Quantcast

Court Returns With Gay Marriage: Should It Be Legalized?

American☆Atheist 2013/01/07 19:24:52
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Sew 2013/01/28 13:05:43
    yes
    Sew
    It's pretty much a done deal. Marriage is a right. That was already determined in 1967. Any and all arguments against gay marriage basically boil down to semantics, faith, and someone's peronal dislike of another's sexual preference. All of which are weak arguments at best, and petulant moaning at worst.
  • KaWa 2013/01/16 00:55:26
    no
    KaWa
    No, it's absolutely disgusting.
  • Jezebel 2013/01/09 00:18:27
    yes
    Jezebel
    NOT ENOUGH YES'S IN THE WORLD
  • Superman 2013/01/08 21:53:09
    no
    Superman
    +1
    Not by judicial activism.

    There is no definition of protected marriage recognition in the Constitution. Thus, its up to the states to define.

    Now when it comes to the states I support gay marriage and if we want to pass a Constitutional Amendment on the subject I'll support that too.

    But as far as the Fed and Federal Courts go this is a non-issue.
  • kobidob... Superman 2013/01/09 01:20:15
    kobidobidog
    States are divided. Satan likes division. Let us begin to get rid of division. Unilaterally allowing the gays the right to do whatever they please judging yourselves. Then you will be godly.
  • Superman kobidob... 2013/01/09 15:44:58
    Superman
    States are divided for a reason. The concept of the US is about liberty, liberty to have more say in the government we live in. Allowing more power to the states to tackle individual issues accomplishes that.

    No offense, but I don't want to get rid of liberty.

    And I'm fairly sure God can handle it. Liberty doesn't undermine God. He knows us and the choices we make in life, government rules don't factor in.
  • kobidob... Superman 2013/01/09 20:11:14 (edited)
    kobidobidog
    Satan is divided in bodies that die dividing the globe in to countries. That division creates us, and them. Perfect environment for war. Clothing gives the illusion of us, and them too. The flags do the same thing. Ad to that the lie that a weapon is power,and killing occurs. God wants us to be perfect loving as one. Devils in people shy away from that. Liberty with jails? Talk about being oxymoronic. You don't have liberty. Liberty would be to allow the gay to marry without question . it would not even be an issue. Being like you were were you were born at times for all to see would not be an issue either.
    .This is not a free country. It is a country valuing bondage with people in it fighting for freedom.
  • Superman kobidob... 2013/01/09 20:32:52
    Superman
    I'm fairly sure I said I'm pro gay marriage as a personal opinion, so I'm not sure whats with the rambling remarks about anarchy and what not.

    I will say that even Christ recognized that nations and governments existed and would continue to. After the new covenant (which replaced the old one - remember the one where God actually defined specific punishments for specific crimes and created His own nation?) God addressed us as individuals that were going to live in a world that we would largely make ourselves. As individuals we're to go out and not cast judgement, and to love our neighbor and to preach of Christs sacrifice. God never told us to turn away from the governments we lived under - render unto Caesar what is his.

    So we live as individuals under Gods laws but as citizens we live under our own laws as well. And in the US we've created a system where the individual can have more say in the government than usual - and at a state level rather than a Federal level. If I want to live in a state that allows this or doesn't allow that I can likely find it, or at least try to affect it in my state. And that allows others to live by the rules they want.

    Thats great.

    Liberty with jail? Of course. Criminals must be punished. When God set up his own nation in the old testame...

    I'm fairly sure I said I'm pro gay marriage as a personal opinion, so I'm not sure whats with the rambling remarks about anarchy and what not.

    I will say that even Christ recognized that nations and governments existed and would continue to. After the new covenant (which replaced the old one - remember the one where God actually defined specific punishments for specific crimes and created His own nation?) God addressed us as individuals that were going to live in a world that we would largely make ourselves. As individuals we're to go out and not cast judgement, and to love our neighbor and to preach of Christs sacrifice. God never told us to turn away from the governments we lived under - render unto Caesar what is his.

    So we live as individuals under Gods laws but as citizens we live under our own laws as well. And in the US we've created a system where the individual can have more say in the government than usual - and at a state level rather than a Federal level. If I want to live in a state that allows this or doesn't allow that I can likely find it, or at least try to affect it in my state. And that allows others to live by the rules they want.

    Thats great.

    Liberty with jail? Of course. Criminals must be punished. When God set up his own nation in the old testament He defined those punishments for lawbreakers. And one might argue that our penalties are less severe.

