Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Hawk said:
Lol, way to grossly oversimplify (and really, misinterpret) the Bill of Rights.

I never said that 'because it has always been that way' is an excuse, just highlighted that your point about the religious being the 'pushers' was invalid. They are the 'pushees' if you will.

Also, I have no idea what you are getting at trying to say I'm conflating points. What I'm saying is pretty straight forward.

I'm not talking about Christianity. I'm talking about religion and how marriage has been traditionally defined. Find me a religious text that clearly approves of homosexual union.

This is not to make any commentary other than trying to understand where both sides are coming from and dropping the, "I'm aghast at the bigotry!" charade.
Click to expand...

weird to say they aren't the pushers when they were the ones that set the standards and continue to try to push their religious view in law

you used one comment on one thing and compared it to a different topic.

religions and ssm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_same-sex_marriage
 
goldfly said:
weird to say they aren't the pushers when they were the ones that set the standards and continue to try to push their religious view in law

you used one comment on one thing and compared it to a different topic.

religions and ssm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_same-sex_marriage
Click to expand...

'Setting the standards' and aggressively 'pushing' across legislation are two completely different things. Don't you agree?

I'm a staunch advocate for gay rights. And it seems you may be too, although you are clouding your position by acting as though organized religion (namely Christianity) is a chief culprit in preventing equality. What may be worse is the belief that treating homosexuality (and, by extension, SSM) as a problem that can be rectified by law. To me, it goes way beyond that
 
Hawk said:
'Setting the standards' and aggressively 'pushing' across legislation are two completely different things. Don't you agree?

I'm a staunch advocate for gay rights. And it seems you may be too, although you are clouding your position by acting as though organized religion (namely Christianity) is a chief culprit in preventing equality. What may be worse is the belief that treating homosexuality (and, by extension, SSM) as a problem that can be rectified by law. To me, it goes way beyond that
Click to expand...

i do think they are different. i also think both are happening/have happened

i would say organized religion is the chief culprit that has pushed the thinking that has led us here.

how could it be a bad thing to have this rectified by law? people that view others as less than equal have to be dragged against their will and that was shown in the civil rights movement.
 
BedellBrave said:
"Attacking" - oh, well. If that's "attacking" then what are the threats? I mean if you start with calling that statement an "attack" you aren't leaving yourself much verbal wiggle room for anything more egregious. I understand the use of hyperbole, but when people use it constantly it leaves little room for real discussion.
Click to expand...

:FrediPuzzled:

Would you prefer "castigating"?
 
I think wedge issues bring out the worst (worse) in people.

In this case everyone is wrong
......

SSM is not about who sleeps with who(m). It is about equal rights concerning hospital visitation. Equal Rights concerning insurance/retirement benefits. It is about a person choosing who will and won't speak for them as next of kin.

A segment of society has chosen to oppose these people for whatever reasons. (2004 Presidential election might be one ! ) and the opposed continue to take the bait of hatred and intolerance.
 
sturg33 said:
The law should state that if you own a business and you don't personally agree with gay marriage, your business will be burned to the ground.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that the law should just acknowledge contracts - let folks call them what they want. Seems the best route to go.
 
57Brave said:
I think wedge issues bring out the worst (worse) in people.

In this case everyone is wrong
......

SSM is not about who sleeps with who(m). It is about equal rights concerning hospital visitation. Equal Rights concerning insurance/retirement benefits. It is about a person choosing who will and won't speak for them as next of kin.

A segment of society has chosen to oppose these people for whatever reasons. (2004 Presidential election might be one ! ) and the opposed continue to take the bait of hatred and intolerance.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
BedellBrave said:
"They" is like well virtually all of humanity for virtually all of time. But whatever.
Click to expand...

humans have been around a fraction of time

but again, just cause it has always been one way, doesn't mean it is the right way or should be done that way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top