I don’t understand why they can’t be married. I mean, a Church was every right to say, “Not in my Church”. But in a civil union that is equal to marriage in the eyes of the law? I can’t understand how that can be called “just”.
To me, it simply means that they are not as free as the rest of us. Everyone can get married…except the gays. Everyone can adopt a child…except the gays.
There is no other group that catches so much shit. And that is fine that it is damned by the Bible. But the Bible still is not US law! In a democracy, it does not make sense to me. Rip me apart as I’m sure someone will. But there is no moral precedence for denying these people equal rights in the eyes of the law.[/quote]
I completely agree with everything but “There is no other group that catches so much shit” only because that seems too general a statement to be true, but that’s a moot point.
I am married, but not in a church (yet). My wife and I eloped while in Virginia away from each of our families (mine in NY, hers in CA), and in her culture the man’s family pays for the wedding, in my culture the wife’s family does so we decided to pay the $35 ourselves.
I say “yet” because my wife still wants a church wedding and I’m going to give that to her once we can afford it.
Point is that we are legaly married, and the church had nothing to do with it. I think gay people should also have the same right to get married AND have it recognised by our Government.
It doesn’t matter if any church doesn’t allow it, they can feel free to start their own religion, unless that right has been taken away from them too…
To me, it simply means that they are not as free as the rest of us. Everyone can get married…except the gays. Everyone can adopt a child…except the gays.
…[/quote]
This is a key point.
Gay people can get married, the just marry someone of the opposite sex. It happens all the time.
Not allowing a man to marry a man is not discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is simply following the definition of marriage.
Gay people are wrongly discriminated against all the time. I just do not see the lack of gay marriage as discriminatory.
The more I think about it, the more strongly I am convinced that civil unions for those interested in them are the way to go. I would not limit these partnership agreements to gays or same sex partners either.
Why shouldn’t 2 asexual friends also have the same benefits? Why do we need to tie marriage/sex in with the legal issues at stake?
It’s obvious we’re getting nowhere on convincing each other of our side’s opinion…how about instead of man and man, we call them “butt-buddies?” Zeb, I don’t know why you say our side is offering only emotion as evidence when your evidence is pretty much your religion’s beliefs, that you’ve been indoctrinated to.
To me, it simply means that they are not as free as the rest of us. Everyone can get married…except the gays. Everyone can adopt a child…except the gays.
…
This is a key point.
Gay people can get married, the just marry someone of the opposite sex. It happens all the time.
Not allowing a man to marry a man is not discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is simply following the definition of marriage.
Gay people are wrongly discriminated against all the time. I just do not see the lack of gay marriage as discriminatory.
The more I think about it, the more strongly I am convinced that civil unions for those interested in them are the way to go. I would not limit these partnership agreements to gays or same sex partners either.
Why shouldn’t 2 asexual friends also have the same benefits? Why do we need to tie marriage/sex in with the legal issues at stake?[/quote]
I haven’t heard of very many/any asexual friends who are prepared to make a lifelong commitment to each other, consider each other ‘loves’, and who would seek to raise a family together. There, I’ve just taken sex out of the equation for you. Perhaps if there were two asexual friends who truly wanted to make a committment similar to marriage in all these congnizable aspects, they should also be allowed to have a civil union. But it doesn’t make too much sense to me.
Oky dokey, when did it become okay to exclude a portion of the population from freedoms that the rest enjoy because of bias?
Again, they have exactly the same rights I do. They can marry any willing member of the opposite sex, just as I can. I cannot marry a member of the same sex (or more precisely, if I do, that marraige wouldn’t be recognized)just as they cannot. How are their rights being violated?[/quote]
They can’t marry those they love, want to be with, and feel sexually attracted to. You can. You can say it’s wrong for them to be this way and say the law shouldn’t honor their wishes. But you can marry who you want. And they can’t. Some superficial rephrasing and misguided reframing does not change that fact.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
…Aaaaaaaaaaand here’s the fairly obvious follow-up: there ws no marriage before the old testament?
If you believe in the Bibles teachings and what it says in Genesis, there was no marriage prior to Genesis because there were no people.
[/quote]
That doesn’t mean that marriage didn’t exist outside of Christianity, which is what Lorisco implied when he wrote:
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The Christian religion is not dominating anything. It is only trying to maintain the dignity of the institution it created. [/quote]
Marriage was created by Christians? No other culture ever had the similar concept of marriage before Christianity?
