@RedWingsI am just curious, in the past 10 years, the opposition to
SSM has waned very fast, but the support to abortion right has not increased,
some even argue decreased in young people, why is that? Why they selectively
agree with the media? Is it possible that more and more people finally realize
there is no convincing rationale to against SSM?It was not right to
deny same sex couples' right to marriage 10 years ago, it is not right
either 10 years later.The difference is that more and more American people
get it now.
USU-Logan:The idea that 70 - 80% of young people support gay
marriage has much nore to do with the propaganda machine that the LGBT use than
being a true measure of morality.Young people are far more
influenced by media, friends, celebrities they look up to, etc. Easy pickings
for a really good marketer.Funny how when the majority opposed SSM
they were wrong, and now that the majority support SSM they are right.
@firstamendmentYour arguments seem plausible.But
majority of American people, who support the same sex couples marriage right,
disagree with you.70-80% American young people, disagree with you.30+ different court opinions disagree with you. In fact, since last year,
there has not been even a single federal court agrees with you.
This Judge is taking American freedoms. People no longer have a right to
effectively vote or even have a real voice on this critical issue. There is no
reason for our governments to involve themselves in promoting homosexuality.
Gays are free to vote, work, do what they want together, and so on. If there is
discrimination in the workplace etc., in gay bars (Black, Asian, overweight, and
other gays are routinely discriminated against in gay bars (some are still
segregated, some won't hire Blacks, some make Blacks go to the end of the
line etc)) etc. then there are laws against that (but, now days, it seems
liberals&gays make the rules, and thus feel they are above the rules-
it's Orwell's "Animal Farm"). Associating
homosexuality with the Civil Rights movement is shameful, it's offensive to
many of us, especially those who had slave ancestors. It has nothing to do with
that. It's sexuality, gays are FREE.MARRIAGE, on the other
hand, legally sanctions, upholds, and enforces relationships that are crucial
for the survival of Humanity. Homosexual relationships need not be enforced.
And, honest research shows that promoting homosexuality is harmful for our
@Mikhail;States ONLY started passing these amendments once LGBT
citizens started asking for equal treatment under the law.You're really trying to pass off a falsehood when you say that these
amendments weren't specifically designed to prevent LGBT citizens from
marrying.There is a scripture somewhere to the effect that liars
will be heading to hell and not heaven. If you're really religious, you
out to be worried.
@MikhailHere is Florida Amendment 2Inasmuch as marriage is the
legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal
union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be
valid or recognized.It is the same thing as Amendment 3, it bans gay
marriage and civil union.You can argue it also bans polygamy. But
when the state legislature passed the amendment, did any congressman argue that
the purpose of such amendment was to prevent polygamy? NO, they made it very
clear that their original intention was to ban gay marriage.
@USU-LoganNo, it doesn't answer the question, because Amendment
3 would also ban many other types of marriages and does not single out
"gay" marriage. Again, how does that definition (and we are assuming
that the Florida law was worded the same as Amendment 3) "ban"
something. The word "ban" seems to be political in nature, since it is
used exclusively to refer to same-sex marriages, while excluding polygamous,
polyandrous, cross-species, etc. domestic unions or marriages in the discussion.
@MikhailSomeone please explain to us how "definition of marriage"
is equal to, or the same as, "ban on gay marriage."Please
read Amendment 3. 1. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a
man and a woman.2. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be
recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal
effect.The 2nd part clearly bans same sex couple to marry. Not only
that, even civil union is not allowed, even if recent DN survey showed majority
of Utahns support civil union.Does this answer your "ban on gay
@Vanceone"You know, you would think the left would not like all of
this. Abortion was rammed down the countries throat in the 70's by judges.
Tell me, 40 years later, is abortion a topic we all agree one? "It's also been around 40 years since Loving vs Virginia, and interracial
marriage has gone from around 25% support back then to 85% now. The courts have
a duty to strike down unconstitutional provisions. I'm not going to support
keeping something unconstitutional and immoral around just because getting rid
of it would make some people upset.
