The number one reason why Same-sex Marriage should absolutely be allowed.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Without a Constitutional amendment the Federal government can't force gay marriage on the states. KC_Hokie

But that was not the point I was getting at.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Not really. There's already the due process and equal protection clause.

But that was not the point I was getting at.

-Sun_Tzu-

Obama: I Support Gay Marriage But Am Ok With States Banning It

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The Federal government trying to force gay marriage on the states would be unconstitutional. Obama even admitted it was a state issue. He won't try for any federal legislation either because he knows without a Constitutional amendment it would be a waste of time. KC_Hokie

Obama: I Support Gay Marriage But Am Ok With States Banning It

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Did you even read my post? Just repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make you any less wrong. There's already the due process and equal protection clauses. It would not be difficult at all to create a constitutional basis for federal legislation that legalizes gay marriage. That's why conservatives want a constitutional amendment that prohibits gay marriage in the first place, because it makes it that much harder to legalize it. -Sun_Tzu-

Obama: I Support Gay Marriage But Am Ok With States Banning It

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]lol...no

Obama: I Support Gay Marriage But Am Ok With States Banning It

KC_Hokie

The Federal government forcing gay marriage on all states would be authoritative and excessive. KC_Hokie

Yes and war is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The Federal government forcing gay marriage on all states would be authoritative and excessive. -Sun_Tzu-

Yes and war is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

So then you oppose Obama's stance? KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]So then you oppose Obama's stance? -Sun_Tzu-

Ehh, I'm fine with them having the choice of being married, but they cannot force a religious group who might not agree with homosexuality to bless them.hiphops_savior

Neither can heterosexuals. Non-issue.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]How is preserving states' rights 'authoritative'? KC_Hokie

So you're ok with states limiting the rights of individuals?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Because you are giving the power of state governments precedent over the rights of individuals. There's nothing intrinsically libertarian about state governments. worlock77

So you're ok with states limiting the rights of individuals?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Libertarians believe in limited government. The Federal government forcing gay marriage on all states would be authoritative and excessive. On top of that unconstitutional. KC_Hokie

So you're ok with states limiting the rights of individuals?

Swell. Now address the actual question.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

So you're ok with states limiting the rights of individuals?

worlock77

Swell. Now address the actual question.

Which one do I favor? States rights.

And even Obama acknowledged this.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Laws should be made at the state level whenever possible. What is right for Vermont or Alaska may not be right or wanted in Texas or West Virginia, for example.KC_Hokie

Swell. Now address the actual question.

Which one do I favor? States rights.

And even Obama acknowledged this.

You keep talking, yet you don't actually address the question I asked.

Yes or no. Are you in favor of states passing laws that restrict the rights and liberties of individuals?

Allowing same-sex marriage would mean more work for catering services
So when you're against same sex marriage, you're against economic stimulation
and When you're against economic stimulation, you're against America
And when you're against America,
You're a communist.

SaintWalrus

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

Allowing same-sex marriage would mean more work for catering services
So when you're against same sex marriage, you're against economic stimulation
and When you're against economic stimulation, you're against America
And when you're against America,
You're a communist.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

Allowing same-sex marriage would mean more work for catering services
So when you're against same sex marriage, you're against economic stimulation
and When you're against economic stimulation, you're against America
And when you're against America,
You're a communist.

whipassmt

No, since sexuality is not a protected status. Unless it's on legally protected grounds a business may refuse service to anyone for any reason at all.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Swell. Now address the actual question.

worlock77

Which one do I favor? States rights.

And even Obama acknowledged this.

You keep talking, yet you don't actually address the question I asked.

Yes or no. Are you in favor of states passing laws that restrict the rights and liberties of individuals?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]At the state level issues like gay marriage are on the ballot for everyone vote on vs. the Federal government with politicians in Washington forcing laws upon the states.

Which one do I favor? States rights.

And even Obama acknowledged this.

KC_Hokie

You keep talking, yet you don't actually address the question I asked.

