New Hampshire recently joined Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont in legalizing same-sex marriage.
This is obviously a big victory for gay and lesbian advocates.
Maine is also looking good in the fight for same-sex marriage, and may make it legal as soon as next week.
There is also a group called Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a group of lawyers who led the legal fight for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut, who have set a target of bringing same-sex marriage to all New England states by 2012. Maine could make them only one away from their goal.
What do you think? Do you think they will reach their goal?
How long until same-sex marriage is legalized throughout the whole country?
Enough said on that, methinks. Unless you want to start mounting an argument that positively justifies discriminatory witholding of rights.
Essentially that has been what these past 4 pages have been on, I do not agree with homosexuality. Yes, marriage for homosexuals should not be legalized, can't say it much clearer than that :s
I'm sure that as adaptible humans we are more than capable of forming conventions that would suit the changed circumstances in same-sex marriages.
Hah, ya, by either taking the sperm from a man, or using a woman as a surrogate. Either of these methods involve heterosexuality, or the normalcy (yes i am looking at you thisisnotanalt :P). Then I imagine the debating as to whether a sperm bank has the right to give out sperm without the donors consent, which I imagine is already of some debate.
OK, first you need to chillax -- now let me straighten out a few things for you. The Declaration of Independence was singed by the second continental congress, and sent to the King of England, essentially telling him that they were free men, and the king was going against their freedom. This is the document that contains the phrase, and I quote from www.ushistory.org:
Chillax is a funny word But I already knew that, and ,my point was that opinions are acquired characteristics, and it wouldn't matter if they were the descendants of the pilgrims. -----------
This document DOES NOT give us our laws. Then towards the end of the Revolution, another document was made and signed by congress, this was the Constituition of these United States of America. In it they outlined the new government, later on though, they found they had to make amendments, these were called the Bill of Rights. So when you say that it is unconstitutional to deny 'rights' to the gays, then you are saying that there is something in the constitution that allows these people their 'rights', and now I ask you, will you please point it out, otherwise, your argument that is unconstitutional, does not hold any value since its false.
Hmmmmm. . .in your 'teaching' of elementary history to me. . .are you being condescending? Your'e coming off that way. . . . Anyway, by 'Unconstitutional' I mean that it goes against basic rights outlined in the Constitution- the pursuit of happiness at no expense of another. Is gay marriage cause harm to anyone? No. Does prohibiting it prevent homosexuals from pursuing happiness in some cases? Yepperdoodles. There you have it. ---------
Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
I even highlighted the key word in this phrase, THINK, THINK, THINK. Thinking is not a fact for which you can base an argument, these scientists have not yet made a logical deduction based on the scientific method as to the causes for homosexuality.
lolol. Read the bold. ---------
Even so, I clicked on the "view more" for the rights and they listed less than 100, which 100<1138 in my book
Well, it's ONLY 100 FEDERAL RIGHTS! I mean, that group of people can go without 100 FEDERAL RIGHTS! Seriously, it doesn't matter how many they're denied, one is too many, and just because you are against it for some reason (you haven't provided a legal reason yet) does not mean that denying so many federal rights over our immaturity not to separate the Bible from our government is justified in any way.
I'm pretty sure the only argument against gay marriage is that the actual definition of the word is a union between a man and a woman. However, societally, language changes all of the time, I mean "son of a gun" meant a person born on the gun deck of a ship back in the American Revolution, and it obviously doesn't mean that anymore because it is no longer societally relevant. So, one could make the argument that as time goes by and language evolves, marriage could include those of the same gender within its definition.
We live in a democratic republic, if the majority of the people within a given population vote on a matter and decide that they want one thing, despite its implications upon the minority, that should be law. My mom and my brother are both gay as I have mentioned before and we often talk about how there should be a compromise. If a civil union would allow for the same status as a married couple they would be okay with it. Then those people that bring the "sanctity of marriage" argument (which of course is a religious argument and shouldn't go into policy making at all) could be happy that their word wasn't being tainted.
We live in a democratic republic, if the majority of the people within a given population vote on a matter and decide that they want one thing,
well the ideal is that everyone should be accepted into American society. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men (and women) are created equal. And to formulate this equality we have to allow people to do what they want as long as it does not harm another individual. The main reason why people think Gay marriage is ok is because it does not harm anyone, and nobody is really affected when a gay couple marry.
I can't stand this! This is a disgrace to NH and any other state . Hey I have an idea !! We can make an island called " The GAY and PROUD Island of America"! Calm down , calm down you democrat fantics , im just kidding = + )
But any way I don't agree with NH's decsion at all.
Essentially that has been what these past 4 pages have been on, I do not agree with homosexuality. Yes, marriage for homosexuals should not be legalized, can't say it much clearer than that :s
Then you further acknowledge that in a single phrase I have demonstrated that you are supporting social inequality through discrimination but are not able to address this specific point. Further to this I assert that you are unable to hold a consistent position unless you admit this yourself.
And as for norms, don't even start on normative arguments for moral stances or I will blow you away with reductio ad absurdem. Well, actually, everybody could be forgiven to attempting to use a normative argument at least once but after that you will get crushed by any person with decent reasoning capacities.
Consider this: Norms change because the criteria on which one defines a norm also changes. In particular, we are moving towards a norm where "rationality" and "evidence-based policy" prevails, and it is proving, on an empirical level, to be a ground that people who hold certain beliefs (particularly moral conservatives) struggle on. You may protest against New Hampshire legalising same-sex marriage but that we are discussing an event that has already occured is the clearest evidence of our current directions. In short, the normative tide has turned against those who are most fond of using such arguments. Ironic, isn't it.
You may not like this development but you will realise that your stance is now socially limited. Short of the entire scientific and medical world being discredited or the apocalypse coming, what we will almost certainly witness those who revise their positions, those who stubbornly cling to it, in the process disfavouring themselves by demonstrating their lack of reasonableness, and those who will resentfully nurse their views, away from the public sphere, now cast into the shadows as they once may have previously done to the subjects of their judgement.
Ummm... thanks for pointing that out, don't know why anyone would care though... and if you remember in the past minorities were arrested for the smallest of things, therefore it wouldn't surprise me if in some backwater town two guys were arrested for something like public indecency and other misdemeanors.
Ibex, all you're doing is trying to trivialise the pro homosexual sides arguments. You're providing non to actually back up your side. And so, while our side may seem weak. This makes yours even weaker.
As Firefox asked a few pages ago. Please, logically explain without bringing religion or morality into your argument why homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry. Also, an explanination into why it's so unnatural yet animals do it too would be very helpful.
P.S. Your views make me vomit in my mouth a little bit every time I read them.
I personally have no problem with same-sex marriage. I feel that all states that have taken the step towards legalizing same-sex marriage show a progressive, open mindedness that we all can benefit from. If I recall it correctly Vermont and Maine will be the next two states to legalize same-sex marriage in September of this year.
I think these are signs that the United States is taking a step to more liberal country, and there is nothing wrong with the equality of opportunity.
he problem that most people have with it is that they either think its sinful (Whatever happened to separation of church and state?) <- That's a load of BS by the way there is no such thing. Or they're worried it'll turn their children gay, seriously the parents job is to raise and care for their children the sexuality of said child is not up to them.
(Whatever happened to separation of church and state?)
Governmental acknowledgement of any marriage is violation of the separation of the church and state. The whole issue of supposed homosexual marriage does nothing but further embed religion into politics.
How? Because the govt. requires a marriage certificate to actually regard you as husband and wife, the whole wedding is just a big party to celebrate getting a certificate.