@VanceoneFirst of all, try to compare abortion with SSM is like
comparing apple with orange. After 40 years of Roe, people are still split
on this issue, like in the 70s. But for SSM, general public have already
evolved from strongly against, to generally support in less than 20 years. Among
young people, 70-80% support SSM. A national consensus is building up.Second of all, if you don’t believe in gay marriage, no one will force
you to marry someone of same gender.No company will fire you because you
oppose SSM.Even someone like the CEO of Mozilla and his anti-marriage
equality stance causes customers boycott the company's product, he can
still choose whether to stay or not. Although the company also have their right
to let him go. It is not about religious freedom, it is about business. Money
@Really???: Worf can't explain how his/her freedoms are being eroded
because they aren't. I would respect people like Worf's position much
more (I still wouldn't agree but would respect the honesty) if they would
just be honest and admit why they really oppose SSM and stop hiding behind
worf says:"What's unconstitutional is how this country is
being controlled, and our freedoms are being eroded."--- Ironic
coming from someone trying to *erode* someone else's freedom to marry whom
they choose.@Liberty For All;Until the US becomes a
theocracy, your "lord" has no say in our laws and is 100% irrelevant.@Mikhail;Defining marriage as ONLY 1 man 1 woman isno
different than saying "people of the same sex may not marry one
another?" @Vanceone;I apologize that someone is
trying to *force* you to marry someone of your own gender. Please send them to
me and I'll set them straight for you (pun intended). I also offer you my
condolences that you need to treat LGBT people like you want to be treated; but,
wasn't that what your god told you to do anyway?@george of the
jungle ;"I just don't like that someone [ a citizen] can
have their rights voted away by the people." Please take a civics and
government class; they'll explain to you the role of the judiciary.
I just don't like that someone [ a judge] can change what has been voted on
by the people. I don't think that we all agree to live in a world that. Not
@worf,Please explain how your freedoms are being eroded with this
ruling. What can you no longer do that you used to be able to do because of
this? These rulings actually bring more freedom. You are still free to reject
the idea of participating in a same-sex marriage.
Vanceone said: "You know, you would think the left would not like all of
this. Abortion was rammed down the countries throat in the 70's by judges.
Tell me, 40 years later, is abortion a topic we all agree one? "I don't know is there a religion we all agree with?Than
it's probably better left to those who use the constitution as a guide,
instead of one of many, many, religious texts which are hardly consistent or
agree with each other......and your quite right Bob.
VanceoneProvo, UT"Now the left is trying to force gay marriage,
and the corresponding "If you don't do whatever a gay wants, society
should cast you out and make you a pariah enforced by governmental wrath!"
down us again."--- No! You are being forced to do nothing except
obey the law and stay out of other peoples' business. Do they
not think that people will revolt when they are told that being a Christian or
believing in God means you can be fired for having the wrong beliefs?--- No! You can -- and should be -- fired for spouting off your religious
beliefs at work. For one thing, it is terribly rude.Stop bringing up
the man who was not fired, but had to step down from leadership, because he gave
money to Prop 8, which nearly all of the young workers there consider to be a
hateful act? You cannot lead if most employees do not respect you.You cannot lead if most employees and stockholders feel that having a Prop 8
donor as CEO makes the company look terrible.If a boss at a company
in Utah was found to have donated to "remove the lds tax deduction" ?
You know, you would think the left would not like all of this. Abortion was
rammed down the countries throat in the 70's by judges. Tell me, 40 years
later, is abortion a topic we all agree one? Now the left is trying
to force gay marriage, and the corresponding "If you don't do whatever
a gay wants, society should cast you out and make you a pariah enforced by
governmental wrath!" down us again. Do they not think that
people will revolt when they are told that being a Christian or believing in God
means you can be fired for having the wrong beliefs?
Someone please explain to us how "definition of marriage" is equal to,
or the same as, "ban on gay marriage." Does the Florida law actually
say something like "people of the same sex may not marry one another?"
Saying that a law "bans" something seems to imply an inherent belief
that it prevents something - rather than defines something. If a law defines
"milk" as something that comes from a cow, does such a definition
"ban" goat's milk?
A judge can never change the Lord's commandments of what is right and what
is morally wrong.
State Judges in Florida have come to the same conclusion. I wouldn't be
surprised if the State did not appeal.
What's unconstitutional is how this country is being controlled, and our
freedoms are being eroded.