Opposition to same-sex marriage on religious grounds?

EDIT: I rewrite this a bit.

The issue is actually a lot deeper than that. People who oppose same sex marriage do so because they feel it is morally wrong, violates natural law, and/or don’t wasn’t it financed via the taxes they pay.

As to equal protection, the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment in law means that Laws have to be consistently applied to all equally. It really can’t be used to provide same sex marriage. It may seem like it should, because Homosexuals can’t get married and yet Heterosexuals can, but in order for the argument to work you have to basically accept Homosexuality as something like a Race, AND you have to accept that Homosexuals lack the ability to marry.

Neither is actually true.

Homosexuality is defined by behavior which people have control over. Ultimately, we don’t know the cause of Homosexuality, and while claiming its genetic or that people are born that way and can’t change is politically expedient, its really not a demonstrateable scientific fact. In fact, science shows human sexuality to be far more plastic, and it seems that sexual orientation can change over time.

Given this, we really can’t treat it like am immutable trait, and its certainly not the ultimate defining feature in someone’s life.

It gets even worse when you look at the facts of law. I know that gay rights advocates say gay people can’t marry and straight people can and so gays are discriminated against, but legally that’s not true. Gay people can get married, even with state recognition. They just can’t marry someone of their own gender. That may sound snide, and its not my intention to be snide, but legally speaking, a gay man has all the same rights as a straight man. Any man may marry any woman who is not already married and is over the age of 18.

That means that the law currently is provided equally to all.

States that do not recognise same sex marriage don’t recognise any same sex marriages. They define marriage as between one man and one woman. This definition is equally enforced on everyone.

That means the 14th Amendment can’t be sued to overturn the States laws, because they don’t actually violate the 14th Amendment, as the same definition of marriage exists or all and is applied to all.

If you don’t like the fact that the law in your state defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and want to include same sex couples, you have to work to change the legal definition of marriage in your state, not try to use the 14th amendment to bludgeon someone who disagrees and try to force a change, because the equal protections provision simply doesn’t demand that anything you can think of that you’d prefer to do be recognised by the state. So long as the State applies all of its laws equally to all, and makes no law that violates freedom of religion or that is based around race, it can define its terms however it likes. All the equal protection provision does is to make sure that once the definition is made, it is applicable to everyone in the state.

Same sex marriage is not existent in the laws in most states, and again, you shouldn’t treat homosexuals as a specific class of people who can’t get married at all and are thus denied equal rights. That’s not how law actually works. If the same law applies to one man as another, then its equal protection. There is no law applicable to heterosexuals only and not homosexuals a homosexuals can still marry the opposite sex. In order to make the argument even work you have to operate on an assumption that Homosexuality is somehow equitable to either race or religion, and its really not. A race is an ethnic group one belongs to and has no say in. A Religion is a sacred belief about the world. Homosexuality is defined as wanting to have sex with your own gender.

I'm mostly opposed to gay marriage because it is such a trivial issue that is being inflated to create controversy where none is needed. The problem is that you are using the word "marriage" which is traditionally defined as a heterosexual relationship. Call it something else.

The reason I find this issue ridiculous is that homosexuals represent a very tiny minority. I see no reason why their agenda has to be on the forefront of politics except for the fact that it was created to either piss off religious people, or put homosexuals in the spotlight (I'm guessing this is the major reason). The problem with progressives is that they always have to find something to "progress" on. Where their idea of progress is dismantling all of our previous values and traditions.

I understand that this is the US, but since the Civil War the US became more of a centralized nation. Before then it was a essentially a loose conglomeration of States and territories. If people had different lifestyles or religious beliefs that were not like in their locality they relocated to a place that suited them. Hence Utah and the flourishing of Mormonism there. It would be great if homosexuals could establish their own community somewhere where they could frolic in peace and harmony and nobody would bother them, but alas, that dreaded 14th Amendment defeats that possibility.

I abhor the fact that the majority of people have to bend over to appease a tiny but very vocal minority group. However this is the United States and democracy is our supposed government. So then if the majority disagrees with something for whatever reason and puts it to law, the minority should learn to live with it instead of endlessly complaining about how their rights are being violated. You see the will of the people should be respected. If some judge decides to overrule the will of the majority on the grounds that it is "unconstitutional" then we don't really have a functioning democracy, but a judicial dictatorship.

In my opinion, these divisive issues will just lead to more social problems. If enough people are displeased, the Union could be threatened again. I see secession of several States as a distinct possibility in the future.

The thing you have to understand here is that people who say that same sex marriage is a sin, or that God opposes it, doesn't affect the laws our states put into action, unless they vote, which should tell you that those of us who believe in God out weigh those who don't. They are to abide by the laws given by man, and also are allowed to freedom of speech, which allows them to speak about what they believe God says is wrong. It's not that they are unaware at all. Dislike wouldn't be the term I would use either. It is something as a God fearing person we look at as a sin, and as a saved person you try not to sin, there for we say that we shouldn't do that. It is a known thing to those who know and trust in God that we should stay away from.