There were a lot of people on the planet. Everyone who got hooked up had a Christian wedding? I’m truly interested.
I do know the Bible does not mention consensual, monogamous homosexual relationships.
Oh my…If the “act” of homosexuality is sin according to the Bible, and it is. Then what would ever make you or anyone else think that “monogamous” homosexual sex is acceptable within the Bible? That is one very poor piece of logic on your part!
The passages quoted by most anti-gay types are usually against prostitution, rape or exploitation, but are taken to condemn any and all types of homosexual relationships.
I think it’s pretty clear repeatedly that “one man is not to lie with another man.” And the same goes for women. I have listed the many passages. Most have nothing to do with prostitution.
Ultimately as to the question of what the Bible says or doesn’t say about homosexuality, my response is who gives a shit?
Nice of you to disrespect 2 billion Christians. And (most of) the 90% of Americans who believe in God.
I live in a secular democracy so it shouldn’t be an issue, even though soem folks are going to great lengths to make it so.
The secular democracy that you live in just voted down homosexual marriage in 11 states! I’m sure they did this for a myriad of reasons, one of course being the Bible.
It offends me to the core when others would use their religion for the sake of grave injustice…
Could be in your world there are no absolutes. However, there are absolutes with the majority of Americans. Whether you base them on Biblical teachings, personal core values, tradition or whatever. Most Americans by a wide margiin are against gay marriage. About 70% of the populations would feel a “grave injustice” if gay marriage were legalized.
By the way, this is one more thread by the pro gay marriage folks and still no solid reasons why gay marriage should be legalized. Simply more emotional tripe. I would think at this point there would be a long solid and reasonable list as to the merits of gay marriage. And to the many benefits it would provide the institution of marriage and our society.
The debate should never be “why not allow it?” It should always be “why allow it?”[/quote]
I see why you love the Bush administration so much, ZEB. They are just as unscrupulous and dishonest as you are. I’m a little creeped out by your obsession with me, though. Don’t you have a wife?
Let me don my haz-mat suit before I go any further.
First, let me be clear that I do not accept your interpretation of scripture. You have no facility with the languages and you have proven that your self-declared expertise on scripture is pretty much fraudulent. You didn’t even know about the many passages condoning slavery; it took me about five minutes to find the ones I posted.
Your claim that there are many passages in the Bible condemning homosexuality is likewise fraudulent. The passages used to support you assertion amount to about six out of thousands and if read in context (not that you would understand the importance of context) are about prostitution, rape and exploitation.
Your ability to miss a point is unequaled by anyone on these boards. I am quite aware that people in this country are voting down homosexual marriage. As my daddy used to say, alot of people would eat shit and bark at the moon. Doesn’t mean I should go along with them. The country’s founding documents made this into a republic; the idea was that while the majority gets its way much of the time, it doesn’t mean the minorities are screwed. Otherwise, blacks would never have been freed and women would not be able to vote or take abusive husbands to court. The point is in a secular country like this one, what one persons religious beliefs are should only affect them. Therefore, I don’t give a shit what you believe because it’s not my problem. Or at least it should not.
I particularly enjoy how your gay population percentage changes. First it was less than 10%, then 1-2% and now in this thread it’s half a percentage point. You sure seem to have your finger on the pulse of gay America. A very clever way to marginalize people, though. You don’t even need a shred of evidence if you just make the numbers up as you go. Nice work. Dubya would be proud.
I believe in absolutes like justice, honor, fairness and even truth, when it can be discerned. Sometimes we have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. Most Americans were against black and female suffrage, so the government had to force the issue. Most Americans supported the separate but equal doctrine. In other words if all we ever did was what most people want to do, there would be no progress. Humans dislike change, especially if it involves something they don’t understand or makes them feel uncomfortable.
And please give me a break about how this would do any harm to the “institution” of marriage or the social fabric of the country. No one has ever presented a rational argument as to how this is the case. Mostly it’s just about a desire to exclude a particular group from the rest of society, based on a knee jerk emotional reaction and ignorance.
