Gay Marriage, Do you support or oppose? Options

[abstracted]

I also haven't read the whole debate...but I'll try my best to comment anyway.

Gay marriages to particularly appeal to me either. But, I don't see why they should be denied that right.

Two people love each other...why should it matter if its heterosxual or homosexual?

The main reason that a lot of people are against it (I hope I'm not generalizing) is just because it's something so different from what most people are used to.
Marriage has always been seen as being between man and woman...all cultures have been formed with this idea. That doesn't mean that it's the only right thing, and that all other marriages are wrong. It's just what we've been used to for so long.

Most of the posts that are against gay marriage just say something along the lines of 'it's just wrong' or 'it's not traditional'. We live in a society where tradition is not the only thing to follow. If those are your arguments, we've broken many rules already.
The most reasonable posts with good arguments support gay marriage. Why's that?

And about the fact that gay issues haven't been brought up till recently...I'll ditto the replies.
Remember, the idea of love between the same sex has always been really unusual. If, for example, a girl really liked another girl, she would probably tell herself it's nothing, and she'd eventually marry a guy anyway, just because the other option is too ridiculous and unusual to even consider.
But today, when change is everyday, and nothing is really unusual...if that girl liked another girl today, she'd probably think twice about it, and realize that she might just really like that other girl.
People therefore realize that such a thing might be possible, and they might want to make it happen.

Why deny them that?

This isn't unlike racism...it's just a different kind.

[*CrackedRearView*]

You guys are delusional if you think today's society is more accepting than those of ancient Greece and Rome (the building blocks of the institution of the democratic republic). Gays weren't wedded then, either.

[nicky04033]

i dun support gay marriage..... i dun discriminate against gays tho....

[pandamonium]

i dun support gay marriage..... i dun discriminate against gays tho....

wow you totally convinced me. lol its debate . so debate dont type in your thought .. explain it.

and "brandonsauders" dont bother arguing with M1SSxCHR1SSY because she is the type of person who makes one post and never comes back.

There are so many different things happening to this world that we cannot explain or handle yet because we know little about it like homosexuals or maybe even 3 people wanting to get married? but i dont think there is a reasonable explanation as of right now that anyone can think of to why should homosexuals get married.

[racoons > you]

^^

how is it unreasonable to say that it should be the right of tow people to get married, regardless of their gender?

[pandamonium]

^^

i support gay marrige. the point i was getting across is that so many people have opposing views right now. there arent that many reasons that both sides will agree on.

---------------

when most people were racist against colored people we solved the ways of segragation because the court realized that colored people were equal like us. so seperate schools and bathrooms were wrong. but isnt that the same .... homosexuals are us. we are people. they deserve the same rights.

[Spirited Away]

Most of the posts that are against gay marriage just say something along the lines of 'it's just wrong' or 'it's not traditional'. We live in a society where tradition is not the only thing to follow. If those are your arguments, we've broken many rules already.

We broke rules? What kind of rules? Tradition is part history, part culture. It is within logic to say that whether or not the argument of "tradition" is wrong to you is simply perspective. If my tradition involves man and woman marriages, then man and man marriages would defy my tradition.

Though tradition is not "the only thing to follow", it is an important thing to follow.

Morality stemmed from tradition cannot be destroyed just because others say that it's "wrong", but it can be altered, recreated.

[sadolakced acid]

You guys are delusional if you think today's society is more accepting than those of ancient Greece and Rome (the building blocks of the institution of the democratic republic).  Gays weren't wedded then, either.

no, they weren't wedded. but wedded couples didn't get tax breaks, etc.

[sammi rules you]

no one had yet realized people could be gay then. some people didn't feel affection for the opposite sex, and when they felt it for the same, they didn't know what to do, and they were probably the ones who just didn't get married.

[aznxdreamer]

im a big supporter in gay marriage because im have many gay friends and they're great people. they really are. i dont see why they cant get married to eachother. in my opinion, people should be allowed to marry anyone they want. how do straight people have a say in this? just because they think that gays are gross because they might hit on straights, doesnt mean they cant respect their beliefs and who they are. i can say alot more stuff on this topic but im gonna go eat some cheerios so goodbye.

[kisstharingz]

I'm pro-choice and its unconstitutional for Gay-Marriage to be banned.

[Spirited Away]

I'm pro-choice and its unconstitutional for Gay-Marriage to be banned.

this is interesting, elaborate, please.

[kisstharingz]

this is interesting, elaborate, please.

Amendment XIV (Amendments are considered part of the constitution)

All persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US and of the State wherin they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privleges or immunities of citizens of th US; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, withouth due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

lib·er·ty
n. pl. lib·er·ties

The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

[Spirited Away]

Amendment XIV (Amendments are considered part of the constitution)

All persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US and of the State wherin they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privleges or immunities of citizens of th US; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, withouth due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

lib·er·ty
n. pl. lib·er·ties

The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

indeed. but you know, that just make a lot of other things unconstitutional... like eminent domain.
homosexuals are not the only ones effected by that amendment, but the rest of us have to suck it up. for example, a YMCA was removed because it was in the way of a freeway expansion. it was given a 6 months time to move out but eminent domain kicked in and demanded that it remove itself within 90 days. in other words, move it or lose it. the Y moved. unconstitutional? definately. But legal? Yes. if you would like to check the validity of this, search for westside family ymca in houston, texas.