The problem here with the laws that talk about marriage, is that almost every state has said that marriage is not between two consenting adults, but is between a man and a woman, there for making marriage of same sex wrong in the eyes of the law of each state, that has this wording. The wording is what keeps marriage from happening of same sex. Mind you too that the United States was founded by people who were God fearing people, there for making the laws often geared towards doing what God has said is right or wrong. The laws in each state vary there for the reason why one state vs another may allow same sex marriage...these are not laws that the Federal Gov. has put into place.

So it isn't dislike, or even Unaware, but we are allowed our freedom to speech allowing us to be verbal in the way of allowing people to know that God does tell us that this is wrong, and that we shouldn't do it. If we share with people that believe one way that God has shared with us another, it is no different than say a teacher telling you about math facts that they have learned that you have not. This is about teaching others what God has shared, not about making this about dislike, or even being unaware. This is a sin, which we all sin, in one way or another, and if we know it is wrong we should try not to do it. Period. If you don't know it's a sin, then you need to know it is a sin. That is what it boils down too!

Well you know I'm not a theist but Christians don't care what law says, they think there is a higher law: God's, which trumps mankind's laws every time (according to them), The problem is so do Muslim (Sharia law) & so do others. Can we all choose our own laws then? No, that doesn't work if you think about it. The US has laws democratically arrived at, i.e. there is EVIDENCE that this is what more people want than anyone else. I'm British so I guess the law in the USA is as it is here: Civil Unions only. yeah? Well if this is democratic who has the right to ignore it? Christians? Muslims? No people with EVIDENCE of HUMAN will -right or wrong National Law. It's not perfect but nothing is.

You are a pretty good debater. It makes it more challenging to me to articulate clearly my beliefs, but it's important for me to challenge my thoughts.

I will start by admitting that 90% of my adversion to same sex marriage is based in my religion, and I will also admit that if two members of our free country do not have religious beliefs that prevent same-sex marriage, it would be no problem for them.

So I'll honor your ground rules and just stick with the question of why I oppose it if it's seen only as a secular legal contract.

I still have a problem because homosexuals are trying to redefine the meaning of the word "marriage". For thousands of years it meant "one man and one woman". It would be like saying that my co-worker and I could be cousins because we want to be included within that group and enjoy each other's family get togethers. We're not cousins.

My suggestion is to give same-sex couples a new term that offers the same secular legal status and is respectful in tone. But above all, a different term. Instead of marriage, "vowage". Instead of marry, "avow". Instead of spouse, "Vowse". Homosexuals could get what they want, in a non-religious way, and we Heterosexuals could feel like we are still the same as what we were. And we could be married secularly or religiously or both.

all oppositions to ss marriage are indeed based on religious grounds. we profess to have separation of church and state here in the usa. we also profess to believe in equality under the law. barring same sex marriage is a contradiction to both these principles. liberty, freedom and equality- how important are they to us really?

I have no issue over whether or not people get married depending on their sex. Let's face, they're three times as likelier to NOT divorce as normal marriage couples are. Being constantly challenged on your right to marry another person, really seems to bring couples together. As it is, who gives a person the right to allow marriages in the first place? Orthodox opinion keeps changing; in another fifty years, it may be considered criminal to NOT marry a person of the same gender. Besides, anyone can technically bring married couples together.

For example, I will now become a judge in a court of law: *By the power vested in me (by me) I now declare this keyboard and mouse to be bonded in holy matrimony. Are there any who object to such a glorious relationship? If so, speak or forever hold your off button.*

See? I'm a natural!

Bear in mind, I am referring here to marriage, the secular legal contract between two consenting adults and the State; the kind performed by a judge in a court of law.

==

marriage a word came from Holy Books about m/f blessed union

secular legal contract: let those go outside God's universe to feel secular,

two consenting adults : run over by wrong desires,

did you just say a State? then, u should know that: borders and sects are man-made,

judge? he will be judged by the Judge,

no question about the kids?

If you read the following quotes by the founders of our nation, then you will understand that our laws were created to have a moral and religious basis found only in the Bible. If this is what the Bible says: Lev 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." then who are we to say that homosexuality is right and fine? Don't get me wrong, I am not vouching for capital punishment on homosexuals. That was an Old Testament law standard. The principle still applies and is reaffirmed throughout scripture. :)

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.

--Thomas Jefferson

If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

--John Adams

That wise Governments have always thought Religion necessary for the well ordering and well-being of Society, and accordingly have been ever careful to encourage and protect the Ministers of it, paying them the highest publick Honours, that their Doctrines might thereby meet with the greater Respect among the common People.

--Benjamin Franklin

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

--John Adams

Even General George Washington discharged an American soldier in 1778 for participating in homosexual acts.

The separation of church and state was a principle established to keep the state from establishing a state promoted church. It has nothing to do with a right of freedom FROM religion. And it makes no sense to believe it to mean that laws do not take a basis from a moral and religious basis - the Bible.

They can't come up with a rational reason to oppose same sex marriage so they go with religious excuses, emotional pleas, or downright insults. They don't realize that the rest of the world has already passed them by.