Related Information to Homosexuality - Same Sex Marriage - Religious View

Homosexuality - Same Sex Marriage - Religious View - Page 8

I disagree with this statement. First, how can you tell whether a law is discriminatory or one that prevents certain groups of people from doing what they want?

I am speaking of cases where you can tell...For example, are you, then, saying it is o.k. if the majority want to agree, that you can decide not to hire someone strictly because of the color of their skin?

I am saying that the majority rules is not true in all cases. That is a fact of our Constitution. It does not allow the majority to decide to make a law that is contrary to what the Constitution says. It is not all right for the majority to decide, for example, that a particular person can't be hired because they are black, or female, or even homosexual. There were laws in the south enacted by the majority that were later found to be unconstitutional based upon purely discriminatory reasons. That is the point I am making.

So, if the only reason to prevent a homosexual marriage was simply because they are homosexual without any moral argument, then I would say it is wrong. However, I do not believe that is why the laws are being argued.

Edited: tenaheff on 24th Jan, 2005 - 9:13pm

View Religious Marriage Sex - Homosexuality

Regards to the twin's issue I think you seriously need to do some good research about it...everybody knows (and PLEASE research!) that identical twins share the same DNA, now by the other hand fraternal twins do not share the same DNA. Identical twins have what they called different "phenotypes" (spelling?) The phenotype says the dictionary of an individual organism is "is either its total physical appearance and constitution, or a specific manifestation of a trait, such as size or eye color, that varies between individuals" which means that just because they share the same DNA it does not mean they are 'clones'...that's why their fingerprints or other physical feature are not identical and they are used legally to determine who is who since the DNA is identical. But...do not take our word for it, research and you'll see!.

Now, I am reading a lot about views share here about the sacredness of marriage and homosexuals and how some of you think all opinions are based on Religions. If you carefully read the board you are right now, you'll see is the Religious board...what do you expect???.

This depend on your concept of being a catholic. For instance, I am an LDS member, if I support gay marriage or any other issue that goes against the principles that I hold dear and that they are also the principles of my Church, then I am not really an LDS member. Any Church is like a club, when you 'join' the club, you are 'tie' to it, if the Club has some rule that you may not agree with...then maybe, its time to re-consider your place in it.

No problem with me. You are free to delete your membership at any time. Even though we are very glad when we get people interested in discussing issues, we do not force or beg people to stay. We are a mature group of individuals who try their best to learn from each other.

Homosexuality - Same Sex Marriage - Religious View Beliefs Religious General

This isn't always the case. When enough people speak up, congress can and will either amend the constitution or re-interpret it to reflect what the people want. In this particular instance, if the majority of people wanted it, they could very easily interpret life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as including the right to marry who every you want. This would mean man or woman regardless of your sex. But the majority of people have spoken differently in most states and have decided that pursuit of happiness does not include the right to marry who ever you want. You must marry a member of the opposite sex. So the constitution can, and often is, interpreted in a fashion that reflects what the outcry of the people want.

Page 8 View Religious Marriage Sex - Homosexuality

To some extent this is true, but congress doesn't just amend the constitution, it must be ratified by a 2/3 vote and then 2/3 of the states must have elections accepting it as well. Then the change becomes a part of the constitution. However, without a constitutional amendment, it isn't true that the majority can just decide to enact a law without regards to what the constitution says is acceptable. That is the only point I am trying to make. The laws the states have enacted, in no way, effect what is in the constitution. Those laws can still be found to be against the constitution and then struck down. That is, in fact, what the Supreme Court does regularly.

So, without a constitutional amendment, it is possible that all of the anti-homosexual marriage laws can be found unconstitutional.

In Massachusetts (where I live) a judge said that it was against the Massachusetts constitution to prevent homosexual marriage. That means no law can be passed to prohibit it. Only a constitutional amendment would work. Problem with that is the legislators won't draft such an amendment so the people aren't given the chance to vote the issue. In addition, if such an amendment was drafted, it would take a few years for it to go in to effect. In the meantime, homosexual marriages will take place.

Anyway, I believe the possibility exists that the Supreme Court will one day decide that laws preventing homosexual marriage are unconstitutional. When this happens all state laws prohibiting it will no longer be valid. This is what happened in Roe v. Wade. Abortion was legal in some states and not in others until the Supreme Court ruling.