    God doesn't want us to be perfect btw. While it would be nice, He does understand the imperfect nature of humanity and that we sin and can't avoid sin. Thats precisely why He sacrificed His Son for us. Thats the most important thing, faith and belief in that sacrifice and a penetant nature. Not striving for unobtainable perfection.
    (more)
  • kobidob... Superman 2013/01/10 05:49:57
    kobidobidog
    had the lack of condemning judgment exist the way things are would not be. Jesus is the father. Look at him. Then you will know who is lying about God in the old being an arresting killer. The governments that we have with the way they are run is because people strayed away from God in the first place.

    Had all render unto Caesar what was his with his image on it with people giving to God in a human what God made Caesar would be surrounded with money he would not know what to do with because no one would want it. All of us are criminals in Gods eyes be cause we die. That's just part of it. That is what it means by condemn whoever be condemned for the same things. Romans 2:1 ;King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
    Oh yea? Matthew 5:48;Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. That is being perfect in the soul.
    The body is what is not perfect.
    Christ in us makes us imperfect?
    Satan says what you say.
  • Teresa Superman 2013/01/13 05:40:57
    Teresa
    What about the Defense of Marriage Act? In my state gay marriage is legal but they are still denied the federal benefits straight couples enjoy.
  • Superman Teresa 2013/01/13 18:16:40
    Superman
    As I said, this is a state rights issue. The Federal government shouldn't set standards for the states either pro or against gay marriage.
  • Teresa Superman 2013/01/15 21:43:00
    Teresa
    But they are taking a stance against gay marraige by the Act which definies marriage as the traditonal man & woman only.
  • Superman Teresa 2013/01/15 21:45:54
    Superman
    I don't know how to spell this out for you. Unless its a Constitutional Amendment the Fed shouldn't be involved, which means DOMA is wrong. I'm not sure why this discussion persists.
  • LayLady 2013/01/08 20:23:01
    yes
    LayLady
    +2
    Yes just as straight marriage is legalized.
  • Murph 2013/01/08 19:51:24
    no
    Murph
    Making it legal will not turn it into normal sexual relations.
    It will remain unnatural sexual perversion.
  • America... Murph 2013/01/09 17:29:47
    American☆Atheist
    This is about gay marriage, not you.
  • squire 2013/01/08 14:23:54
  • America... squire 2013/01/08 15:50:22
    American☆Atheist
    why?
  • squire America... 2013/01/08 15:57:14
    squire
    IT'S NOT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
  • R85 2013/01/08 08:04:11
    yes
    R85
    +1
    And anyone who says no has no argument. I honestly don't see why this is even an issue anymore; examining the constitution properly will only lead to one logical conclusion: yes.
  • WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2013/01/08 05:07:12
    yes
    WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA
    I think it is a states issue and my objection is the federal government being involved, that said, just shut up about it already...I would be SO glad not to hear about this anymore so I voted yes. We are in serious economic danger and all we can do is argue about this. Give the legal rights and get it done...enough already! There are seriously much more pressing things to worry about, I don't sit around worrying about this one.
  • Sinister Ken Doll™ 2013/01/08 04:27:18
    yes
    Sinister Ken Doll™
    +1
    Absolutely!!!
  • goatman112003 2013/01/08 04:21:09
    no
    goatman112003
    +1
    Its an issue to be decided on the state level not the Federal one. They make the requirements for the marriage license.
  • johndhutcheson 2013/01/08 02:57:45
    yes
    johndhutcheson
    +1
    The current situation is discriminatory. Some of the right wing buffoons even admit it.
  • Gid 2013/01/08 02:51:55
    no
    Gid
    +1
    The issue is not the rights of gays. The issue is the undermining of religion freedom. This hsould not be done no matter what the stated benefit is.
  • Grandbr... Gid 2013/01/08 04:49:25
    Grandbrother
    +2
    What specific religious freedom will you lose if gay couples are allowed to marry?
  • Gid Grandbr... 2013/01/08 07:42:53
    Gid
    There are a large number of anti discrimination laws in place some except religious views others do not. Church clergy are licned to perform marriages by the state. It is quite possible that states or the feds will require them to "not discrminate" in order to have a license.
    If we have a repeat of the Edmunds-Tucker act all churches that don't comply can have their legal existence destroyed, the church's property ceased, all adherents denied the right to hold office or vote. There have been repeated calls to take away the tax status of any church that does not endorse gay marriage. Most churches would not survive having donations taxed. There is also the general principle that the feds have limits on their power and should not be bossing around the church or altering the oldest and most universal social institution.

