Nicely said. This is the actual reason why gay marriage will eventually become law despite the moral concerns of the right.
Gay marriage in Utah put on hold
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Nicely said. This is the actual reason why gay marriage will eventually become law despite the moral concerns of the right.
That is no less prevelant in (insert group of your choice). Complain about being attacked by (insert another group of your choice) and then turn around and blast them. It is not BS. See it flung everywhere all the time
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
My sister in-law is engaged to be married. She is a doctor and her soon to be husband is a firefighter. They are madly in love and have no plans of EVER having a child. Beanclown's assertion that they will never be a family is not only short sighted and dumb, it's downright mean. Not only are they going to be a family to each other, they're family to me and countless others. **** off Bean. And **** off to anybody else who thinks their marriage will be anything less than yours because you have children.
As for the rest of the argument, let's cut through the ********: 99.999% of the time, those who stand against gay marriage do so on a religious platform. Most will dance around that (as has been done constantly through the first 14 pages of this thread), but that is what it comes down to.
Problem is, one of the biggest principals this country was founded on was religious freedom. One religion or group of religions are not here to dictate to the entire country what is right and what is wrong. To try and say religion isn't the overwhelming factor in the fight against gay marriage might just be the most disengenious argument in the history of civil rights.
The religions and morals people practice in their homes and around like minded individuals is their right. To try and gays from having the exact same rights as as those people is so utterly wrong and disgusting it's not even comprehensible. We had those who raged against women's right to vote, we had those who raged against the right for blacks to be seen as equals, and now we have the same group of small minded individuals raging against the rights for homosexuals. Just like the others, when all is said and done, they will be the ones on the wrong side of history. It's a shame it has to take this long, but the outcome is inevitable.
I've also got to give props to Trout and those who share is stance. Major props to the religious people out there who are able to reconcile their faith alongside the belief that we don't have the right to stop others from being equal. It's those type of religious progressives that will eventually help us find our way.
Edit- And please keep in mind, I still hate Trout.
As for the rest of the argument, let's cut through the ********: 99.999% of the time, those who stand against gay marriage do so on a religious platform. Most will dance around that (as has been done constantly through the first 14 pages of this thread), but that is what it comes down to.
Problem is, one of the biggest principals this country was founded on was religious freedom. One religion or group of religions are not here to dictate to the entire country what is right and what is wrong. To try and say religion isn't the overwhelming factor in the fight against gay marriage might just be the most disengenious argument in the history of civil rights.
The religions and morals people practice in their homes and around like minded individuals is their right. To try and gays from having the exact same rights as as those people is so utterly wrong and disgusting it's not even comprehensible. We had those who raged against women's right to vote, we had those who raged against the right for blacks to be seen as equals, and now we have the same group of small minded individuals raging against the rights for homosexuals. Just like the others, when all is said and done, they will be the ones on the wrong side of history. It's a shame it has to take this long, but the outcome is inevitable.
I've also got to give props to Trout and those who share is stance. Major props to the religious people out there who are able to reconcile their faith alongside the belief that we don't have the right to stop others from being equal. It's those type of religious progressives that will eventually help us find our way.
Edit- And please keep in mind, I still hate Trout.
It's very amusing that you seem to think you have provided evidence that this is not a learned behavior. People who are raised to be violent will be violent. People who are raised to be non-violent will be non-violent (yes, there will always be exceptions). We teach boys to be violent and girls to be non-violent, and they respond to their training.
They don't wan't to re-define marriage, they want to participate in it. Marriage has only occasionally been defined as one-man-one-woman in history.
Pure paranoia and fear-mongering. Legislation that serves a valid, secular purpose will always be justifiable based on that purpose, including the number of marriages and the age of the participants. The is no right to discriminate or harass, and the acceptance of gay marriage affects no other religious behavior. No religion has ever been forced by the US government, at any time, to recognize any marriage. For example, there are still churches that refuse to recognize interracial marriages some 45 years after Loving vs. Virginia.
That term can be be open to vast interpretations based on who is talking.
I agree. However, ultimately, it has to be one that will stand up to a court of law, which narrows the interpretations slightly. You can't just say it protects children, you have to provide evidence it does, and in particular, evidence that does not fall apart on cross-examination.
This reminds me of a point I thought about bringing up before (but then forgot). There are actually two completely separate questions that are going on with this train of thought: (a) Should laws be passed to enable gay marriages? (b) Is there a fundamental right to gay marriage? Default's sentiment is an argument for (a), but not for (b).
In my opinion, as I've strongly opined in this thread and elsewhere, (b) is invalid. There is no fundamental right to gay marriage (again, speaking about my own opinion). And nothing short of a Supreme Court decision will convince me otherwise. However, if the discussion were about (a), I'd be much more open. I'd still be against gay marriage, but I recognize that there are reasons for supporting it that fall short of "fundamental right", but which are compelling. Loggrad's story, for example. Hopefully I said that clearly enough, but let me try to restate. If a proposition for gay marriage were on a ballot here (Utah) like it was in California some years ago, I'd vote against it, but I'd be content to live with the outcome if my side were outvoted. It's the whole "courts overruling the will of the people because of some perceived civil right which doesn't actually exist" thing that gets under my skin.
Context?