What's your view on "gay rights"

[Eternal]

for those of you who are religious.. what do you think about "gay rights" ... how do you incorporate your personal religious belief? do you think gay people are sinners?

 

[Friendindeed]

Their rights should have nothing to do with anybody's religious beliefs about it.

 

[TheWaffle]

I see no reason to deny homosexuals the right to marriage. The religious argument is completely irrelevant. As long as marriage is an institution recognized and performed under the auspices of the law then it is simply indefensible to inflict one's sexual alignment on others just as you cannot inflict religion or political ideologies on others.
People are grossly overstepping their bounds when they challenge someone's right to be married by a judge of the law. If their church does not want to perform the ceremony then that's their thing; just as a Church may refuse to marry someone outside of their religion.
The law and religion are completely separate entities. Some people say that America was founded on religion and hence is a religious nation...However it says nowhere in the bible that you have the right to tax people, it says nowhere that you have the right to take the child of a improper parent, it never says that you have the right to wage war. This is why we have law and religion. The law is in place because it is necessary and as such it should stand independent of the Church. The right to marriage should not be only bestowed upon those who conform to religious standards.

 

[palerider]

Homosexuals have the right to get married exactly the same as you and I. They don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex, however, which would be a special right and while no one deserves to have rights taken away because of sexual prefrence, no one deserves to be given special rights because of their sexual preference either.

 

[HighVoltage123]

Homosexuals have the right to get married exactly the same as you and I. They don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex, however, which would be a special right and while no one deserves to have rights taken away because of sexual prefrence, no one deserves to be given special rights because of their sexual preference either.

You make a really good point but do you actually think that we should take away from them the right to be happy (with a same sex partner)... if killing makes someone happy than I agree to take away from them that right because he/she takes a way someone else's right to live... but since homosexuals are not taking anything away from anyone... Why not...

 

[palerider]

You make a really good point but do you actually think that we should take away from them the right to be happy (with a same sex partner)... if killing makes someone happy than I agree to take away from them that right because he/she takes a way someone else's right to live... but since homosexuals are not taking anything away from anyone... Why not...

Let them be as happy as they want. There isn't a single benefit that married people have that gay couples can't secure for themselves through a good lawyer, except the marriage penalty on your taxes. But then, all of that really doesn't have to do with happiness any way, does it. All that has to do with granting special rights because of one's sexual preference.

And again, no one is taking away any of their rights. They are just not being given special rights and no group really should be able to claim special rights because of sexual preference or anything else.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Homosexuals have the right to get married exactly the same as you and I. They don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex, however, which would be a special right and while no one deserves to have rights taken away because of sexual prefrence, no one deserves to be given special rights because of their sexual preference either.

actually, if only heterosexuals have the right to marriage, it is heterosexuals who have the special rights.

"special rights" is a weak social conservative talking point

And again, no one is taking away any of their rights. They are just not being given special rights and no group really should be able to claim special rights because of sexual preference or anything else.

So Heterosexuals should not be able to claim special rights to marriage because of there sexual preference. i agree.

 

[palerider]

actually, if only heterosexuals have the right to marriage, it is heterosexuals who have the special rights.

Homosexuals have the same right to marry as everyone else. There is no requirement that one be sexually attracted to the person that one marries. Such marriages have taken place all through history. Marriage to one of the opposite sex is a right that everyone of age should have in this country.

"special rights" is a weak social conservative talking point

It is, apparently, not so weak that you can argue it. Attempting to brush it off doesn't constitute an argument. Granting men the right to marry men constitutes a special right. Granting women the right to marry women, constitutes a special right. Granting people the right to marry trees or dogs constitutes granting special rights. No one has the right to expect special treatment or rights because of their sexual preference.

So Heterosexuals should not be able to claim special rights to marriage because of there sexual preference. i agree.

Marriage is what it is. There is no special right about it. Redefining marriage to accomodate other than the union of two people of the opposite sex would constitute a special right. You can try to argue this as much as you like, but you will fail.

If you favor granting people special rights because of their sexual preference, tell me, where exactly would you draw the line and by what right do suggest that you are qualified to draw the line?

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Marriage is what it is. There is no special right about it. Redefining marriage to accomodate other than the union of two people of the opposite sex would constitute a special right. You can try to argue this as much as you like, but you will fail.

If you favor granting people special rights because of their sexual preference, tell me, where exactly would you draw the line and by what right do suggest that you are qualified to draw the line?

Where does your definition of marriage come from?

here's Webster's

marriage 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

I'm in favor of equal rights for all. Equal rights to marry another person. "Special Rights" is a tactic used by the religious right because they are bigots. it's that simple. the political right uses that bigotry to create an election issue that will bring said people to the poles. "Special Rights" is a talking point so the religious right can get their bigotry off their chest without actually feeling like hatemongers.

"It's not that i hate fags, it's that i don't believe in Special Rights"

gimme a break.

The biggest problem with you're argument, is that YOU and the religious right want to redefine marriage to EXCLUDE homosexuals, as demonstrated by the Marriage Amendment that has been pushed by the Bush administration for 4 years. And thereby, you are the one in favor of Special Rights.

Why, in America, would we want to rewrite the constitution to exclude a group of people from a basic right that the constitution grants?

in 1996? Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Was the Defense of Marriage Act a "Special Rights" Bill? Did Clinton grant heterosexuals the special right to marriage?

 

[Friendindeed]

Three words palerider, Loving v. Virginia.

 

[palerider]

The biggest problem with you're argument, is that YOU and the religious right want to redefine marriage to EXCLUDE homosexuals, as demonstrated by the Marriage Amendment that has been pushed by the Bush administration for 4 years. And thereby, you are the one in favor of Special Rights.

Which edition of websters did that definition come from? Let me guess, the latest? The one with the newly redefined marriage? Marriage is what it is and has been since we walked out of the jungle and found that we needed to form a sort of relationship between couples that could reasonably be expected to last long enough to see to the raising of children.

Any argument that changes the definition of marriage to allow two members of the same sex to marry is a special right no matter how you slice it.

Why, in America, would we want to rewrite the constitution to exclude a group of people from a basic right that the constitution grants?

The constitution doesn't grant any right to marry. In fact, the constitution doesn't grant any rights at all. It acknowledges our rights and sets up the framework of a government to protect them.

in 1996? Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Was the Defense of Marriage Act a "Special Rights" Bill? Did Clinton grant heterosexuals the special right to marriage?

Nope. It was simply an effort to close the door on granting special rights based on sexual prefrence. I asked you before if you are in favor of granting special rights based on sexual prefrence, were would you draw the line?

 

[palerider]

Three words palerider, Loving v. Virginia.

Allowing a black man and a white woman and vise versa to marry does not constitute a special right based on sexual preference. I am curious to learn how you believe race effects sexual preference.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Nope. It was simply an effort to close the door on granting special rights based on sexual prefrence. I asked you before if you are in favor of granting special rights based on sexual prefrence, were would you draw the line?

You can keep asking, because you're question is completely invalid to me. "Special Rights" is social conservative bigotry.

 

[palerider]

You can keep asking, because you're question is completely invalid to me. "Special Rights" is social conservative bigotry.

The idea of granting a group the right to do a thing based on their sexual preference, or any other preference that no other group has ever had the right to do is a special right.

Attempting to brush it off as bigotry hardly constitutes an argument. Either you can argue the point or you can not and it is becoming increasingly apparent that you can not.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

The idea of granting a group the right to do a thing based on their sexual preference, or any other preference that no other group has ever had the right to do is a special right.

Attempting to brush it off as bigotry hardly constitutes an argument. Either you can argue the point or you can not and it is becoming increasingly apparent that you can not.

I've summed it up quite easily actually. The right to marry any person you choose is not a special right. defining marriage between a man and a woman makes marriage a special right for heterosexuals.