What I'm getting at is if you have a moral or personal code it should be applied evenly to all things. You're personal journey as a vegan is a representation of this. You are a true vegan it seems, so think of it in terms of others who profess to be vegetarian, but still drink dairy or decide they can have fish. Its not about doing personal deeds, but living a personal code. If your wishy-washy with how you apply that code you are open to criticism.
That is exactly my point. Most present day conservatives, indeed most present day Americans, take it for granted that blacks and women deserve to vote and interracial couples should be able to marry- because of the tireless struggle and sacrifice of civil rights advocates in the past. A similar struggle is taking place once again right now, and future conservatives will one day take gay marriage equality for granted just as you presently take interracial marriage equality for granted. On the contrary- this struggle is very, very similar to past civil rights struggles. If gays are not murdered, beaten, or threatened as often as blacks were in the past, that has no relevance to the central issue- freedom and equality for an unjustly oppressed minority. Those who tout 'tradition' as justification for denying freedom to a minority are living in the past. My examples from the past serve to elucidate the repeat of history happening right now, and point to the future. My stance of openness, acceptance, tolerance and equal rights for an innocent minority is morally superior to your stance of intolerance and denying freedom to an innocent minority. In the not too distant future, most American conservatives will agree, because present day liberals will once again create a cultural shift towards openness and acceptance. There were, are, and will be numerous issues about which I and other liberals will be dead wrong. On this issue, and the numerous similar civil rights struggles in the past, I and my fellow liberals are right and you and social conservatives are wrong. Again. Are you saying that if everybody (or a large majority) is doing it, it is justified? Once upon a time, slavery was legal in the majority of the nations of the earth. Was slavery justified then? I'm certain you have a moral stance on an issue that you feel strongly about, and it wouldn't matter if the whole world disagreed, you wouldn't see that as justification for opposition. "Hey, everybody's doing it" is a poor justification for oppressing an innocent minority. Here's another look at the same numbers: in ten years the number of nations permitting same-sex marriage has gone from zero to ten. That's an explosion of acceptance that is only going to increase as people across all nations come to see that homosexual relationships are no better or worse than heterosexual relationships, and they need not be feared nor legislated against.
On the contrary, this liberal is absolutely, totally, one hundred percent in favor of government being completely uninvolved in the marriage business. Me and my tree-hugging, universal health care supporting friends think it would be a wonderful, simple, elegant solution to this problem. By the way, if some senators put together a bill to get the government out of American marriages, guess who would object? Social conservatives. You know, the wackos you're sharing a bed with because no conservative politician can be elected to national office without appeasing them. There is no American political force more concerned with legislating morality on the rest of the country than the religious right. Only these guys could cook up a federal amendment to take away rights rather than grant or protect them. It's the height of absurdity that you freedom loving libertarians actually share a political party with these dudes.
If members of the Gay community were required to wear a "sign" on their person declaring their "Gayness," perhaps they would require their stores not to serve them. Sound far-fetched? Try being a Jew in Germany, circa 1930's.
Nope. This is where your argument falls apart. Yes, I suppose it's the same in the sense that people are struggling for it, but that's about it. Homosexuality goes against most religions in the world. Women voting and marrying another race do not. That's a big difference.
Arguments based on Christianity had a prominent place in opposing miscegenation and suffrage in this country. Really, not just a prominent place - the predominant place. I answer this question as if you had any interest in hearing the answer.
still not the same this one's pretty clear cut in most religions the others cannot be justified through any religious texts I've seen
Nolen for the win if you can't answer this question specifically, then bow out now, you have been exposed.
LOL at the backslapping liberals trying to provide credibility to Nolen's arguments. Too bad I've sliced right through them.
This idea that your interpretation of what is written down in a matter of faith (which is nothing more than an opinion in itself) is what truly justifies a discriminatory practice in a nation where religious freedom is guaranteed is just hilarious. Shaq has just re-named you the big delusion.
I'm glad I stopped pursuing my argument before bigtexxx started prematurely congratulating himself. That sort of thing makes me uncomfortable. bigtexxx has serious issues with prematurely congratulating himself. he should find someway to avoid premature congratulations.
