Freedom and Homosexuality

[Mokele]

A small side note: The 9th ammendment to the US constitution states that the government shall not deny or disparage any right simply because it is not enumerated explicitly. (Unless, of course, there's legitimate reason, like someone claiming the right to be a serial killer)

 

Also, iirc, one of the other ammendments (14th? Anyone know?) guarantees all people "equal protection under the law", which basically means you can't have a law that only applies to one group of people for no good reason.

 

So, while there's no explicit mention, there are sections of the US constitution that are applicable (and, iirc, form the legal basis for the pro-marriage arguement).

 

Mokele

[YT2095]

aha! Thanx both, that clears it up a bit for me (I never studied the constitution).

 

so it would seem that the problem behind it something else other than that laid down in the constitution then?

the Religious arg seems at face value to be the cause of it, but Religion is also protected under the constitution also, Interesting Conflict!

 

Both parties are assured Freedom, but the freedoms that each are demanding are in opposition, Very Catch 22.

[Severian]

I can see not allowing gay marrage (because then two guys living together, who aren't in love, but will live together for a long time could get married, and share in the benifits (such as health coverage, tax break, etc...)).

 

Isn't this a little hypocritical? Why do you have to be in love to get the tax breaks? At the moment, a man and a woman can get married without loving one another just for the taxbreaks, so why not two men? In fact, if they are not even having sex, then the religious right might be more happy with this!

[Severian]

A small side note: The 9th ammendment to the US constitution states that the government shall not deny or disparage any right simply because it is not enumerated explicitly. (Unless' date=' of course, there's legitimate reason, like someone claiming the right to be a serial killer)

 

Also, iirc, one of the other ammendments (14th? Anyone know?) guarantees all people "equal protection under the law", which basically means you can't have a law that only applies to one group of people for no good reason.

 

So, while there's no explicit mention, there are sections of the US constitution that are applicable (and, iirc, form the legal basis for the pro-marriage arguement).

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

These arguments are too vague to provide legal grounds for gay marriage. The first one falls over because some people would say that there is a 'legitimate reason' for not having gay marriage. The second falls over because you are not treating people differently - you are banning everyone from same sex marriages.

[mike90]

I cant see how anyone can defend denying a large quantity of people basic civil rights because of their sexual orientation. Why SHOULD'NT they have the same rights as anyone else. Only reason this is still up for debate in america is because of all the power the church has over government and society even in the modern age

[Sayonara]

We've done this before.

 

Three times.

[john5746]

We've done this before.

 

Three times.

 

That is true, but the original topic of supporting freedom while being anti-gay was an interesting twist I thought.

[Sayonara]

It's literally the same discussion.

[BobbyJoeCool]

I cant see how anyone can defend denying a large quantity of people basic civil rights because of their sexual orientation. Why SHOULD'NT they have the same rights as anyone else. Only reason this is still up for debate in america is because of all the power the church has over government and society even in the modern age

 

This is true. The only people I know who support banning gay marrige are religious fanatics. I'm sure someone will prove me wrong on here, but that person will most likely be homophobic and have a somewhat distorted image of what homosexuality is (ie, ALL homosexuals want to have sex with them and are rapists and therefore should be prisoned).

 

Isn't this a little hypocritical? Why do you have to be in love to get the tax breaks? At the moment, a man and a woman can get married without loving one another just for the taxbreaks, so why not two men? In fact, if they are not even having sex, then the religious right might be more happy with this!

 

I did mention that later in the thread.

 

However, I see what you're saying. Man and woman get married whoaren't in love to get the benifits. Why not man and man or woman and woman? If the govt. doesn't stop men and women from doing it, why should they stop men and men?