I want to first preface my statement with this, I support a homosexual person right to marry whomever they choose, and I support the rights of a group of people wanting to be married. There, I want that to be clear so people understand I am not attempting to use a slippery slope argument.
Mackie2k, I understand where you are coming from, I grew up in the nice christian church, and I used to believe marriage was "their sacrement." Government should have no right to change their sacrement. However, we are not talking about your churches sacrement. We are talking about a status recognized by the government that grants certain rights and privlidges to the people who are granted this status.
You are saying that a homosexual person does not deserve those same rights and privlidges because they are homosexual. Think of this as "government marriage" and "church marriage." We do not want to force your church to recognize this "government marriage," but we do want the government to recognize this "government marriage" and to give the homosexual person the exact same rights as the heterosexual person enjoys.
And finally, I believe you are right to compare homosexual marriage to polygamy. They are very much the same thing. Why should we deny a homosexual man, or a third person from entering into a marriage with the person or people that they love. Who are we to decide that their love is not real, and that they are not worthy of having the same rights that we enjoy? Our government is not supposed to deny anyone equal protection, but if a person loves two people who are married or a person of the same sex, that person is denied the same and equal protection.
And finally, since you equate gay marriage with polygamy, Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, all had multiple wives. These men talked with God, if the men who talked with God could have polygamous marriages, what is wrong with it from a sacredness of marriage stance?
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,531
- 605
- 126
Furthermore, the government has no place in marriage in the first place.
Marriage licenses only became civil law in the last 200 years or so.
Many forget that separation of church and state was not designed to protect the government from the church but the church from the government.
Congress is to make NO Law.
Case in point...The Church of England.
Marriage licenses only became civil law in the last 200 years or so.
Many forget that separation of church and state was not designed to protect the government from the church but the church from the government.
Congress is to make NO Law.
Case in point...The Church of England.
If you are going to allow Civil Unions, you may as allow "marriage" because otherwise you are really just infringing on the First Amendment rights of the individuals as far as what they want to call their union.
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
1) Why should the government reward people for getting married, having kids, etc.? Its a personal choice.
2) I see the legal case when the spouse is incapacitated or upon death, but do civil unions or domestic partnerships have the same legal authority? Going back to the original topic, how does an animal or inanimate object make decisions about hospice care when the spouse cannot? In the case of a multiple person marriage, whose direction should the doctor listen to? In the event of a death, are the remaining people still married to each other?
The old 'you attack my bigotry so you are the bigot' nonsense.
We'll go with a simple approach for you.
Let's say that my view is that marriage is a white-only institution. All other races can have equal 'civil unions', but not marriage.
There is history of race-based restrctions on marriage.
Now, if you say you have an 'inability to respect' that position, does that make you the 'real bigot'?
Of course not - it makes you in favor of equality, and not bigoted but the opponent of bigotry.
The roots of marriage being man-woman only lie in discrimination against gays. Just as some wanted to fight the change to end slavery, you want to fight the change for equality.
While separate may not always mean inferior, in the case of marriage it does, because the *only* real reason for the separation is the desire to keep gays second-class.
That's allowed for a religion - but not for the law.
Heterosexual love = homosexual love.
Human couple love != human-animal love.
You show your bigotry to make any such comparison between a gay person and an animal, once again proving your side wrong and immoral.
This line of reasoning is always so ridiculous. 'Your intolerance of my bigotry makes you a bigot!'
*sigh*
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
How does two people of the same sex degrade or endanger marriage? This is a serious question. What are the consequences of two men getting married? I do not understand why do you care.
Wow, this 'winning an argument' thing is really easy when you just make shit up for the other side to believe, huh? It's 5PM, doesn't that mean Bill O'Reilly is on? You guys can foam about the evil 'secular progressives' together.
You don't understand the word bigotry, and so all distinctions are equally 'bigotry' to you. I'd explain the word to you if I knew how to say it a way I thought you might understand.
This is where their 'man marries his car' thing is helpful. That would degrade marriage, by making marriage 'a joke' instead of the meaningful institution it is.
The issue is that they see gay marriage more like a man and a car, than as two human beings, because of the bigotry against gays.
Gay marriage degrades marriage for them precisely because they are so bigoted towards gays that it would make marriage the same sort of 'joke'.
The reason your rational argument doesn't get through to them is because of that difference in views about whether gay relationships are fully equal.
Once you get them to understand that gay relationships are equal, the rest pretty much follows, other than the religious issue.
Unfortunately, those who are bigoted towards gays have a hard time growing out of that bigotry. Actually, that applies to most bigotry.
The fact that they do makes the issue not about the rational issues, the morality - but just a political battle of who can get more votes, the bigots or the non-bigots.
Bigotry being 'open to interpretation' doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You might say 'moral' is open to interpretation, but the Holocaust was immoral.
Your arguments are at the level of a child. They again just prove your own bigotry as you try to compare a gay person and an animal.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter