get off my lawn! go fight for a REAL cause! (care to suggest one? abolition of the fed notwithstanding?)
so yes, because interfaith marriages are banned in many religions, we should ban interFAITH marriages. it just underscores the ridiculousness. should we also ban football because they touch "pigskin?" People have been selectively taking parts of the Bible as their own and rejecting the ones that don't make sense. Nobody will stone a woman for causing adultery, but they'll hold onto the fact that a first-century man wrote that homosexuals were an abomination.
Commodore, what do you think about cheese burgers, or eating meat? INSIDIOUS SOCIAL ENGINEERING (takes a libertarian to somehow turn a debate about gay rights, into one about abolishing the government)
haha you are a woman. It's not the same as being a man. From now on I will kindly point out that I've kindly pointed this out to you.
Kudos for your willingness not to stand in the way of gay marriages. As for forcing an issue and where you've heard that before. Hmm... Could it have been the civil rights movement? Before the laws started changing in favor of their equality, those blacks were always "throwing [their inequality] in people's faces." It was soooo rude.
Exactly. Why is this difficult for anyone? Because the Bible said so? Every single one of you knows that the Bible instructed us to do many, many, many things we would never dream of doing now -- and much more clearly than it stood against homosexuality -- because we would be barbarians if we did. If you're against gay marriage because the Bible told you so, I sure hope that if your brother dies you are fully intent upon marrying his widow.
I actually didn't get worked up though I understand why you'd think I did. I am passionate about this issue because I am passionate about any inequality being enshrined in our rule of law. And yes I am sick of the new meme "I just think gov't should get out of the marriage biz" because, as I pointed out, that meme was created by and only gets play from people that were looking for a way not to support gay marriage. As I said before, this line of thinking did not exist before the gay marriage debate. Do the math. I agree that it is not the role of government to regulate hate (or any other emotion, though I make a distinction for hate driven crime) but it is, as you pointed out, the American government's role to protect from discriminatory laws and practices. Presently gays have no federal protections from discrimination. I most places in our union you can refuse to hire someone for being gay, you can fire someone for being gay, you can refuse to rent a home to a gay person and you can deny marriage licenses and adoption applications on the basis of the applicant being gay. I like giddyup's idea. (Wha???) Level the playing field by granting the same rights to homosexuals that the rest of us have -- marriage, adoption, freedom from discriminatory hiring practices etc. (Obama has taken care of the military and hospital visitation rights problems.) And then we can all stop talking about it. And if you want to never think about it again, great. And if you want to attend a church that preaches against the 'sin' of homosexuality, fine. (Gross, but fine.) And if you want to start a straights-only-gay-hater club, that is okay too. That is part of free speech and being an American. But the other part is supposed to be equal treatment under the law. No justice, no peace. Justice, peace.
Good for you. I see that bolded part above mentioned a lot. Let me allay the fears of those who worry over such things: Gays don't want to get married in churches that don't want to marry them and no serious person whatsoever is proposing forcing churches to marry gays. Nor is anybody involved in forcing any rules upon churches with regard to marriage. They are not forced to marry people outside of their faith, they are not forced to perform inter-racial marriages if they don't want to. Nobody is asking for this, so everyone can stop worrying about it.
You are so full of crap. I don't support gay marriage and I don't not support gay marriage. It's not my preoperative to validate and regulate other people's relationships. And I sure don't desire the use of force to do so. That's what led to marriage licensing in the first place. You are defending the means of oppression. You are "sick" of the idea of the government getting out of regulating marriage because your fight is NOT about freedom, it's about the law enforcing YOUR definition of marriage on society, plain and simple. You wont get to "win" and to you that is far more important than the true freedom of allowing people to define, form and live out their own relationships without state intrusion.
I don't get your point. I was just explaining why people using that text against interracial marriage are misusing it. I don't think we as a society should ban any type of marriage between consenting adults.
I know some churches are concerned that they might get their charitable status attacked for discrimination if they don't perform gay marriages if they become legal. Anyway, it was really a throw away line in the post. I don't think gay marriage should be illegal. Period. What two consenting adults want to do is there business. It has zero impact on me, my marriage, my faith, etc. I don't understand why Christians believe that gay people getting married damages the institution any more than non-believers getting married does. If the marriage isn't recognized by God according to your faith why does it matter what gender?
My diet consists almost entirely of animal products, but I could care less what anyone else eats. I oppose subsidies that encourage a particular diet (or any other subsidy for that matter). Not rights, entitlements, which are denied to the unmarried. When you remove the state from marital matters, you can marry whomever/whatever you choose, for your own reasons.
Righteous post. Now that I think about it your first paragraph makes sense. I can't remember the specifics but there were recent stories about churches losing federal funding (I think, but maybe it was charitable status, pretty sure it was dollars) that helped with their adoption services because they wouldn't let gays adopt from them. I think that's a totally different topic with totally different stakes and arguments and ethics, but I grant you it rings familiar to the fear of being forced to something or give up some status or funding. Then again, isn't the status or funding contingent upon anything at all? It would be a fun conversation to have, the church/adoption one, but in another thread maybe. On this topic, you know, maybe I'm wrong. Let's say two gay guys that grew up Catholic and still consider themselves to be Catholic really want to be married in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest. If federal civil rights are conveyed to gays (as they are to minorities, etc.) and they receive a federal protection from discrimination maybe the government would want to pull a church's status if they discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. I concede that this is a possibility. For the record, my position in this imaginary case would be two-fold: 1. The church shouldn't be forced to do anything they don't want to with regard to marriage (or even adoption), in any case, but especially in cases where it violates their beliefs. 2. The church should not expect to receive a special tax status no matter how wide the gap might grow between what is considered right by the religion and by the state. For example, does anybody start to get uncomfortable if a church with charitable non-profit tax status, conveyed by the government, refused to adopt to black parents? (Yes, this is always my go to analogy but it is because it is the most recent example of prejudices going from acceptable to non-acceptable in our society.) It is the state that conveys that status and I believe the state does so at its pleasure.