Yes or no. Are you in favor of states passing laws that restrict the rights and liberties of individuals?

Then you should stop calling yourself a libertarian, because you're not actually one.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

You keep talking, yet you don't actually address the question I asked.

Yes or no. Are you in favor of states passing laws that restrict the rights and liberties of individuals?

worlock77

Then you should stop calling yourself a libertarian, because you're not actually one.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

Allowing same-sex marriage would mean more work for catering services
So when you're against same sex marriage, you're against economic stimulation
and When you're against economic stimulation, you're against America
And when you're against America,
You're a communist.

worlock77

No, since sexuality is not a protected status. Unless it's on legally protected grounds a business may refuse service to anyone for any reason at all.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

Allowing same-sex marriage would mean more work for catering services
So when you're against same sex marriage, you're against economic stimulation
and When you're against economic stimulation, you're against America
And when you're against America,
You're a communist.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Actually though if the state recognizes gay marriages that means that catering services, banquet halls, florists, photographers, and others in the wedding business, if they refuse to participate in a gay wedding for moral or religious reasons, (i.e. the photographer saying he won't photograph a gay wedding) can be sued for discrimination.

whipassmt

Besides this is a completely non-related issue.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Would you have no problem if he refused to cater for a interracial couple?

toast_burner

Besides this is a completely non-related issue.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] If those are his beliefs, he shouldn't be coerced into going against them. I would have a problem with the government penalizing him for acting in accordance with his conscience.

whipassmt

Besides this is a completely non-related issue.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Actually though if the state recognizes gay marriages that means that catering services, banquet halls, florists, photographers, and others in the wedding business, if they refuse to participate in a gay wedding for moral or religious reasons, (i.e. the photographer saying he won't photograph a gay wedding) can be sued for discrimination.

whipassmt

No, since sexuality is not a protected status. Unless it's on legally protected grounds a business may refuse service to anyone for any reason at all.

1 state. Exactly 1 state: New York.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Actually though if the state recognizes gay marriages that means that catering services, banquet halls, florists, photographers, and others in the wedding business, if they refuse to participate in a gay wedding for moral or religious reasons, (i.e. the photographer saying he won't photograph a gay wedding) can be sued for discrimination.

whipassmt

So you'd be cool with a business refusing to serve Christians?

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, since sexuality is not a protected status. Unless it's on legally protected grounds a business may refuse service to anyone for any reason at all.

worlock77

1 state. Exactly 1 state: New York.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Would you have no problem if he refused to cater for a interracial couple?

worlock77

So you'd be cool with a business refusing to serve Christians?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] If those are his beliefs, he shouldn't be coerced into going against them. I would have a problem with the government penalizing him for acting in accordance with his conscience.

whipassmt

So you'd be cool with a business refusing to serve Christians?

[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"]Ehh, I'm fine with them having the choice of being married, but they cannot force a religious group who might not agree with homosexuality to bless them.worlock77

Neither can heterosexuals. Non-issue.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

So you'd be cool with a business refusing to serve Christians?

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"]Ehh, I'm fine with them having the choice of being married, but they cannot force a religious group who might not agree with homosexuality to bless them.whipassmt

Neither can heterosexuals. Non-issue.

Again this has got nothing to do with why same sex marriage should/shouldn't be allowed.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]OK, but under current law that would be illegal (this might different where you're from). So I have no idea why you're singling out gays on this.

Besides this is a completely non-related issue.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Neither can heterosexuals. Non-issue.

toast_burner

Again this has got nothing to do with why same sex marriage should/shouldn't be allowed.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Not true. There was a Church in New Jersey that was penalized for not allowing a gay-couple to celebrate their civil union on the Church's property.

whipassmt

Again this has got nothing to do with why same sex marriage should/shouldn't be allowed.

