, these are the same arguments when it was against interracial couples.. The focus changes - but the arguments don't.
mtownFeb 12, 2012
Davidniven calling other people immoral.
OH THE IRONY!
Where's david_niven when you need him.
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
Banned? YES!!!
jarysmFeb 12, 2012
David, how charming to see you again!
Why do you find homosexuality so immoral, the government must step in? Why do you believe it is the government's job to enforce your moral beliefs on people who don't share them, when there is no infringement of personal/ public safety nor infringements of rights in the enacting of the behavior?
Why should the government represent you and not us? Is not the foundations of constitutional democracy lain in equal representation and protection of the minority from the majority
diefreeFeb 12, 2012
And he claims to be a small government conservative. Gotta love hypocrites that are too idiotic to see they are.
sabz5150Feb 12, 2012
"Why do you believe it is the government's job to enforce your moral beliefs on people who don't share them"
Because he's a religious conservative. Small government for them... god, guns, clinging and all that. Big Brother for the rest of us.
The Church has been doing that for centuries. Ask the Mayans.
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
"Why do you find homosexuality so immoral, the government must step in?"
Personally, I find it immoral because God said so. Do I want the government to force compliance of such morality on everyone? No. But, should each State decide for themselves instead of a court doing so? Yes.
"Why do you believe it is the government's job to enforce your moral beliefs on people who don't share them, when there is no infringement of personal/ public safety nor infringements of rights in the enacting of the behavior?"
I don't. I don't like criminalizing any victimless behavior.
But, I don't like courts stepping in and making the decision for all States for all people for all time.
"Why should the government represent you and not us?"
They should represent both of us equally.
" Is not the foundations of constitutional democracy lain in equal representation and protection of the minority from the majority"
Yes...to a point. The majority CAN, at times and under certain circumstances, make the minority comply with the majority will. We do it all the time with taxes, regulations, and government intrusion into our daily lives. The majority of Americans want government to tax your business? Guess what? It gets taxed regardless of your minority viewpoint. So, let's not pretend that the Constitution has a blanket policy concerning majority rule over the minority.
Bottom line: States get to decide for their own people.
Should they ban homosexuality? No. Leave people alone. That kind of stuff is between you and God. But, States should be allowed to do so. THAT is the 10th Amendment.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TaliscatFeb 12, 2012
Replace the word "god" with "shrub" in your post.
Sound insane when you do doesn't it.
It's immoral to force your beliefs on others, especially when their actions have no affect on your life.
jarysmFeb 14, 2012
I was going to reply to each of your points, but I realize they boil down to the same point.
If I read you right, you find homosexuality bad, but you don't want the government to step in, because you "don't want the government to force compliance of such morality on everyone".
BUT the government shouldn't allow homosexual marriages to enjoy the same legal status as other marriages because, and I'm quoting you from above, you "don't want my government to sanction and even subsidize immoral behavior".
You do not appear to see that for the government to refrain from "sanctioning and even subsidizing" a behavior is to force compliance of a morality on everyone, which you yourself say they should not do. If the government is abstain from legalizing a practice because you find immoral, they would be enforcing your morality on others. In essence, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [see First Amendment].
The religion of one group of Americans cannot be the reason for which congress shall withhold the legal standing of a practice of another group of Americans. Such a thing is counter to the First Amendment and it is counter to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, as the practice is recognized for some people, but not others
Do you have a reasonable response to that, David?
ophelloFeb 12, 2012
How is it immoral??? You idiots fail to answer that basic question with any substance. How can you live with yourself?
sabz5150Feb 12, 2012
Because that question is answered with religion. Something the government *SHOULD NOT* (read: they do anyway) endorse. The argument cannot be made for that exact reason, so other reasons must be made to cover the religious power grabbing... it'll destroy the sanctity of marriage, beastiality will be next, think of the kids... you know the drill.
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
Because God said so. Period. Bottom line. End of story.
If you take God out of the picture, then there is no reason, at least in America. It's all about freedom to do whatever you want without hurting anyone else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mischiffFeb 12, 2012
And America promises separation of church and state, so why are you having this conversation?
davidnivenFeb 12, 2012
Because someone asked me why it is immoral?
And America doesn't promise that. It promises that no one will be forced to participate in any religion. You can mix it all you want. Just don't force anyone to worship God.
The whole separation of church and state came from Jefferson's writings I think, not the Constitution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TaliscatFeb 12, 2012
Well funny enough the churches are forcing religion on others through laws..that ban gay marriage and treat them as subhuman in regards to legal rights
seidnuFeb 13, 2012
but through your religion you want to force them to do what the good book tells them to do. How does it feel to have a book that has been lost in the numerous translations it has been through dictate your life like that ?
salbatrossFeb 12, 2012
God is taken out of the picture. The moment we have a president or a king that rules by divine authority, you let me know.
