What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The "Bad Boy Way" To Meet Women Online view!
doubleyourdating.com - You don't have to be a bad boy to succeed with the ladies - but here's a lesson ANY GUY can use...
1232 Comments
- Throneofeden, on 05/20/2009, -57/+465You know, I don't actually understand why fiscal or social conservatives are opposing same-sex marriage. The fact is, it's contrary to true conservative values for the government to be doing two of the things it's doing by opposing it.
1) Separation of Church and State - Whether they'll admit it or not, it's the CHRISTIAN right wing that primarily opposes gay marriage. This is imposing religious values on legislation and should not be legal by way of the constitution.
2) Governmental control of social liberties - The government is meant to be in place for national defense and to handle things that people can't do for themselves. The fact is, people have no trouble decided for themselves whether or not they're gay and want to get married, and the government has no constitutional right to say otherwise.
Opposing gay marriage might make sense from some standpoints (as wrong as they may or may not be), but opposing it makes no sense from a constitutional standpoint.
I'm going to write an article about this tackling both sides soon enough for my website. - sugarazor, on 05/20/2009, -54/+296The sad part is that we need to even have a debate over it. There is absolutely no logical reason that same-sex marriage should be illegal.
- JoeyDigital, on 05/20/2009, -18/+209when is the last time the republican party actually had anything to do with true conservative values?
- SamSks, on 05/21/2009, -4/+162Whoa! Please don't say fiscal conservatives are opposed to same sex marriage.
I'm a fiscal conservative and I am for same sex marriage. I don't see any problem with it.
I am also a Government conservative and I don't see anything in the Constitution that is against same sex marriage.
See, this is why the Republicans are in trouble. They basically sent people like me packing. They pandered so much to the busy body stick their noses in other people's business social conservatives and the religious fundamentalists, that they have alienated folks like me. So where do we go? Pretty much I'm stuck with the Libertarians. And they're starting to get a little nutty for me. - LeftieLucy, on 05/20/2009, -35/+171Here's hoping that things go the same way in the US that they did in Canada - it's a non-issue here now. Okay, of course there are a few religious fundamentalists who still disagree with it, but no mainstream political parties are fighting to repeal same sex marriage. I know many people who were opposed to SSM who now couldn't care less - I think because they are starting to realise, now that SSM has been legal in my province for 6 years, that it isn't actually breaking up good old-fashioned man-woman marriages. (Not to mention that nobody is trying to legally marry their pet turtle or their guitar or anything like that.)
- Janinco, on 05/20/2009, -19/+147Isn't Obama against same sex marriage?
- schnikies79, on 05/21/2009, -16/+104The government, federal or state, shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.
The whole concept of a marriage license is a farce. Let the government allow licenses for a union, but leave the church, or whatever non-government organization, do the ceremony. You should be able to marry without the involvement of the government. - o76923, on 05/21/2009, -11/+95I want marriage just like it was in the bible. With multiple wives, concubines, and dowries. I also want to just be able to buy women from their parents and have sex with my slaves because they weren't considered "people" for purposes of adultery.
- sugarazor, on 05/21/2009, -10/+92I like that five people have dugg me down so far and none of them have offered a logical reason as to why same-sex marriage should remain illegal.
- Hetman, on 05/20/2009, -9/+85The majority cannot deny human rights to a minority. If that was the case we would still have segregation.
- Jordan117, on 05/20/2009, -11/+84Marriage is by no means a religious term. If it were, why are atheists allowed to marry?
- Hetman, on 05/20/2009, -10/+79Marriage in the beggining was not a religious term. Bt lets assume for a minute that it is. If there is a church out there that believes it is fine for gays to become marriad. Then this chuch should be able to legally perform gay marriages. If you do not allow them to perform gay marriages. Then the government is violating the first admendment.
- pintomp3, on 05/21/2009, -17/+80Social conservatives will always fight progress. It wasn't long ago they fought interracial marriage.
- Dipsomaniac, on 05/21/2009, -2/+64"Atheism is a religion."
And "bald" is a hair colour. - MWeather, on 05/21/2009, -4/+62"Who said anything about the republican party? "
You're right, he must have been talking about the right-wing christian Democrats. - kiley481, on 05/21/2009, -5/+62The Judicial Branch (you know, those people with constitutional law degrees?) are not circumventing the will of the people. They are ensuring that a slim majority of voters can't strip minorities of their constitutional rights.