I'm sure similar things have happened to other people. And some people take any oppotunity they get to sue something.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]under current law, what would be illegal, not catering to an inter-racial wedding? Than I would say that such a law is misguided and impinges on people's freedoms.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"]Ehh, I'm fine with them having the choice of being married, but they cannot force a religious group who might not agree with homosexuality to bless them.whipassmt

Neither can heterosexuals. Non-issue.

"The dispute began when the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association stopped the couple from using its boardwalk pavilion, an area it rented out for weddings.

Administrative Law Judge Solomon Metzger wrote in yesterday?s ruling that the pavilion was a public space that advertised itself as a wedding venue without any mention of religious preconditions.

He rejected the church?s contention that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry, noting that weddings had been performed at the pavilion for at least 10 years before the dispute arose and that there was no proof that couples, ?particularly those that chose secular vows, or that were of other faiths, were ever told that they were participating in a ministry.?"

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Neither can heterosexuals. Non-issue.

worlock77

"The dispute began when the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association stopped the couple from using its boardwalk pavilion, an area it rented out for weddings.

Administrative Law Judge Solomon Metzger wrote in yesterday?s ruling that the pavilion was a public space that advertised itself as a wedding venue without any mention of religious preconditions.

He rejected the church?s contention that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry, noting that weddings had been performed at the pavilion for at least 10 years before the dispute arose and that there was no proof that couples, ?particularly those that chose secular vows, or that were of other faiths, were ever told that they were participating in a ministry.?"

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]So? I'm sure there are some churches that got sued for not allowing some straight couples to marry.

Again this has got nothing to do with why same sex marriage should/shouldn't be allowed.

toast_burner

I'm sure similar things have happened to other people. And some people take any oppotunity they get to sue something.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]So you say gay marriage shouldn't be allowed to prevent this situation, then why aren't you also opposed to interracial marriage?

toast_burner

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Not true. There was a Church in New Jersey that was penalized for not allowing a gay-couple to celebrate their civil union on the Church's property.

whipassmt

"The dispute began when the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association stopped the couple from using its boardwalk pavilion, an area it rented out for weddings.

Administrative Law Judge Solomon Metzger wrote in yesterday?s ruling that the pavilion was a public space that advertised itself as a wedding venue without any mention of religious preconditions.

He rejected the church?s contention that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry, noting that weddings had been performed at the pavilion for at least 10 years before the dispute arose and that there was no proof that couples, ?particularly those that chose secular vows, or that were of other faiths, were ever told that they were participating in a ministry.?"

No, it would have been better off not presenting its non-church side business as a secular, non-church business.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] That isn't my main contention with gay marriage". I was responding to the TC's argument that state recognition of same-sex marriage would be good for caterers since it would lead to more weddings, by saying that it could also leave some caterers (and others in the wedding business) in a situation where they could be penalized for refusing to participate in a wedding that would violate their moral or religious beliefs.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] That isn't my main contention with gay marriage". I was responding to the TC's argument that state recognition of same-sex marriage would be good for caterers since it would lead to more weddings, by saying that it could also leave some caterers (and others in the wedding business) in a situation where they could be penalized for refusing to participate in a wedding that would violate their moral or religious beliefs.

whipassmt

All amorous relationships are private things.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Then what is your main concern with same sex marriage?

worlock77

All amorous relationships are private things.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

"The dispute began when the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association stopped the couple from using its boardwalk pavilion, an area it rented out for weddings.

Administrative Law Judge Solomon Metzger wrote in yesterday?s ruling that the pavilion was a public space that advertised itself as a wedding venue without any mention of religious preconditions.

He rejected the church?s contention that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry, noting that weddings had been performed at the pavilion for at least 10 years before the dispute arose and that there was no proof that couples, ?particularly those that chose secular vows, or that were of other faiths, were ever told that they were participating in a ministry.?"

worlock77

No, it would have been better off not presenting its non-church side business as a secular, non-church business.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Then what is your main concern with same sex marriage?

toast_burner

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] That it is not marriage. Marriage is a public union. Homosexual amorous relationships are private things.

whipassmt

What about infertile couples or couples who simply don't want kids?