The question should be, “Are they human beings and citizens of this country with the same rights, responsibilities and liberties as the other Americans here?” The only reason to extend the freedom to marry to gay people is that it is the fair and just thing to do. The reason you don’t get that is because you have no regard for justice or fairness.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
It’s obvious we’re getting nowhere on convincing each other of our side’s opinion…how about instead of man and man, we call them “butt-buddies?” Zeb, I don’t know why you say our side is offering only emotion as evidence when your evidence is pretty much your religion’s beliefs, that you’ve been indoctrinated to.[/quote]
Sometimes I worry about you slimjim…
I have stated repeatedly that our side does not have to give any reasons. It is Incumbent upon those seeking to change this 5000+ year old institution to give REASONS.
I don’t think you are grasping this point. You have been indoctrinated into a faulty liberal thinking mode: “Whats it going to hurt dude.” “That doesn’t effect my marriage.” “I don’t care what they do (apathetic response).”
For the record I personally don’t care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home either! WHO CARES? Not me. But that is no longer the argument is it? When you want to change the institution of marriage I start caring.
So you continue to “Get it.”
Gve me some reasons why we need to keep taking Social Security out of the checks of everyone under the age of 35, othewise I demand it be changed!
Give me some reasons why we should continue to even allow people to attend church on Sunday…othewise I want it changed!
Give me some reasons why we should continue to allow people to have children without first passing a standard aptitude test…otherwise I want it changed!
Here’s a non-societal one that will hit you where you live:
Give me some reasons why your salary should stay as is…othewise I want it lowered!
I’m sure that there is at least 1% of the population that would love to change all of the above (not your salary in fact, I’m sure you are worth more).
Come on now get busy and tell me why each of the above should not be changed. When you get done with that short list I am going to give you many more. I want you to be in a position to defend long standing traditions. Otherwise, I want them all changed and I will appeal to you emotion by screaming about how each of the above and many more traditional institutions need to be changed so that you are not discriminating. Let’s change all of them to please a tiny percentage of people…
We know we have at least 1% of the population that would go for it. Hey…some 1% or 2% would be greatly helped let’s do it huh?
For the sake of debate I did give several reasons why the institution of marriage should not change on a previous post.
HOWEVER, I DON’T HAVE TO GIVE YOU ANY REASONS WHY THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED! YOU HAVE TO GIVE ME LOGICAL-NON EMOTIONAL REASONS WHY WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS INSTITUTION FOR LESS THAN 1% OF THE POPULATION!
“Who would it hurt to allow two gay people marry” is not the same question as “who would it hurt to forbid people to go to church each sunday”. The answer to the second question is obvious.
The question “who would it hurt” is not very relevant either:
Who would it hurt to abolish slavery? The slave owners.
Who would it hurt to let women vote? Men. Their vote suddenly is worth less.
The answer to “who would it hurt” when it comes to basic rights the government has no right to interfere in, is “who gives a fuck”.
I even partially agree with you . In some, very carefully chosen and well regulated, areas we need to work as a “society”. Keeping physical violence to a minimum, basic education and basic health care and so on.
But in all other areas, who would even DARE to try to tell anyone how he should live his life. The very hubris of “should we ALLOW gay people to marry” !. The very stupidity of thinking of society as a seperate entity.
Maybe you get it this way:
The questions :
“Why should society allow two gay people to marry” and
"Why should society allow YOU and people like you to go to church each sunday "
are two sides of the same coin.
If suddenly atheists are the majority in the US, and they could well be in 50 years, and decide that religion is dangerous nonsense and people need to be protected from it. What then? Because you know, societies needs are more important than let?s say 5% of society that are still christian.
And what would we be denying them? I don?t care if they pray in the privacy of their own home. I just don?t want them to do it publicly, because that is not the kind of society I want to live in.
I do know the Bible does not mention consensual, monogamous homosexual relationships.
Oh my…If the “act” of homosexuality is sin according to the Bible, and it is. Then what would ever make you or anyone else think that “monogamous” homosexual sex is acceptable within the Bible? That is one very poor piece of logic on your part!
The passages quoted by most anti-gay types are usually against prostitution, rape or exploitation, but are taken to condemn any and all types of homosexual relationships.
I think it’s pretty clear repeatedly that “one man is not to lie with another man.” And the same goes for women. I have listed the many passages. Most have nothing to do with prostitution.
Ultimately as to the question of what the Bible says or doesn’t say about homosexuality, my response is who gives a shit?
Nice of you to disrespect 2 billion Christians. And (most of) the 90% of Americans who believe in God.
I live in a secular democracy so it shouldn’t be an issue, even though soem folks are going to great lengths to make it so.
