[Dark_crow]

You may disagree all you like, however your argument remains flawed- the truth of the matter is that you're [strawman] of exchanging the terms “marriage” for “civil union” doesn't fly, and beyond that you're concept of “Tradition” (or belief, often one that has been handed down from generation to generation) is far from accurate.

It stands on firm ground that, “There is no good reason to prohibit same sex marriage. It has proven to be harmless sociologically” is not an accurate proposition.

[americangayboy]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Besides, the burden of proof really falls on those who want to prohibit other's rights.

[Dark_crow]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Besides, the burden of proof really falls on those who want to prohibit other's rights.

I beg your pardon; the ‘Burden of Proof’ is the legal obligation on a party to prove the allegation made by him against another party.

Those who are challenging current laws regarding traditional marriage are the ones who bear the burden. There are no inherent “Rights”- there are only rights afforded to citizens by a government; in spite of all that has been written about ‘Natural Rights”. Natural rights are derived from religious convictions.

When the government decides to allow same sex marriage there then will be established a “Right”.

[americangayboy]

There are inherent rights, at least there are according to our Founding Fathers.

It is the responsibility of those who believe same-sex unions/marriages (they are the same thing, don't kid yourself) are harmful to prove they will be harmful. Homosexuality is generally regarded (by scientific communities) to be completely harmless and there is no reason to believe that same-sex marriage will be sociologically damaging. In fact, societies that allow ssm have higher standards of living and lower divorce rates than societies that do not (Belgium vs Poland, Massachusetts vs Alabama).

[Fr_Chuck]

I am sorry but there is no rational for sexual perversions.

[excon]

There are no inherent “Rights”- there are only rights afforded to citizens by a government;

Hello DC:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all. That means if YOU have the right to marry who you choose to marry, I do too.

excon

[BABRAM]

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments (known as the Reconstruction Amendments), first intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses among others. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.[1] It is perhaps one of the most important structural changes to the Constitution.

The amendment provides a broad definition of national citizenship, overturning the Dred Scott case, which excluded African Americans. It requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons (not only to citizens) within their jurisdictions, and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle legal segregation, as in Brown v. Board of Education.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


__________________________________________________ ____



Bobby

[Fr_Chuck]

They have the same right to marry someone of the other sex anytime they want, no rights lost.

[inthebox]

AGB:

Look at the census bureau statistics on "poverty"
There are higher rates in the categories outside "traditional marriage."


I agree, a lot of war and genocide have sectarian roots, but
The same can be said of "agnostic" societies: Russia under Stalin, China under Mao for example.


I agree, that it is wrong for "religious" people to "hate" homosexuals [or anyone else ], but it is wrong to characterize all religious people as homosexual haters.




Grace and Peace

[americangayboy]

First, to Fr_Chuck: why is homosexuality perverse? It is a normal variation of human (and in a greater sense mammalian & avian) sexuality AND it has not proven to be harmful to society or individuals. There is no rationalization for laws based solely on religious dogma. Also, the last time I checked, the reason behind modern marriage was to marry someone you love. If you are gay, marrying someone of the opposite sex is not marrying someone you love. If love is not the basis of marriage, what is? Economic reasons? What is sacred about money?

Now, to inthebox: what are you trying to say? If you're saying that the rate of out-of-wedlock births is higher among the poor, you are absolutely right; however, if you look at the statistics, poverty is more prevalent in societies that do not support (and often times persecute) queer people. As for your assertion that atheistic/agnostic societies are as bad as religious ones, I'd like to point out that I said they have higher standards of living and lower divorce rates. I did not say, nor did I imply, that atheists are completely innocent, but throughout human history, religious societies suffer prominent blood-lust. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the "War on Terror," and many other hideous wars are all religiously based.

At the bottom of this argument is the separation of church and state. Because restricting ssm is based solely on religion, it is unconstitutional. Give me a good reason (that is based on credible research) to prohibit ssm, and I will respect your opinions. Until then, I'll think of you the way I think of white-supremecists: legally allowed to exist but thoroughly deserving of disrespect.

[ScottGem]

I think this thread has run its course.

Question Closed