Federal law states that marriage is defined as the legal union between a single man and a single woman. Like eminent domain, this federal law nullify the said amendment, unfortunately.


again, to make things clear, i definately agree that this is unconstitutional.

[ItzOnlySydney]

i say live and let live. the gays have just as much right to be miserable like the rest of us! lol

[kisstharingz]

indeed. but you know, that just make a lot of other things unconstitutional... like eminent domain.
homosexuals are not the only ones effected by that amendment, but the rest of us have to suck it up. for example, a YMCA was removed because it was in the way of a freeway expansion. it was given a 6 months time to move out but eminent domain kicked in and demanded that it remove itself within 90 days. in other words, move it or lose it. the Y moved. unconstitutional? definately. But legal? Yes.

Federal law states that marriage is defined as the legal union between a single man and a single woman. Like eminent domain, this federal law nullify that amendment, unfortunately.

Is there an ammendment that talks about marriage or just a law. There is an ammendment that talks about eminent domain, not just a law. Do you get what I mean?? If its in the constitution about it having to be a man and a woman, then i understand. I'd like to know what amendment that is though.

[sadolakced acid]

you're right, a federal law against gay marriage would be unconstitutional. but not for the reason you said.

Marraige is a right reserved to the states.
for any federal decree about marraige, it would need to be done with an amendment.

[Spirited Away]

Is there an ammendment that talks about marriage or just a law. There is an ammendment that talks about eminent domain, not just a law. Do you get what I mean?? If its in the constitution about it having to be a man and a woman, then i understand. I'd like to know what amendment that is though.

(i edited my post)

there is a proposed amendment to "protect" the institution of marriage btw man and woman, if that is what you mean?

but what i meant is, federal law can nullify amendments... and eminent domain is just an example of that.

[kisstharingz]

you're right, a federal law against gay marriage would be unconstitutional.  but not for the reason you said.

Marraige is a right reserved to the states.
for any federal decree about marraige, it would need to be done with an amendment.

okay what you said then lol

and uninspiredfae, I don't understand what you are saying. eminent domain was mentioned in the constitution. there is no amendment that states that marriage is between a man and a woman. it may have been proposed but it is not an amendment yet.

[Spirited Away]

and uninspiredfae, I don't understand what you are saying. eminent domain was mentioned in the constitution. there is no amendment that states that marriage is between a man and a woman. it may have been proposed but it is not an amendment yet.

i did say there is a "proposed" amendment. i asked if that is what you meant.

and i referred to eminent domain as an example.

[kisstharingz]

i did say there is a "proposed" amendment. 

and i referred to eminent domain as an example.

I just want to know how eminent domain is an example when its clarified in the constitution. It wasn't just a federal law, its in the constitution. Eminent domain is constitutional, its included in the fifth amendment.

And yes I was aknowledging that you said it was proposed, and just because it is proposed doesn't mean it will be added as an amendment. Until that amendment is added, i don't see how the fourteenth amendment is nullified.

[xlaydee_v]

it's all about the love. so yeh. sure, why not. i support it

[Spirited Away]

I just want to know how eminent domain is an example when its clarified in the constitution. It wasn't just a federal law, its in the constitution. Eminent domain is constitutional, its included in the fifth amendment.

forgive me for that mistake. the constiution does recognize eminent domain as a power unto independent government. however, the fifth merely limits it. i get that.

under state laws, marriage is btw man and woman. banning gay marriages doesn't make it unconstitutional because there is the presence of due proccess of law. the 14th also extends protection of due process to all state governments, agencies, and courts. unless people aren't getting fair and public trials, impartial jury and all that, why would this banning be unconstitutional when this amendment also proctects it?

i'm so confused. help?

[fameONE]

What I'm having a hard time understanding is why opposers of gay marriage or 'civil unions' speak so adamantly against it. I mean, seriously, are two lipstick lesbians living happily in an Ikea furnished apartment really going to bring the dawn of armageddon?

[kisstharingz]

forgive me for that mistake. the constiution does recognize eminent domain as a power unto independent government. however, the fifth merely limits it. i get that.

under state laws, marriage is btw man and woman. banning gay marriages doesn't make it unconstitutional because there is the presence of due proccess of law. the 14th also extends protection of due process to all state governments, agencies, and courts. unless people aren't getting fair and public trials, impartial jury and all that, why would this banning be unconstitutional when this amendment also proctects it?

i'm so confused. help?

I understand where you are coming from, about the states saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. What I was saying was that any federal law banning it is unconstitutional. Do you understand what I was saying? I was referring to the fact that it cannot be a federal law that bans gay marriage. For a state to ban it is not unconstitutional.