View Religious Marriage Sex - Homosexuality

I was listening to a local radio talk show this morning on my way to school, and the host made some interesting points. He analyzed the issue of gay marriage from a non-religious point of view. He wrote a newspaper column over a year ago that said, essentially, if the legal institution of marriage is altered in its nature from its current status as an agreement between a man and a woman, the precedent it sets will go far beyond only homosexual marriage. If the government decides to redefine marriage in this way, there is no ethical ground upon which they can stand to outlaw polygamy, for example, or polyamory (essentially group marriage). When he wrote this column, people thought he was being extreme, and that such a thing would never happen. Well, now the movement for polyamory has become so mainstream that it was the cover story for the Denver Post's Lifestyle section yesterday. Here is the article:

https://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...2660487,00.html

It would be a social catastrophe and bad business if companies had to pay health benefits for five spouses instead of one, but this is not an unrealistic possibility a few years down the line. That is a solid, secular reason for keeping marriage as it has always been defined - between a man and a woman. Any deviation from that standard opens the door for much more than we now consider. The 'slippery slope' argument is not always logically sound, but we can actually see it occurring before our eyes.

In a similar way, changing marriage would erode the ethical ground upon which statutes against incest are justified. If one partner in an incestuous relationship is sterile to overcome the genetic argument, and if both were consenting adults, wouldn't it be oppressive to deny them marriage? The answer is OF COURSE IT WOULD NOT, but that argument is based on the same 'pursuit of happiness' approach that fuels the homosexual stance on the marriage issue. "Why shouldn't I be allowed to do whatever feels good to me?" The answer is - some things are just not right, and we as a society and a government are under no obligation to stand for them.

Just a few strange thoughts on the topic.

Homosexuality - Same Sex Marriage - Religious View

I apologize for being so rash, it is just that this is not the first forum I've been in, and I have just pretty much heard the same thing over and over again--it is not your guys' fault. Also, I am quick to anger (I'm sorry! I'll try and stop sounding like a jerk), and I apologize for such. The game yesterday did nothing to better my mood...

I did say that in rashness, and I think I will still participate. But I do feel as if I am running out of things to say, or as Tenaheff stated "Nothing more to add to this thread." I will still try to put rebuttals to your statements, but that is all I can really do.

Now, about the analogy between public nudity and gay marriage. I have not heard anyone argue that they want to walk around naked in public (although many women who pay too much attention to the media basically do!), but I do not think that public nudity is as important an issue as same-sex marriage. I have not heard of anyone that becomes truly happy when they are naked in public--I have heard of people that become truly happy when they become married. I will try and come back to this later, but I am running out of time.

I have finally heard, in my opinion, a new argument against same-sex marriage: "...if the legal institution of marriage is altered in its nature from its current status as an agreement between a man and a woman, the precedent it sets will go far beyond only homosexual marriage. If the government decides to redefine marriage in this way, there is no ethical ground upon which they can stand to outlaw polygamy, for example, or polyamory (essentially group marriage)."

Um...that is a really good point. I do talk about that in my essay, however. Other countries have legalized gay marriage, and it has not led them down a "slippery slope" toward polygamy, etc. The arguments for these are not as strong (I think--I certainly hear WAY less about it). You can read my essay on page 4? (I think that's the page--sorry if it is wrong!), but there is not a whole lot more. Well, I have to go, but I will remain in this forum, because it is very interesting.

Message Edited! Persephone: Removed offtopic and '###" text. Please read Constructive posting thread for more info on the use of Offtopic tags.

Homosexuality - Sex Marriage Religious View - Page 8

The argument for redefining marriage is not strong in general, but once that precedent is set, especially by the Supreme Court, marriage will be viewed as legally flexible and changeable. If we change from an arrangement between ONE man and ONE woman to an arrangement between TWO men or TWO women, what is so different about further broadening the definition of marriage to include ONE man and TWO women, or THREE women and FOUR men? It may sound bizarre and preposterous today, but gay marriage sounded much the same one generation ago, and it is now a part of mainstream world discussion. The fact that other countries that have allowed homosexual marriages have not yet embraced polygamy, etc. is not a fair indicator of the future. Nobody in the 1950s could have envisioned us having to debate this question.

Homosexuality - Sex Marriage Religious View General Religious Beliefs - Page 8

I see your point, but polygamy is already specifically outlawed. Gay marriage is not only no outlawed, its just not mentioned because it wasn't fathomed. Polygamy would mean giant tax breaks and big returns on tax day. Government wouldn't allow that. Polygamy wont be allowed because of that alone. And you wont have the stretch to polygamy because some states have already voted to ban gay marriage such as missouri and kansas.