What would stand in the way of us voting african americans back into submission? What would stand in the way of us voting to reconstitute asian internment camps? What would stand in the way of us voting to deport all homosexuals?
The rights of a suspect class should not be subject to the whims of the majority. Plain and simple. - chadsexingtime, on 05/21/2009, -12/+68Oh God I hope this never passes! I don't want the government to force me to marry a gay man. I mean, I haven't read up much on this whole 'gay marriage' thing, but the only possible reason people would be upset about it is because it forces people to marry a gay guy.
- amoirae, on 05/20/2009, -15/+70Marriage existed before religion and will exist after it's gone.
Heterosexuality is a lifestyle, as is being religious.
Your persecution complex should be dealt with by a therapist, not by oppressing others. - lovek, on 05/21/2009, -1/+53So you're saying you're for the traditional definition of marriage then?
- s14sh3r, on 05/21/2009, -2/+53I say let plural marriages be legal too. If someone is that much a glutton for punishment, let 'em have at it. ;)
- SamSks, on 05/21/2009, -3/+54@gfryesc : "Your failure to grasp this and to assume government needs enlarging as a solution means the Libertarian party isn't for you."
I NEVER said that Government needs enlarging. So, stop putting words in my mouth.
"moreover, the states should not have any say in marriage contracts whatsoever. "
I agree. Although, legal scholars will disagree with us because marriage, in Common Law IIRC, has and is a contract in the eyes of the state. So, now we're getting into legal territory and therefore, in government's realm.
The rest of everything you said, has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. - Suricou, on 05/21/2009, -2/+49I could give you some rambling post about how same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to the incarceration of christians, banning of the bible, legalisation of child rape and collapse of civilisation. But I'm just feeling too sane to play devil's advocate right now, so you'll have to wait and hope a genuine fundy-nut feels like supplying.
- Dipsomaniac, on 05/21/2009, -0/+44"I was against gay marriage too, until I realized it wasn't compulsory."
- TrevorBradley, on 05/21/2009, -0/+43dugg for the sarcasm that everyone else replying missed.
- Hetman, on 05/20/2009, -9/+50Is not Obama against same sex marriage? Does it matter? One can never agree 100% with someone they voted for.
- amoirae, on 05/20/2009, -6/+46Part of your problem is that you just listen to yourself.
- inactive, on 05/21/2009, -12/+49100$ says you have repressed homosexual urges, and I'm not saying that to be insulting, it's just it's the only rational reason I can think of for you getting so pissed off about homosexuals. There's no legitimate reason why homosexual couples should bother you any more than heterosexual couples.
- Elranzer, on 05/21/2009, -2/+35Fiscal conservatives *SHOULD* be for gay marriages. Do you know how many rich/wealthy gay people are just waiting to throw $50,000+ weddings and stimulate the economy?
- DanNZN, on 05/21/2009, -2/+35I am hearing what you are....typing. I am in the same boat myself.
- CaptainNoPants, on 05/21/2009, -2/+342009 and gays still have to deal with ***** like this. And 5 people dugg you up? That's just sad.
- rkthoadan, on 05/21/2009, -4/+35They did not miss the point, they refuted your argument. You essentially claimed the Christianity / Judaism owns the term marriage and should get to define it however they want. This is clearly false as marriage existed before either of those religions did. You have a further problem in that some Christian denominations have no problem with gay marriage.
I am a Christian. I think homosexuality is a sin, but it's no worse a sin than browsing digg while at work (Example: me!). I'll never understand why so many Christians feel compelled to try to make everyone else sin less. That has absolutely nothing to do with Salvation. I guess it's just to make us more comfortable "out there". We aren't supposed to be comfortable "out there", and not because they are persecuting us, but simply because it is not our home, and it's a bit rude to start redecorating someone else's home without asking just because you don't like the decor. - samsmartjr, on 05/21/2009, -2/+33Canada is a MUCH different nation than the United States is. Abortion has been legal for 30 years, but pro-life advocates are still working to make it illegal again. Marijuana has been illegal for 70 years, but now more than ever it's most likely to be decriminalized.
As long as people care enough about an issue to prevent someone else from doing it, it's always going to be fought over, and the United States is notorious for telling people what others should or shouldn't be doing. So even if it get legalized on a federal level, there will ALWAYS be people advocating its repeal.
Canada is a much different nation. Canada can move on when it comes to issues. When an issue is settled, Canadians, those who even disagree with it, will shrug and go on about their lives.
