"life, liberty and the pursuit of happines." Why then aren't monogamous homosexuals allowed to marry, if it is part of their "pursuit of happiness?" This argument was last used in Loving v. Virginia (1967), and it made inter-racial marriage legal. So, it should be only a matter of time before the same scenario will play out for gays, right? And why are people so afraid of gays marrying...how will it hurt YOU personally?
2006-12-18 07:40:48 · 24 answers · asked by ♥austingirl♥ 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It has worked in other court cases...so apparently it is legal enough.
2006-12-18 07:46:27 · update #1
Allie...it is a question...notice the question marks? The statements preceding those are called questions...enough of a grammar lesson for today.
2006-12-18 07:48:14 · update #2
You are right. What can I say. The US government and the States are not allowing the rights of individuals, just as they did with slaves and women.
Not fair by any means
What is fair for one should be fair for all.
2006-12-18 07:42:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Like many have already stated: the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. If it were, then abortion would be illegal (life), taxation would be illegal (liberty to use my own money), and child molestation would not be illegal (it makes the molester happy).
Homosexuality is a behavior, and therefore subject to be governed by rules and laws like all behavior. How does my neighbor's domestic abuse hurt me personally? It doesn't, but there is still a law against it because society has deemed it a bad behavior.
You may not think that homosexuality is a bad behavior, and you are welcome to your opinion. All you have to do is get a majority of Americans to agree with you, and vote with you. That is how Democracy works. Trying to use the court system to force your views on people is not Democracy. Especially using the Declaration of Independence which has no legal standing.
Personally, I think homosexuality is a bad behavior, and should not be encouraged. There is no other life form that engages in it, so even if you aren't religious, that should tell you it isn't right. And it would hurt me personally by further demeaning the institution of marriage. With the ridiculous divorce rate it is almost meaningless now, but allowing homosexuals to marry would further degrade it. And if homosexuals can marry, then why not 3 people, or 4 people, or a person and dog, or anything? If it's not a man and a wife, then it's nothing.
2006-12-18 16:11:16 · answer #2 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
People are not "afraid" of gay people marrying.
The main issue in the gay marriage debate is the legal definition of marriage. The "traditional" definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.
In legal terms, if a man was able to marry a man or a woman was able to marry a woman, the next argument and step in the argument would be polygamy.
If I could marry a man and change the definition of marriage, why should the legal system stop me from marrying two or three women? Or even five or six under-age girls?
Gay marriage sets a dangerous legal trend.
2006-12-18 16:46:39 · answer #3 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you'd be surprised how few people would be opposed to an official recognition of gay unions. Polls answer the questions that polls ask. My suspicion is that the main opposition to "gay marriage" has nothing at all to do with gays.
The problem is that many object to Orwellian Newspeak. Gay marriage is not and cannot, on biologic grounds, be the same as traditional marriage. To change the laws to make gay marriage legal has a greater impact in changing the definition of traditional marriage; that is, allowing a gay couple to marry changes tens or hundreds of traditional marriages without the permission of that larger group. A separate but equivalent status would, I suspect, generate much less resistance.
2006-12-18 16:13:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your argument begs the question, why was Charlie Manson put behind bars. He was obviously pursuing his happiness. The pursuit of happiness is not an unlimited right. There are laws that are based on the common culture. Just because some people don't agree with that culture doesn't mean that we have to change them.
It is against the law for a woman to marry her brother, or her father. Some people I am sure object to that. We have laws against multiple marriage in this country.
Homosexuality is considered abnormal in our culture. I am sure that there is a country somewhere that homosexuality is considered normal. Perhaps that is where you should go.
How does it hurt me? Our society is based on the traditional family. Children are less likely to be involved in crime when they come from a traditional two-parent (man and woman) family. You may not agree with than, but statistically, it is a fact. Most people are not ready to further fragment our society to cater to the desires of a small minority.
2006-12-18 16:07:00 · answer #5 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Austin girl i agree completely i am sort of religious and i don't agree with it but they should legally be able to marry just like everybody else the reason why homosexuals cant marry is because bush is a homophobe.
The reason why people are afraid is unclear to me as well
there has been a lot of religious conspirators saying that the Apocalypse is coming i hope i answered your question
2006-12-18 15:56:41 · answer #6 · answered by golferdude987 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
People molesting their children doesn't hurt me personally, either, but if the standard for opposing something in society was only that it has to affect a member personally, then nothing would be illegal or considered wrong. Likewise, the pursuit of happiness is not limitless, as life and liberty are also bounded by government (death penalty, abortion, rules on shouting fire in a crowded theatre, etc as examples).
2006-12-18 15:56:07 · answer #7 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
"This argument was last used in Loving v. Virginia (1967), and it made inter-racial marriage legal."
You're missing a major distinction.
Loving v. Virginia involved a man and a woman. The differences were skin color.
Homosexual marriage involves REDEFINING what marriage is.
Also the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. While it might shed light on the intent of the Founders when they drafted the COnstitution, it is not itself a legal document.
2006-12-18 15:50:17 · answer #8 · answered by C = JD 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because the declaration of independence is not a legal document providing rights to citizens in America. Only the Constitution and the laws made thereunder are operative legal documents. The DoI may demonstrate the purpose or the "Framers' Intent" for some clauses, such as the Equal Protection Clause, or the Due Process Clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, but it itself can't be a basis to require a state to allow gay marriage.
And no, if you read Loving v. Virginia, the Court is not HOLDING that a ban on interracial marriage is unconstitutional based on the Declaration of Independence. It may be cited, but that's not the basis of the ruling.
2006-12-18 15:44:08 · answer #9 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Gays want to marry for the benefits of marriage, such as SSI and medical benefits for spouses, etc. With gay marriage the SSI will deplete earlier than before and insurance costs will rise. Personally I could care less since I am set, but for all those who are not I can understand why they would be opposed for these reasons. For moral reasons it is not for me to say since I don't think the government should legislate morality.
2006-12-18 15:51:02 · answer #10 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Constitution is the law of the land not the Declaration of Independence.
The damage is done to our children. Giving gays the same rights as marriage will give them the ability to adopt (of course they will not reproduce on their own.) We should be a society that encourages the Father and Mother relationships rather not trapple them underfoot.
I simply think a child needs a Father and Mother. It's the ideal scenario and it's what should be encouraged (even if it's not always acheived).
2006-12-18 15:50:37 · answer #11 · answered by Josh 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