Nerdfighters

So Washington is going to be the 7th state to legalize gay marriage. I think that's cool, people should be able to do whatever makes them happy...
However, wasn't our whole government founded on a separation between The Church and The State? In my opinion marriage is a religious thing therefore The State should have no part in it, period. This should be completely up to the religion he/she belong to and if their church will allow it. It is of my opinion NO ONE should be able or allowed to FORCE their opinions onto others. So if that religion or church doesn't allow it, find a new one... 

So what I'm saying is why wasn't this allowed in the first place and who thought that they should overwrite the constitution? I mean I get that they think that they are helping our society or whatever, but as humans we are going to do what we want to do no matter what and don't we have a right to be happy?

Anyways do you think the government should be a part of this?

Tags: bisexual, church, gay, government, marriage, policy, state., the, transexual, transgender

Views: 652

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Nowhere in the constitution does it say there is a separation of church and state, so nobody is overwriting the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." -First Amendment of the United States Constitution

One could draw the conclusion that a small minority of religious zealots and conservatives are against gay marriage, because the only argument against it is that they feel it is morally wrong.  While I may think playing Justin Bieber in a public setting is morally wrong I can't legally do anything about it because that would be absurd.  

As for gay marriage damaging the economy, I can't think of any reason why it would be.  The legalization of gay marriage has been predicted to pump millions of dollars into the economy.  

Also if one wants to keep a more orthodox perspective on the subject, they have the comfort of knowing that the number of marriages will increase.   The amount of couples deciding to get married has dropped to an all-time low, with couples choosing to live together instead of exchanging vows to one another.  Wouldn't someone with more traditional views rather have two people in love to be married, instead of living in sin?  

Wouldn't someone with more traditional views rather have two people in love to be married, instead of living in sin? 



I don't think you quite understand. Reading the bible, you see homosexual physical acts are sins. Therefore, homosexual marriage is using a religious originated institution to glorify what is to them a sin. That's why they don't like it. 

Well then shouldn't churches, not the government, ban homosexual marriage?  If the government followed the laws of the bible exactly we would not have football, tattoos, polyester, or gold jewelry. 

You are quoting the Old Covenant there, which Jesus abolished. The church should, and indeed does, in most cases, not support gay marriage. However the state is putting it up alongside hetrosexual marriage, and to me and many others of my opinion, that is wrong. It is taking an institution made by God and turning it into something that supports what God said was wrong.

Here we are!  Let me give you a scenario; I did not go to church this Sunday.  I decided I would have rather stayed in bed.  You and many others of your opinion may think that was morally wrong, but does that give me a legal obligation to go to church on Sunday?  Of course not.  The government must not blend church and state.  

   "It is taking an institution made by God and turning it into something that supports what God said was wrong." 

Some Buddhists and Quakers would disagree with this statement.  Your belief system is not the only one on this earth, please take that into consideration. 

  I have nothing further to discuss concerning this topic, because I really don't think there is anything left to argue about.  This seems to be a very touchy subject for religious people, as they are so fiercely against it.  If one feels so strongly they can not be convinced by any logic. 

  I suppose no two people see religion entirely alike.  I don't think God would ever condemn a couple for loving one another.  That would make God a hypocrite, and I do not believe that God is a hypocrite. 

"whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. " - Matthew 7:12

 

 

Here we are!  Let me give you a scenario; I did not go to church this Sunday.  I decided I would have rather stayed in bed.  You and many others of your opinion may think that was morally wrong, but does that give me a legal obligation to go to church on Sunday?  Of course not.  The government must not blend church and state


But with introducing gay marriage, the government IS blending church and state. IE it is taking a tradition originally created by the church and then twisting it to be something entirely else. It isn't fair.

If one feels so strongly they can not be convinced by any logic.



Do not patronise. You are equally intransigent. Why do you have a monopoly on "logic".

Some Buddhists and Quakers would disagree with this statement.  Your belief system is not the only one on this earth, please take that into consideration.


I agree, but in a democracy, the majority should be listened to and in many states in the US, the majority do not believe in Gay marriage, and as such, that should be listened to.

I suppose no two people see religion entirely alike.  I don't think God would ever condemn a couple for loving one another.  That would make God a hypocrite, and I do not believe that God is a hypocrite.


How exactly would it make God a hypocrite?

Are you arguing that marriage didn't exist before Christianity (to whit, Christians 'invented' marriage)? Because that's demonstrably false.

No it isn't. Christians would believe marriage was instituted in Eden. It would be difficult to prove it was around before then.

I am arguing the latter, but also am arguing that from a purely secular POV, gay marriage is not a good idea. It would be a state investment they would see little in the way of return on.

You constantly mention the economic argument (do you have other arguments, apart from this economic state benefit stuff and what the bible says?), but as a Dutchman I've never heard any politician ever mention gay marriage being a bad investment. Especially in this times of crisis you'd think that if this was really a big factor then they would've spoken about it right?

A simple Google search on the terms "gay marriage economy" gives me a full front page of news reports that a study by the Williams Institute at UCLA showed that gay marriage in fact boosted Iowa's economy by $ 12 million and that this boost added $ 850,000 - 930,000 in tax revenue (source). Please explain to me then how it's a state investment with little or no returns?

Please also remember that homosexuals are a minority of about 2-13% (estimate based on a plethora of studies) and that if it would be a bad investment, it would only be a relatively small and controlled one.

As for New York state the Independent Democratic Conference estimates an increase of more than $ 391 million in economic activity, revenue, and savings during the following three years (source).

If Washington state legalises, an estimated $ 88 million economic boost during the first three years, by the Williams Institute (source).