The secular democracy that you live in just voted down homosexual marriage in 11 states! I’m sure they did this for a myriad of reasons, one of course being the Bible.
It offends me to the core when others would use their religion for the sake of grave injustice…
Could be in your world there are no absolutes. However, there are absolutes with the majority of Americans. Whether you base them on Biblical teachings, personal core values, tradition or whatever. Most Americans by a wide margiin are against gay marriage. About 70% of the populations would feel a “grave injustice” if gay marriage were legalized.
By the way, this is one more thread by the pro gay marriage folks and still no solid reasons why gay marriage should be legalized. Simply more emotional tripe. I would think at this point there would be a long solid and reasonable list as to the merits of gay marriage. And to the many benefits it would provide the institution of marriage and our society.
The debate should never be “why not allow it?” It should always be “why allow it?”
More hyperbol from the Queen me mean
I’m merely responding to your posts on this one thread. That you take that as some sort of personal interest in you on my part is…well sort of pathetic. Stop posting and I assure you I will stop talking to you.
Wrong again. You don’t accept every credible Bible interpretaion that has ever been written! You would rather embrace the modern day homosexual distortion of th scriptures. The fact that I won’t let you do that on this thread really bothers you.
I was and am well aware of the passages of slavery in the Bible. No where on this thread or any other did you correct my position on the topic. Who is the fraud here?
Wrong again oh hateful wonder!
Let’s let the readers read this for themselves:
Rom 1:26
“Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their woemn exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations wwith women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Looks to me like homosexual activity is being condemned. Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where homosexual activity is praised? No guess not…
I’ll let you look up the others for yourself. Each is just as solid as the passage above.
1 Cor 6:9, 1 Cor 6:9, Col 3:5,
1 Tim 1:10, 2 Tim 3:3
Read the passages above one by one and get back to me
Perhaps it’s your lack of ability to put forth a cogent argument which has frustrated you?
Your Daddy is a smart man. I agree with him and strongly suggest that you do not eat shit and bark at the moon.
We finally agree!
However, with the two examples which you give (blacks and women) there was great benefit to the country as a whole. Keeping women away from the voting booth did not serve the “whole.” In fact, it harmed it! Half the population were unable to express their rights and participate in the political process. When this was broken the country took a giant leap forward.
Keeping blacks from freedom was not only immoral it also did not serve the “whole.” As we can all see from an historical perspective there have been many great black leaders, inventors, business people etc. who have added to the greatness of this country.
Now please tell me how changing the institution of marraige for a tiny fraction of people adds to the country? How does it benefit the “whole?”
Actually, I never once said that they were 10%. Hence you are making this up! If you are not lying about this then please point out the post where I said this. You cannot as It was never said! Does this make you a fraud and a liar? Well, maybe you are just mistaken.
My assumption based upon my own reading is that somewhere between 2% to 4% of the population calls themselves “Gay or bisexual.” I have not posted those stats on this thread. On this thread I talked mainly about the smaller percentage of gays who expressed a desire to “marry.”
The figures I quoted on this thread are between .05% and a full 1%. And I think you know that, or you just didn’t pay attention. Either way, you are wrong AGAIN.
Thy typical liberal response is to alway equate homosexual marriage with the rights of black people. I wonder how most black people feel about that one? I bet they don’t feel very good.
One more time:
African Americans are a race of people There is no decision making on their part. They are born black, end of story. Whereas, it has not been proven (or even any solid evidence pointed out) that gay people are in fact born that way. If that is the case it is indeed a decision. And even if they were born that way it is still a decision, right?
Otherwise, if you are trying to give everyone who is “different” the right to marry whomever and whatever they like I would suggest that you are opening a large can of worms (something liberals love to do).
You are very confused. I want you and your cohorts to give solid reasons why we need to change the institution of marriage. You need compelling arguments why such a standard institution should be changed. It is being voted down because there are no good reasons.
Then by your logic every tiny minority group who wants to change a long standing institution only need beg, plead and lobby washington and it should be done.
According to your logic then polygamists should be allowed to practice what makes them “feel good.” Boo hoo why deny them their right to love with in the institution of marriage whom they desire?
I bet there are more who want to legalize polygamy than there are gay marriage. Since the group is larger does that mean that we need to rush out and give them what they want?
What about all of the other tiny fractions of people who desire the institution to be changed?
Why are you not crying out for their rights?
The Queen of mean strikes again!
[quote]Please stop stalking me, you pervert.
