Same Sex Marriages?

[Stal]

The said:

So far the only arguement for the ban on gay marriage that has been presented to me has to do with religion. Befoer you tell me, "I should be Christian and I will go to hell because I am not," remember that not everyone in the United States is Christian. We shouldn't follow your religious beliefs because you're Christian. That doesn't make you right. And what's this talk of no gay gene? Do you have any proof? Any published material by a credible source stating there is no gay gene?

And ah! my challenge still goes unanswered. Why shouldn't there be a constitutional amendment against hereosexual marriage? Ignoring the issue only shows that you have no answer because you are a heterosexual as much as I am. Yet you are willing to discriminate against people like Al because they are different from you. Have you ever read To Kill A Mockingbird? You don't know a man until you crawl into his skin and walk around in it.

Show me an arguement that does not rely on religion, morals, tradition, or any social point of view. Show me a view that goes by the constitution or the Delcaration of Independence.

TAA, I conceded the point at the beginning of this thread that any argument against it comes from religion only.

And under today's laws regarding it, there is no reason why.

BUT here's the thing. You use constitution. Technically speaking, the idea of Seperation of Church & State is a perversion of the constitution. So you should probably edit your post to say "Today's interpertation of the Constitution" which isn't what the Constitution actually says.

[The Angry Artist]

Ninja said:

TAA, I conceded the point at the beginning of this thread that any argument against it comes from religion only.

And under today's laws regarding it, there is no reason why.

BUT here's the thing. You use constitution. Technically speaking, the idea of Seperation of Church & State is a perversion of the constitution. So you should probably edit your post to say "Today's interpertation of the Constitution" which isn't what the Constitution actually says.

I also use Declaration of Independence, which explicitly says that all men are created equal. Let me interpret THAT.

Interpretation #1: Men are superior/inferior to women. All laws only apply to men/women.

Interpretation #2: All humans are created equal.

Point out to me the exact federal laws or statements in the constitution/Declaration of Independence that reject gay marriage as legal. You can say however much you want it's illegal, but until you prove it you're presenting an arguement with no basis.

[Stal]

The said:

I also use Declaration of Independence, which explicitly says that all men are created equal. Let me interpret THAT.

Interpretation #1: Men are superior/inferior to women. All laws only apply to men/women.

Interpretation #2: All humans are created equal.

Point out to me the exact federal laws or statements in the constitution/Declaration of Independence that reject gay marriage as legal. You can say however much you want it's illegal, but until you prove it you're presenting an arguement with no basis.

You fail to see what I'm saying. I'm saying it's all a religious basis.

But at the same time, I'm saying the "Wall of seperation" is a perversion of the constitution. Which means, though by today's standards and set precedent it should be more than allowed by the government (though the government can not tell a church it must allow it). What I'm saying is that the fact that religion can't apply to this argument is the problem. That's the misinterperted part. See what I mean, yet?

[The Angry Artist]

Ninja said:

You fail to see what I'm saying. I'm saying it's all a religious basis.

But at the same time, I'm saying the "Wall of seperation" is a perversion of the constitution. Which means, though by today's standards and set precedent it should be more than allowed by the government (though the government can not tell a church it must allow it). What I'm saying is that the fact that religion can't apply to this argument is the problem. That's the misinterperted part. See what I mean, yet?

Previous points remain unanswered:

1.What laws are there against gay marriage?

2.Why shouldn't there be an amendment against homosexual marriage in the constitution?

And perhaps a new point:

3.How would you feel if you were gay and wanted to marry another man (and the other man vice versa), but you couldn't because the government said 'no'?

[Stal]

The said:

Previous points remain unanswered:

1.What laws are there against gay marriage?

2.Why shouldn't there be an amendment against homosexual marriage in the constitution?

And perhaps a new point:

3.How would you feel if you were gay and wanted to marry another man (and the other man vice versa), but you couldn't because the government said 'no'?

Are you blind?

I ANSWERED YOUR POINTS

By the precedents and laws in the US today *makes it real real real big so TAA will take note* THERE IS NO REASON TO BAN HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES BY THE GOVERNMENT. Do you see that now? I've said it like 4 or 5 times the entire thread!

BUT what I am getting at is this, I feel that today's interpertation of the Constitution, regarding a Wall of Seperation between the church and state is a perverse misinterpertation to begin with! And under the original interpertation, the one I believe to be right, religion is a valid arguement.

But it still goes against my moral beliefs, my beliefs on how the constitution was interperted, and my religious beliefs, so yeah, when an Amendment came up in Missouri that specifies marriage is between man and woman, I voted to pass that ammendment.

I vote the way I feel to be right. Not the way that is right by this world's standards.

[The Angry Artist]

Ninja said:

Are you blind?

I ANSWERED YOUR POINTS

By the precedents and laws in the US today *makes it real real real big so TAA will take note* THERE IS NO REASON TO BAN HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES BY THE GOVERNMENT. Do you see that now? I've said it like 4 or 5 times the entire thread!

BUT what I am getting at is this, I feel that today's interpertation of the Constitution, regarding a Wall of Seperation between the church and state is a perverse misinterpertation to begin with! And under the original interpertation, the one I believe to be right, religion is a valid arguement.

But it still goes against my moral beliefs, my beliefs on how the constitution was interperted, and my religious beliefs, so yeah, when an Amendment came up in Missouri that specifies marriage is between man and woman, I voted to pass that ammendment.

I vote the way I feel to be right. Not the way that is right by this world's standards.

I'm sorry; I thought you were still making the case for a ban against gay marriage. As folish as that may sound, you definitely had me confused a couple messages past.