Bad investment eh? Of course you could derp about long-term effects on the state's economy... But there's just no real numbers for that and therefore it's really hard to say anything at all about that. At least there couldn't be any numbers longer than an 11 year span since the Netherlands were first to legalise gay marriage on 1 April 2001 (no jokes). Let me see if I can find some numbers on that....

the bottom line is that marriage was, yes associated with religion back thousands of years ago when the majority of people belonged to some form of religion

however in contemporary society marriage can be entered into under state laws; thus contemporary marriage is not associated with any religious denomination

there are over one thousand rights associated with marriage; that being said, when two men or two women are not allowed to be married, they are not merely denied (what many would argue) a sacred bond that heterosexual couples are allowed to share, but also every protective right associated with marriage

because marriage equality still does not exist in most states, homosexual couples are denied rights associated with marriage such as spouse immigration rights, visitation rights in hospitals, tax breaks, adoption, and a WHOLE HOST of other rights

So yes, I agree that marriage USED TO be a religious institution but because today it is possible to walk down to your local courthouse and sign a piece of paper that grants you all those rights; or after having lived with a person of the opposite gender for seven years you are considered to be in a common law marriage, today marriage is a STATE institution

separation of church and state ought to be recognized for what it truly is in this nation; and yet, people and politicians choose to ignore this simple principle

Oh hey Verty, got some more numbers for you.

Homosexual marriages are not able to produce children. Ever.

Ever? Ok, sex will not give them babies; they'll need some help, as do heterosexual couples with fertility problems.

You do realise that scientists have managed to create baby mice using the genetic material from two mice ova? Granted, it takes a bit of a de-tour and a whole lot of work as of yet. But this shows that it is in a way possible to create babies using the genetic material of two females. I'd say give it another ten years and we'll be able to do similar stuff for human couples. As for male same-sex couples, they'll need a rental womb, but heterosexual couples where the female has a malfunctioning womb will need that as well.

...

Still, it's all minorities with an estimated 2-13% of the population being gay and all, and they're not all going to get married, mind you. According to ABC news (sauce) approximately 51% of adults (18 and older) are married. If this is representative for the marriage rates expected with same-sex couples we would find that 1-6.5% of the total population is to be expected to consist of gay married people if they are allowed to get married.

An estimated 10% of women is have trouble getting or staying pregnant, but they don't state percentages on causes (from the male or female side) of these troubles. Male infertility is the sole, or a contributing, factor in about 40% of infertility in couples (sauce) and this sauce says that about 10% of couples of childbearing age have fertility problems. Let's assume that the 10% infertility rate estimate is correct and that it's the same for married and unmarried couples, and let's say the whole population. In that case we'll find that about 5.1% of the population exists of married couples with fertility problems. That's only counting the amount of people having trouble with having children. I don't know how much of the married population want children and how many of them don't want children.

So, my last paragraph covered heterosexual couples and fertility problems. Then we've to battle the last bit, couples who don't want children. In 1995 about 6.6% of women said to be childless by choice (source), this same source gives a 15% on infertile couples by the way.

If we were to count the homosexual married population as infertile couples, it would notch up the statistics to a maximum of 11.6% of the population being married couples with fertility problems. So that's about 1 in 10 of ALL the people, not too bad a deal I'd think.

Also, if same-sex marriage makes it easier for homosexuals to do things like adopting or fostering children, visiting one's significant other while in the hospital, being allowed to inherit the house in case of death of partner, and the financial benefits, then we can expect homosexual couples to raise quite an amount of children. There are enough statistics saying that homosexuals are as good parents as are heterosexual couples, so that's fine. Adopted and/or fostered children come from wrecked families, abusive or maltreating environments, childcare, and orphanages. All these situations, including orphanages, are detrimental to the child's upbringing compared to steady homes; being adopted is generally better than being put in an orphanage (not making empty claims here, if you want a source, tell me). What I'm trying to say is that the number of adopted children would go up if it's easier for homosexuals to marry and enjoy the benefits (let's call it benefits, since you're so fond of the term, not necessarily because I agree with the term) bestowed upon them. This raise would mean a raise in children with a good upbringing which has a positive effect later in life. I'd see that as a positive long-term effect which could well be translated into a positive economic effect; think less criminal behaviour, higher education levels, better jobs, spending more money, and all those kinds of things.

And oh of course, gay couples can arrange all those things through other procedures so they shouldn't complain. As was argued earlier by other people in this topic, it takes a damn lot more effort to arrange all these things which married people generally take for granted. Let's compare this with an unrelated topic, the amount of people donating organs. Here in the Netherlands you have to sign up to become an organ donor, in Belgium you are an organ donor unless you sign up NOT to be one. In the Netherlands there are very few organ donors and there's a great shortage of donors and donated organs. Belgium, on the other hand, has way fewer of these troubles. As a Dutchman you only have to sign one (digital) form, and whoops you're a donor. With it being so simple, you'd expect more people to be a donor right? Especially since more people have said that they're OK with donating organs than there are people who signed up for being a donor. So if only signing one form has such a big effect on these numbers, think of what kind of an effect it has for all the troubles gay people to arrange the things without the possibility of getting married.

If some thing's much work, then generally only the super-eager people are going to go through all the trouble to obtain it.

Long term, it is a cost, because the state is giving out the benefits of marriage without receiving any of the normal returns. Naturally there will be some inital boosts around change. The kinds of economic patterns to which I am referring are long term ones.

I'd like to see some numbers on that please, because now you're only hypothesizing about long-term effects on the economy. And yes, in my previous paragraphs I've been hypothesising too, but I'm you can see me basing my arguments on numbers and all the stuff. All I see you doing is saying "they can't have children, that's bad for the economy", without very much supporting this claim.

RSS

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service