    What I think we should do is leave marriage alone and allow people all the legal controls and perks that can come via marriage (inheritance, custody hospital visits etc.). This includes all couples gay straight bi 3-somes etc. A large number of people do not marry and miss out on the government perks. I think everyone should have the same legal standing whenever possible.
  • Grandbr... Gid 2013/01/08 15:58:35
    Grandbrother
    +1
    So you would lose no rights if gay couples are allowed to marry. Your fear is over a repeat of an act from 1887, and that unprecedented efforts to force churches to violate their doctrines will be exherted. Not gonna happen, and not a reason to deny rights.
  • Gid Grandbr... 2013/01/08 16:06:05
    Gid
    I live in a state that allows civil unions. When those laws were being passed it was to give equal rights. Gay couples have everything but the title, yet there is a push to have gay marriage.
    I suppose I should just hope that a group if given a power legal tool in their hands to harm a group that they have a long history of dislike with will simply not use it. Not going to happen.
  • Grandbr... Gid 2013/01/08 16:15:47
    Grandbrother
    +1
    The right to marry does not equate to the power to violate religious freedom. They are separate issues entirely. I'm a straight atheist. Because I can legally marry does not give me the power to force a church to perform a marriage ceremony that promotes atheism and denigrates god.

    And it should be no surprise that gays aren't completely satisfied with a compromise that affords them second class status rather than full equality. Would you be?
  • Gid Grandbr... 2013/01/08 16:46:51
    Gid
    Please check out the anti-discrimination laws and their effect. A Kansas town voted to require churches that rent out their building to rent for gay weddings (this fits with many churches beliefs about as well as PETA offices being used to slaughter animals) , Calf a wedding photographer was sued for not doing a gay wedding lost and lost their appeal. Their right to do what they do and love to do as well as their religious views where ignored in the name of equality. It is absurd to think that such laws will all of a sudden not impact churches.
    As far a second class I know the feeling. I get told on a regular basis that I'm the wrong race, wrong sex etc. every time I look for a job.
    Social rejection is common or people who violate the norms of a society.
    Peoples rights not not be taken from them, but it is quite common for people to be excluded from social gatherings etc. No law is going to change this. It is not the the government to impose equality on us nor to try to fore us to pretend that two different things are the same. The choice should be left to the individuals to form their relationships as they see fit. I should not need the governments permission to have a relationship. I also have no right to try to force the views and beliefs of others by law.
  • Grandbr... Gid 2013/01/08 19:00:16 (edited)
    Grandbrother
    +1
    Without more specifics, I don't know what story in Kansas you're referencing, so I cant really speak to it. But generally, churches are exempted from laws or ordinances that would run in direct conflict with their dogma. I'd like to see a link to the story you've cited if you could provide one.

    You said: "As far a second class I know the feeling. I get told on a regular basis that I'm the wrong race, wrong sex etc. every time I look for a job."

    Are you joking? You're a white, straight, Christian male in the United States. You haven't got the slightest inkling how it feels to be a second class citizen.

    And "the norms of society"? I was under the impression that here in America, we're all afforded the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" provided we aren't hurting anyone else or compromising their rights in doing so. But now, according to you, we're required to conform to a majority standard or we forfeit those rights? Could you please provide more information on this?

    You said: "It is not the the government to impose equality on us nor to try to fore us to pretend that two different things are the same. The choice should be left to the individuals to form their relationships as they see fit."

    Legal equality is a separate issue from government forcing you to pretend...
    Without more specifics, I don't know what story in Kansas you're referencing, so I cant really speak to it. But generally, churches are exempted from laws or ordinances that would run in direct conflict with their dogma. I'd like to see a link to the story you've cited if you could provide one.

    You said: "As far a second class I know the feeling. I get told on a regular basis that I'm the wrong race, wrong sex etc. every time I look for a job."

    Are you joking? You're a white, straight, Christian male in the United States. You haven't got the slightest inkling how it feels to be a second class citizen.

    And "the norms of society"? I was under the impression that here in America, we're all afforded the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" provided we aren't hurting anyone else or compromising their rights in doing so. But now, according to you, we're required to conform to a majority standard or we forfeit those rights? Could you please provide more information on this?