TaliscatFeb 12, 2012
And they are not hurting anyone, so by your definition they should be left alone.
Regardless of what you believe in.
ophelloFeb 13, 2012
He did? Well that's interesting, because the bible only states that it is an "abomination" which means "against the custom of the time." So in the context of a THOUSAND years ago, maybe you would have been right. But guess what? Some animals are also homosexual. And God made them. Same for humans. It wasn't their CHOICE you assh**e!!
Those were CLEARLY not God's words. You are so incredibly deluded. God pities you, sir.
lordharvestFeb 13, 2012
who thinks a book is the full word of god?
Most if they believe understand it's not a literal word of god, that it's how the people understood it.
Plus we understand it's been edited over time, by kings and emperors as well as petty men seeking power.
sabz5150Feb 13, 2012
Tell you what. When your God comes down personally and tells us that, then you have ground to stand on. Otherwise you can tell your story walking.
neondistractionFeb 13, 2012
According to the bible, god gave humans free will. He gave us the choice to follow his teachings or to ignore them. Who the hell are you or anyone else to try and take that choice away from anyone?
jbellancaFeb 13, 2012
My Church, the Episcopalian Church, among others - all Christian, mind you - happily perform and sanction same-sex marriages. In fact, I was married in one to my husband. So, your argument that God doesn't like gay people isn't true. Maybe your interpretation of God, but not God. Not everyone believes what you do. There's many religions that believe differently than you, on many topics. Should we have laws preventing any beliefs or actions at all that you don't believe?
mikeoxbiggFeb 13, 2012
Lol, isn't it wonderful how obsolete, irrelevant, and all-around ridiculous your opinion and that of people that think like you is becoming each day?
sbuckley00Feb 13, 2012
Here is the thing, you believe it is immoral behavior. This is not the beliefs of all people with in this country and you simply need to accept that. When making law facts should always trump individual belief because they are just that, something someone thinks might be true. The fact is that gay humans have existed for a very long time. Their actions are no more immoral than a heterosexual couple because simply put, they were created that way. People are born as hermaphrodites, feeling like they should be a man or woman (transsexuals) , etc. The fact is that we are all born different from one another not everyone is born like you or I. Your ignorance to this fact is unbelievable. With you logic in this case, it could be deemed immoral to be a black person, or a Chinese person, or anything else that human beings did not choose to be. I hope one day you will realize these facts and we can hopefully turn one more person away from bigotry and prejudice toward the human race.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2012
irishcentral spam
massimo777Feb 12, 2012
do not need to promote gay
neondistractionFeb 12, 2012
Allowing something is not the same as promoting it. For example, it's perfectly legal to own Nazi paraphernalia, does that mean America promotes Nazis?
specimen7Feb 12, 2012
What about gay dogs?
norman619Feb 12, 2012
No such thing as "Gay Rights." Rights are not given based on your sexual orientation, sex, skin color, or religion. At least not in the US. People seem to think tax breaks and power of attorney and inheritance issues handled w/o the needing to see a lawyer are rights. They are not.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JLF2035Feb 12, 2012
Well, that's what it's called when they don't receive the same rights as everyone else.
countess666Feb 12, 2012
yes, that's pretty much what this ruling says.
so far in practise that's not been the case though.
for example, when the hospital only allows family members to visit, that does not include the gay partner where it would if it was a straight couple.
think about it: the love of your life is dying... and you can't even visit them.
now tell me again, equal recognition under the law isn't necessary.
bobbi21Feb 12, 2012
as a side note I think that's something hospitals should fix on their own. Hospitals are generally run by and filled with college educated people, largely majoring in the sciences. They should be fairly liberal. Don't think it would be that much work to say people in civil unions can visit too.
Of course getting anything done by administration is pretty difficult and it skirts the real issue but just saying.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2012
why did 911 happen?
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/12/crop-circle_29.html
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2012/01/crop-circle_20.html
http://thoughtsandprobabilities.blogspot.com/2010/08/alex-grey-cosm.html
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/12/111.html
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/12/crabwood-message_6300.html
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/08/loose-change.html
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/12/cosmic-history-chronicles.html
your inside a computer
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/08/hard-problem-science-behind-fiction.html
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/08/return-to-source-philosophy-matrix.html
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2012/02/athenes-theory-of-everything.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
salbatrossFeb 13, 2012
Conclusion: blogspot caused 9/11.