WMD[/quote]
How my debating you on the points of gay marriage on this one and only thread is stalking you is beyond me and every other level headed individual.
Stop posting and I’ll stop responding to you. Not that I want you to stop I think that this is a healthy debate…well other than your
constant name calling, but I think people are used to your tactics by now.
“Who would it hurt to allow two gay people marry” is not the same question as “who would it hurt to forbid people to go to church each sunday”. The answer to the second question is obvious.[/quote]
I was suggesting a change of day in which to attend.
That was not one of my examples. However, see my post to wmd for my feelings on this.
That was not one of my examples however see my post to wmd on my feelings regarding this.
Basically both examples helped the country! How does gay marriage help the country? Give me reasons!
True!
You have that backwards my friend. I am not telling anyone how to “live their life.” It is the tiny fraction of people who want to change the status quo. I’m not pushing anything on anyone. I’m happy to leave things as they are. They are pushing to change a 5000+ year institution. Is if wrong to ask for good reasons why this should be done? And how it would benefit society?
There is indee hubris. And it is on the part of those who want to step in and change something that has been in effect for centurys to please a tiny fraction of the population. WHAT GALL!
[quote]Maybe you get it this way:
The questions :
“Why should society allow two gay people to marry” and
"Why should society allow YOU and people like you to go to church each sunday "
are two sides of the same coin.
If suddenly atheists are the majority in the US, and they could well be in 50 years, and decide that religion is dangerous nonsense and people need to be protected from it. What then? Because you know, societies needs are more important than let?s say 5% of society that are still christian.
And what would we be denying them? I don?t care if they pray in the privacy of their own home. I just don?t want them to do it publicly, because that is not the kind of society I want to live in.[/quote]
If that happens I promise you one thing: I will go to the nearest Internet message board and pound out post after post about “fairness” “equality” and other things that are unrealted to the facts… LOL
By the way, is a right never given equal to a right once given through long standing tradition and then taken away? I think your example is faulty on it’s face.
By the way, is a right never given equal to a right once given through long standing tradition and then taken away? I think your example is faulty on it’s face.[/quote]
You still have the top-down approach. It is not societies or the governments role to grant any right.
It is the people who give the government or society the rights those entities have and this approach can only work if we keep government restricted to well-defined areas. Otherwise it is a tyranny of the majority.
These are ideas the USA were founded on.
Whenever you ask “what benefit would it have to let gay people marry” you think of them as people who have to beg for something or to make their case.
No.
These are free citizens of the United States of America. They don?t have to demand anything. They don?t have to explain anything. If their government wants to interfere in their lifes it is up to the government to explain this and the explanation better be good.
And the government does not have to marry them either. Even in heterosexual marriages two people marry each other and the government merely recognizes it. All I want is the government, as a neutral religion-free arbiter, to recognize gay marriages as well.
To finish a quote from Rosa Luxembourg “Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit der anderen” roughly meaning " Freedom always means the freedom of others", the others being those you do not agree with.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
But there is no moral precedence for denying these people equal rights in the eyes of the law.
Only several thousand years of “precedence.” Oh my…[/quote]
You are just not getting it. We change what laws apply to different groups of people all the time. Black people didn’t used to be able to vote. Now they can. What a terrible development. Blacks and whites once were not allowed to marry each other. Now they can. What an awful development. There are plenty reasons of extending civil unions to gays. There are those who feel themselves to be in love with each other (physically and non-physically) and ready to make the exact same committments as married people make. What don’t you understand about the fact that people living in a home as man and wife and man and man or whatever who pull their income and have a full committment to each other should be able to visit each other in the hospital, get tax breaks the same as married people, etc…? Religion and god have nothing to do with it. To them, their committment is every bit as real as married people, and as a legal matter there’s no justification for telling them it’s not, and they should be deprived of rights though they’re living as married people and view themselves as married.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
…Aaaaaaaaaaand here’s the fairly obvious follow-up: there ws no marriage before the old testament?
If you believe in the Bibles teachings and what it says in Genesis, there was no marriage prior to Genesis because there were no people.
That doesn’t mean that marriage didn’t exist outside of Christianity, which is what Lorisco implied when he wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The Christian religion is not dominating anything. It is only trying to maintain the dignity of the institution it created.
Marriage was created by Christians? No other culture ever had the similar concept of marriage before Christianity?