    You said: "It is not the the government to impose equality on us nor to try to fore us to pretend that two different things are the same. The choice should be left to the individuals to form their relationships as they see fit."

    Legal equality is a separate issue from government forcing you to pretend that two different things are the same. Legal equality simply affords equal rights, while doing nothing to compel you to change your personal views. The only difference would arise "...when the practice of personal preferences and prejudices of an individual, a business entity, or a government interferes with the protected rights of others." http://legal-dictionary.thefr... Thus the ongoing debates about subjects like this where civil rights butt up against religious rights.
    (more)
  • Gid Grandbr... 2013/01/08 21:44:43
    Gid
    here is a link to a similar story http://radio.foxnews.com/todd...
    I'm not talking about forfeiting any rights. I'm talking about the possibility of not being included in some social situations (hardly a right).
    Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness I'm all for. It is the mandate that forfeit my liberty when someone does not like my views or beliefs that is the issue.
  • Grandbr... Gid 2013/01/09 04:03:57 (edited)
    Grandbrother
    The case you cite in Hutchinson ultimately got narrowed down to sexual orientation being included as a protected group in regards to employment and housing, and was still defeated by voters. So that case illustrates only conservatives continuing to allow discrimination against gays. http://mobile.hutchnews.com/m...

    What "liberty" will gay marriage cause you to forfeit? So far you've only referenced the highly unlikely possibility that churches will be forced to take part in same sex marriages, which is a separate issue from allowing gays the right to marry in the first place.
  • Gid Grandbr... 2013/01/09 05:50:57
    Gid
    We have president (granted old) of extreme measure being taken when a church and government disagree on what marriage is. We have cases where people are being punished if they don't provide services to gays even though to do so would violate their religious beliefs. We have health care reform pushing religious peoples beliefs (mandated coverage and paying for abortions). Is it really hard to see that this will lead to hindered if not destroyed freedom of religion?
  • Grandbr... Gid 2013/01/09 06:33:08
    Grandbrother
    I can't count the 1887 example as precedent for contemporary law.

    What are the examples of punishment for refusing services to gays that violate religious beliefs?

    Have you considered the fact that a religious hospital, for example, denying insurance that includes birth control to non-religious employees is a perfect example of that hospital forcing its beliefs on others? There are two sides to the story.

    When all's said and done, you just sound determined to deny marriage rights to gays over your personal, tangential fears.
  • Gid Grandbr... 2013/01/09 15:36:33
    Gid
    "Have you considered the fact that a religious hospital, for example, denying insurance that includes birth control to non-religious employees is a perfect example of that hospital forcing its beliefs on others? There are two sides to the story. "

    No this is a perfect example of the government trying to force the religious people to violate their beliefs. The person wanting the birth control can use their money to buy it. The employer is not stopping them. Freedom is not having the government tell you everything you must do. There is also a lot of room between a right to have something and an entitlement to have it given to you.
    But as you apparently think that the government forcing people to violate their most scared beliefs is fine and not doing it is pushing religion I don't suspect you will understand.
  • Grandbr... Gid 2013/01/09 20:01:23 (edited)
    Grandbrother
    So then an employer who's a Christian Scientist should be allowed to deny their employees any health insurance at all since they don't believe in medical treatments, thus forcing their employees to bear the burden of obtaining their own insurance? Seems to me that you advocate allowing religious people to force their beliefs on the non-religious through imposing financial hardships. Because the fact in the Christian Scientist example is, the employer wouldn't be doing anything to violate his/her own beliefs by providing insurance - they wouldn't have to see a doctor themselves. They'd only be asked to accommodate the differing beliefs of those they employ. You're extremely selective in your recognition of what constitutes a violation of ones beliefs.

    Or let me put it this way. How does you as an employer providing me with insurance that accommodates my beliefs translate into you somehow violating yours? Is it a violation of your beliefs to recognize that many people do not conform to them?
  • Gid Grandbr... 2013/01/09 20:24:58
    Gid
    An employer should not be pushed to offer any insurance. If an employer wants to offer a benefit I have no problem with that, but there should be no force to do so.
  • Grandbr... Gid 2013/01/09 20:31:29
    Grandbrother
    That's not what I asked. I asked about what constitutes a violation of beliefs in the hypothetical scenario I provided. Because the reality is that employer provided insurance is going to be mandated for companies with over 50 employees if I'm not mistaken, and you're suggesting financially penalizing people for having beliefs that differ from their employers.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/01 19:14:32

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals