100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Labeling Pro-Marriage Groups as 'Hateful' Must End | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
It terms of the ability to create life, homosexual sex is equal to sex between sterile people. There, I just equated them. its also equal to sex between a consenting and non consenting adult (rape) or a pubescent age child and an adult, or an incestuous relationship but all that is irrelevant to the point being made about how MARRIAGE Is a significant institution to encourage and support as a FOUNDATION for children, families, communities, and societis Do you or do you not support sterile heterosexual couples getting married? I do. Sterile heterosexual should get married. People who just don't want children, or want to adopt should get married. And gay people should get married. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now its about divorce and contracts? wha? nonono... this is about allowing gays the same privelege as non-gays to marry. Not to unite civilly. To marry. Just because one religious beleif holds a particular definition of marriage to gender, doesnt mean another religious beleif will also. If someone is gay, and wants to marry the love of their life, and believe this love is blessed by God, who are you to define their religious belief. Its most definitely discrimination. Some people who are religious get very selfish and want things to be their way. In my opinion, religion is a personal choice. If someone does not agree with gay marriage, fine, but there's no need to force their religious beliefs on others. They get selfish and want everyone to conform to their way of believing. seems like gay people are equally selfish, wishing everyone else to CONFORM to their view of man on man and woman on woman being EQUAL to the male female bonding that creates life,,,, Chick-Fil-A ?  Gay's were rallying against bigotry, as they should. I have NEVER heard ANY gay person attack straight marriage, EVER. It's amazing to me that the religious community has such a distorted view of things that they actually think that the gay's pursuit of marriage rights is an attack on 'straight marriage'. No one is stopping you from getting married. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but marriage includes SEX, and they have that privilege already they want the 'privilege' of having the government sanction and support their sexual choice and the government has no reason or obligation to do so,,, It's not about sex. You just said so yourself - they can already have sex. They are not trying to get the government to support their sexual choice. You could say that they are trying to get the government to support their RELATIONSHIP choices. There is a big difference - one which religionists sometimes have trouble seeing because they are so fixated on the sex. Its almost like religionists have a fetish. But I feel it would be more accurate to say that they are trying to stop the government from being used as an agent of persecution against them by the religious people. and the government can support their 'relationship' choice and that of any adults in any 'relationship' (sexual or non sexual) with a 'civil union The bigots have shown again and again that they will attack gays any way they can, through any angle. And that right there, differentiating between civil unions and divorces, and saying that gays can get civil unions - thats one of the cracks they have used and will continue to use in the future. I want protections for all members of all gay couples everywhere, and the unfortunate reality is that granting them a 'civil unions' is not enough to guarantee that protection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ahhh, lovely I posted before reading this entire thing if it is coming down to RELIGION, than let each religious group validate whatever unions they wish as THEY Define them should not be a government issue,,,,, the government is not to be concerned with RELIGION or RELIGIOUS BELIEF,, last I checked it can be concerned with SOCIETY though, which starts with future lives and the foundation they are offered,,,,,that HAS to start with a man and woman,,,,by biological LAW.... last I checked, marriage was not invalidated upon failure to reproduce. Therefore it is not the issue. it is an issue, since ability to reproduce is DEPENDENT upon the gender and that ability(creation of more citizens) becomes an issue with great SOCIAL IMPACT and that DEPENDENCY on upholding some commitment in t hose reiationships,, even though they do not ALWAYS produce children, therefore has a great SOCIAL IMPACT as well,,,, it is also an issue since marriage IS invalidated by a failure to have a sexually monogomous relationship,, which has far more socially reaching consequences amongst heterosexuals who are CREATING LIFE or at RISK of creating life,, than it is for homosexuals who can never create it (With each other) the sexual element and expectation of MARRIAGE is the issue that keeps it from being something that is the same for 'same sex' as it is for 'opposite sex' because 'same sex' carry NO RISK of creating life and their behavior in their bedroom has no RISK of any impact beyond their bedroom,,,, in other words, there is NO reason to encourage, support, or EQUATE it with heterosexual activity,,, It terms of the ability to create life, homosexual sex is equal to sex between sterile people. There, I just equated them. Sterility is not always final. There have been quite a few reversals in the reproduction outcome of those who have been labeled sterile. Those miracles are highly possible. No man has ever been pregnant. True, but irrelevant. The existence of temporarily sterile people doesn't change the fact that there are permanently sterile people out there. There are people who have had their entire reproductive systems destroyed by an accident or injury, or completely removed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If marriage is such a "religious" institution/sacrament.....where in the bible does it make allowance for a ship captain or a judge to marry people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about a remedy to this dispute. Let a civil union be purely a civil institution that provides government benefits but no religious benefits. Let a marriage be purely a religious institution that provides religious benefits but no government benefits. If people just want government benefits, then they can obtain a civil union. If people just want religious benefits, then they can obtain a marriage. If people want both government benefits and a religious benefits, then they can obtain both a civil union and a marriage. Let marriages that occur before a certain date be grandfathered in to have both government benefits and religious benefits. David, while I reject this as being unrealistic, I see that this is one of the most intelligent things being said in this thread. Ideally, and logically, there should be two different labels. One is legal and secular and open to everyone. The other is religious and has NO legal significance AT ALL, and it should be a crime to discriminate against people based on it. But people are entrenched in their traditions and customs, so this isn't going to happen in this country for a long time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It terms of the ability to create life, homosexual sex is equal to sex between sterile people. There, I just equated them. its also equal to sex between a consenting and non consenting adult (rape) or a pubescent age child and an adult, or an incestuous relationship but all that is irrelevant to the point being made about how MARRIAGE Is a significant institution to encourage and support as a FOUNDATION for children, families, communities, and societis Do you or do you not support sterile heterosexual couples getting married? I do. Sterile heterosexual should get married. People who just don't want children, or want to adopt should get married. And gay people should get married. I believe this way, too. I don't understand why people are so opposed to it. I have asked before, but no one has been able to explain why marriage would mean less if gay people are allowed to use the word. Or why it should only be religious people getting married. Maybe someone here can explain in detail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but marriage includes SEX, and they have that privilege already they want the 'privilege' of having the government sanction and support their sexual choice and the government has no reason or obligation to do so,,, It's not about sex. You just said so yourself - they can already have sex. They are not trying to get the government to support their sexual choice. You could say that they are trying to get the government to support their RELATIONSHIP choices. There is a big difference - one which religionists sometimes have trouble seeing because they are so fixated on the sex. Its almost like religionists have a fetish. But I feel it would be more accurate to say that they are trying to stop the government from being used as an agent of persecution against them by the religious people. and the government can support their 'relationship' choice and that of any adults in any 'relationship' (sexual or non sexual) with a 'civil union The bigots have shown again and again that they will attack gays any way they can, through any angle. And that right there, differentiating between civil unions and divorces, and saying that gays can get civil unions - thats one of the cracks they have used and will continue to use in the future. I want protections for all members of all gay couples everywhere, and the unfortunate reality is that granting them a 'civil unions' is not enough to guarantee that protection. But yes, they have shown over and over again that they will attack gay people and people who simply stand up for gay rights. It's quite sad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as your point - technically you are right, but effectively...come on, really! How many non-religionists are really that strongly against gay marriage? You might know a handful personally, but looking at our whole society, this really is about religiously motivated bigotry. Most of the non-religious community either doesn't care or supports gay marriage. I don't believe that. There are plenty of morally sound, non-religious people who have strong values... which include "heterOsexual only" marriage. Combined...the non-religious and religious make a vast majority. Bottom line: The hatred, toward those who won't conform to LGBT demands, incites violent attacks...both verbally and physically. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But yes, they have shown over and over again that they will attack gay people and people who simply stand up for gay rights. It's quite sad. Who can deny that there are bigots out there who hate gay people? I feel that we need to acknowledge their existence and look at their impact when we discuss marriage equality. If someone sees that word and gets personally offended, maybe that's their own guilty conscience. I haven't said that anyone on this board is a bigot. There are anti-religious bigots, too. Being on the same side as a bigot doesn't make you wrong, but we have to be careful how we let those bigots influence the dialog. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as your point - technically you are right, but effectively...come on, really! How many non-religionists are really that strongly against gay marriage? You might know a handful personally, but looking at our whole society, this really is about religiously motivated bigotry. Most of the non-religious community either doesn't care or supports gay marriage. I don't believe that. There are plenty of morally sound, non-religious people who have strong values... which include "heterOsexual only" marriage. Combined...the non-religious and religious make a vast majority. Bottom line: The hatred, toward those who won't conform to LGBT demands, incites violent attacks...both verbally and physically. The hatred against anyone who is different than you and believes differently than you do is disgusting. I'm tired of seeing people attacked and belittled because they don't support only heterosexuals being allowed to marry. Violence from anyone, no matter what they believe on this subject is wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But yes, they have shown over and over again that they will attack gay people and people who simply stand up for gay rights. It's quite sad. Who can deny that there are bigots out there who hate gay people? I feel that we need to acknowledge their existence and look at their impact when we discuss marriage equality. If someone sees that word and gets personally offended, maybe that's their own guilty conscience. I haven't said that anyone on this board is a bigot. There are anti-religious bigots, too. Being on the same side as a bigot doesn't make you wrong, but we have to be careful how we let those bigots influence the dialog. I definitely agree with you on this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as your point - technically you are right, but effectively...come on, really! How many non-religionists are really that strongly against gay marriage? You might know a handful personally, but looking at our whole society, this really is about religiously motivated bigotry. Most of the non-religious community either doesn't care or supports gay marriage. I don't believe that. Okay, later today or tomorrow I'm going to see if I can look it up. I realize that many people over 50 are still stuck in a bigoted worldview, without even realizing it. I would fully expect that many older non-religious people feel as you say, and that many younger people don't. There are plenty of morally sound, non-religious people who have strong values... Yes! There are many morally sound, non-religious and religious people who believe gay people should not be discriminated against. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as your point - technically you are right, but effectively...come on, really! How many non-religionists are really that strongly against gay marriage? You might know a handful personally, but looking at our whole society, this really is about religiously motivated bigotry. Most of the non-religious community either doesn't care or supports gay marriage. I don't believe that. Okay, later today or tomorrow I'm going to see if I can look it up. I realize that many people over 50 are still stuck in a bigoted worldview, without even realizing it. I would fully expect that many older non-religious people feel as you say, and that many younger people don't. There are plenty of morally sound, non-religious people who have strong values... Yes! There are many morally sound, non-religious and religious people who believe gay people should not be discriminated against. I do believe age has something to do with it. I would bet that more older religious people are against gay marriage than younger people. However, some bigoted parents pass along their bigotry to their children. So there are still some of the younger crowd who is against gay marriage/rights as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as your point - technically you are right, but effectively...come on, really! How many non-religionists are really that strongly against gay marriage? You might know a handful personally, but looking at our whole society, this really is about religiously motivated bigotry. Most of the non-religious community either doesn't care or supports gay marriage. I don't believe that. Okay, later today or tomorrow I'm going to see if I can look it up. I realize that many people over 50 are still stuck in a bigoted worldview, without even realizing it. I would fully expect that many older non-religious people feel as you say, and that many younger people don't. There are plenty of morally sound, non-religious people who have strong values... Yes! There are many morally sound, non-religious and religious people who believe gay people should not be discriminated against. I do believe age has something to do with it. I would bet that more older religious people are against gay marriage than younger people. However, some bigoted parents pass along their bigotry to their children. So there are still some of the younger crowd who is against gay marriage/rights as well. If you are going to accuse people of being bigots, then would you be so kind as to define "bigot"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From Merriam-Webster: Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance According to the above-quoted definition, the gunman mentioned in the OP is a bigot because he didn't tolerate the Family Research Council having an opinion about marriage that contradicts his own opinion. His use of a gun to shoot someone was an act of hatred. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as your point - technically you are right, but effectively...come on, really! How many non-religionists are really that strongly against gay marriage? You might know a handful personally, but looking at our whole society, this really is about religiously motivated bigotry. Most of the non-religious community either doesn't care or supports gay marriage. I don't believe that. Okay, later today or tomorrow I'm going to see if I can look it up. I realize that many people over 50 are still stuck in a bigoted worldview, without even realizing it. I would fully expect that many older non-religious people feel as you say, and that many younger people don't. There are plenty of morally sound, non-religious people who have strong values... Yes! There are many morally sound, non-religious and religious people who believe gay people should not be discriminated against. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The hatred against anyone who is different than you and believes differently than you do is disgusting. I'm tired of seeing people attacked and belittled because they don't support only heterosexuals being allowed to marry. Violence from anyone, no matter what they believe on this subject is wrong. There has been no hatred expressed in this thread toward non-heterosexuals. The OP is showing how this topic has been over-reacted upon. People are quick to accuse those who are pro-marriage of being hateful. How quickly the attacks came against a man who expressed that he believed in marriage between a man and a woman. No hatred was expressed by Mr. Cathy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The hatred against anyone who is different than you and believes differently than you do is disgusting. I'm tired of seeing people attacked and belittled because they don't support only heterosexuals being allowed to marry. Violence from anyone, no matter what they believe on this subject is wrong. There has been no hatred expressed in this thread toward non-heterosexuals. The OP is showing how this topic has been over-reacted upon. People are quick to accuse those who are pro-marriage of being hateful. How quickly the attacks came against a man who expressed that he believed in marriage between a man and a woman. No hatred was expressed by Mr. Cathy. Sadly, there has been hatred expressed here and other places toward homosexuals and heterosexuals who support gay rights. Cathy was stating his beliefs for him and his company. People can choose to agree or disagree. Those standing up to him aren't necessarily attacking him. Some are, but some are also just stating their opinions without hatred. |
|
|
|
|