There were a lot of people on the planet. Everyone who got hooked up had a Christian wedding? I’m truly interested.[/quote]
Of course marriage was not created by Christians. There was marriage among Greeks and Romans. The first monotheistic culture (belief in one God) that undertook marriage as a committment under God was probably the Jews. And Judaism dates back nearly 6000 years.
By the way, is a right never given equal to a right once given through long standing tradition and then taken away? I think your example is faulty on it’s face.
You still have the top-down approach. It is not societies or the governments role to grant any right.
It is the people who give the government or society the rights those entities have and this approach can only work if we keep government restricted to well-defined areas. Otherwise it is a tyranny of the majority. These are ideas the USA were founded on.[/quote]
Yes, indeed the government does in fact get it’s power from the people. Not from a tiny fraction of the people but from the majority. If the government were ruled by the few then we could have tyranny.
We certainly would have all sorts of crazy laws on the books wouldn’t we?
[quote].Whenever you ask “what benefit would it have to let gay people marry” you think of them as people who have to beg for something or to make their case.[/quote].
I’m sorry if this is starting to read like a broken record, however you leave me no choice: Whenever someone wants to change such an institution there needs to be reasons to do so. Otherwise, what is to stop polygamists, and those who want to marry their dogs or lamp shades from having such a right.
After all someone marrying their dog does not effect you and I? So…why not? Perhaps it’s a silly example. But this is the same rational that is being used to promote gay marriage. It harms no one in theory.
Tell me where do you draw the line?
I want to know so that I can play this from the other side. “How dare you look down and make this small but wonderful group of people march to your tune. I demand equal rights for those men who want to marry two women at once.”
[quote].These are free citizens of the United States of America.
They don?t have to demand anything. They don?t have to explain anything. If their government wants to interfere in their lifes it is up to the government to explain this and the explanation better be good.[/quote].
I’m sorry you have that backwards. If they want to change the institution of marriage which is defined as one man and one woman then they have a lot of explaining to do (Lucy…you have a lot of splaining to do:). And so far none of it has made sense, including the feeble explanations on this thread!
[quote].And the government does not have to marry them either. Even in heterosexual marriages two people marry each other and the government merely recognizes it. All I want is the government, as a neutral religion-free arbiter, to recognize gay marriages as well. [/quote].
They never have and why should they now? No one has stepped up and given any valid reasons why gay marriage should be allowed or recognized.
[quote].To finish a quote from Rosa Luxembourg “Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit der anderen” roughly meaning " Freedom always means the freedom of others", the others being those you do not agree with.
[/quote]
Good old Rosa Luxembourg the communist marxist (shaking head). You won’t win a debate with me (or probably anyone else) by quoting her.
You really think she is an expert on freedom huh? Yikes!
No one is stopping homosexuals from practicing their own brand of sexual expression. They are free to do so as this is the United States of America.
However, you cannot ask an entire country to embrace the lifestyle of a relative few by demanding that the government recognize (or endorse) gay marraige.
I’ll end with a quote of my own:
“There are two good things in life, freedom of thought and freedom of action.”
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
But there is no moral precedence for denying these people equal rights in the eyes of the law.
Only several thousand years of “precedence.” Oh my…
You are just not getting it. We change what laws apply to different groups of people all the time.[/quote]
Yes we do and it has a bettering effect on society. Please tell me how allowing less than 1% of the population to marry someone of the same sex helps the “whole.”
And those things were a betterment to our society as a whole, for obvious reasons.
[quote]There are plenty reasons of extending civil unions to gays. There are those who feel themselves to be in love with each other (physically and non-physically) and ready to make the exact same committments as married people make. What don’t you understand about the fact that people living in a home as man and wife and man and man or whatever who pull their income and have a full committment to each other should be able to visit each other in the hospital, get tax breaks the same as married people, etc…? Religion and god have nothing to do with it. To them, their committment is every bit as real as married people, and as a legal matter there’s no justification for telling them it’s not, and they should be deprived of rights though they’re living as married people and view themselves as married.
[/quote]
I’m afraid that you are the one who is “not getting it.” I am for gay people to visit their loved ones in the hospital. I’m also for every law on the books which protects gay people from discrimination relative to hiring practices etc.
What I am not for is changing the definition of marriage. Um…it’s not perfect but it’s been around in it’s present form for (shall I type it again? Oh why not) over 5000 years!
Now get busy and give me some good solid reasons why gay marriage should be legalized.