Not in America. That's why we still have people arguing against the implementation of the income tax and people who see a Department of Education as a BAD thing. - medlakeguy, on 05/21/2009, -4/+34a majority, no matter how large, should not have the right to oppress a minority
- medlakeguy, on 05/21/2009, -1/+31i suppose if we're all welcome to our own beliefs you should have no problem with gay marriage, right?
- Verchiel77, on 05/21/2009, -2/+32"Marriage is a religious term and as such is not subject to the whims of democracy, but to the will of almighty God in heaven, who does not change."
--------------------
Ceremonies are religious. Marriage licenses are civil documents that have nothing to do with one faith or the other. Your religious unions are safe, chicken little... - JoeyDigital, on 05/20/2009, -9/+38That being said, your points are well taken
- inactive, on 05/21/2009, -0/+28Uh... Let's see, I'm 25, I was a kid during the Clinton administration. I think you're failing to take into a count that there's a whole new generation that doesn't have the same hang-ups about gay marriage that older generations do.
- Wag3Slav3, on 05/21/2009, -1/+29s14sh3r: I agree. Strengthen the spousal abuse laws to be sure that their isn't any goofy brainwashed sold to a harem ***** going on and modify "marriage" to pull out the religious non-sense and we can have legally bound social contracts between any number of people for medical decisions and estate disbursements and the like.
I'd also saw it would have to be very easy to opt out of said contracts because they could be subject to abuse. - evilregis, on 05/21/2009, -12/+40So slavery is cool if the majority of the population agrees with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majori ...
- medlakeguy, on 05/21/2009, -6/+34neither of those people existed...
- inactive, on 05/21/2009, -4/+31Unfortunately these conservatives who now call themselves Libertarians still don't grasp that gay marriage is a basic discrimination issue. It's not about federal vs state, it's not about religion. It's about the constitution and going against the very foundation of what this country is supposedly based on. It's about protection of an individual's civil rights.
- LeftieLucy, on 05/20/2009, -3/+30I'm looking forward to the day when I can marry my guitar, Martin.
- Talphin, on 05/21/2009, -4/+30Or maybe, since the republicans are a minority in this country at the moment, we should just deport them all, or make them our slaves, or prevent them from getting married. I mean, come on dems, we have the majority vote here. Lets stomp them out while we have the opportunity!
Wait, whats that? We have a constitution to prevent that from happening? What do you mean?! We are in the majority!... Well ***** it all then. I guess we'll just have to suck it up and live in peace with these lunatics. - inactive, on 05/21/2009, -1/+26Hate to do this mate, but uh, I got the research to back it up.
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_e ... - wkdblueuk, on 05/21/2009, -5/+30Gays get back into the closet? Ok how about the blacks get back into the chains...
- sugarazor, on 05/21/2009, -1/+26Dude, churches already have the right to refuse any couple a wedding ceremony. Imagine there's a couple and the guy is Jewish and the woman is an atheist... the Catholic Church ain't going to marry them! And they don't have to... why? Separation of church and state! A medical procedure and a wedding ceremony are not the same thing.
And this has nothing to do with *state-sanctioned* marriage. - hydrodev, on 05/21/2009, -11/+35Why do SOME people think it's their duty to tell people what to do, think, believe, how to act? It's amazing to me that there are people that NEED that kind of control over others just to get through the day. This world is seriously ***** when in the land of the free, we still have people fighting over what others can and can't do whit their lives. Especially when it effects NO-ONE but the parties involved.
To the people i have just described:
We are tired of you. If you can't find it with in yourselves to let people be, then you will have to be dealt with. - JoeMondo, on 05/21/2009, -5/+29Nothing goes against evolution, dunce.
Try applying your argument to women using birth control. Or oral sex.
And marriage is a civil rights matter, which is a human construct, not an aspect of "nature" anyway. Dolt. - BILLYBOBJOEBOB, on 05/21/2009, -5/+29You're insane.
- mdfrake, on 05/21/2009, -5/+29If "marriage" were just a religious institution, I would agree that it is up to a particular religion to decide if same-sex marriage was to be part of their values. However, the government "marries" people every day through judges. Also, the government recognizes "marriages" performed by captains on ships. Lastly, the government, hospitals, and other institutions afford rights to "married" couples that they do not afford to "union" or other couples. "Marriage" is not just a religious institution, and that is why "gays" (as you put it) are fighting so hard for the same rights as heterosexuals. Oh, and some of us non-"gays" are fighting hard for it too.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 1260 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is