- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
No, I mean opponents. The vast majority of those who oppose SSM do so for reasons that stem from their Christian/religious beliefs.
No, I mean opponents. The vast majority of those who oppose SSM do so for reasons that stem from their Christian/religious beliefs.
They have that freedom. You have the freedom to believe the opposite, right?
Contrary to your bigoted blanket statements, I speak from a position of expereince that there are millions of religious people who don't oppose it, but stay out if it.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
Try to keep up. The freedom to oppose something is not in dispute.
That is not contrary to anything I've said, unless you cannot comprehend what you read.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
Some of them can't stay out of it, becasue it's their job, and YOU (generic you) probably voted them into an office of some sort.
Don't ever vote for a religious person running for POTUS, or any other office, then.
I usually have no choice but to vote for a religious person. I just try to vote for the least bigoted ones.
Many religious people can judge within secular law and keep their religious beliefs out of their decisions. I think it likely, in fact, that gay marriage will finally be legal for just this reason, there is no argument against it that isn't founded in religion, no secular rational justification to be biased against it.
Let me ask you, if/when it is legalized, will this be a major stepping stone in uniting the nation, or solving a huge issue?
How big is the SSM issue in your eyes?
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
That is fine, but we are in constant danger as a free democratic society that our secular freedoms and our vaunted separation of church and state will be voted out by religious or other forms of bigotry, by irrationally fearful people trying to protect themselves against imaginary evil, doing truly dangerous things in the name of good, as is always the case. As a bigot, you have done rather well, in my opinion, being willing to stay out of it. But as a seeker of truth I am as compelled to save you from your bigotry as you are to hold on to it. At root, homosexuality is icky to you because you have no sexual feelings for men, assuming you're not the repressed closet type, and it's that icky feeling that is at root in your bigotry. You can't believe the truth could be icky because you thing the truth will satisfy your feelings. But your culture and past taught you what is icky. You probably don't like to eat cockroaches much either, but that's probably going to be a big item on tomorrow's menu.
I wasn't the one who made the argument that marriages should stay in the church and the government should offer civil unions. If marriages are to stay in the church, I wouldn't be married, regardless of whether in actual fact marriage is not a religious institution.
In addition, neither my post nor the post I was quoting used the word Christian.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
For me it will mean nothing but satisfaction and rest. I will be able to sleep knowing there is one less injustice in the world, that my fellow Americans who happen to be gay and in love can at least in law if not from all fellow citizens, marry the person that they love even if of the same sex. I believe that love is sacred, that marriage is a pronouncement of that fact, that married people are making a statement and a vow before all humanity that they feel a union of souls with some other person. I will know that the state supports that as much as I do. I will feel only empathy when this happens, nothing other than feelings in my heart, but that is what really matters in life to me, the joy of others. I will know that where the ache of separation and denial that in the past destroyed loving hearts, will no longer have to happen to lovers because of bigotry and hate. I have the universe, my love is free. There will be one less barrier that keeps others from being like me.
As of only a couple of years ago, this was a national issue. I don't know if individual hospitals still have the old policies.
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
It was actually a very common practice until recently (2010) when Obama required an update to the standard to allow patients to make the decision of who is allowed to visit and that it not be restricted to family only.
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/11/20101117a.html
Edit: Dangit, CharlesKozierok you beat me to it.
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
It's actually a huge issue because it is at it's core an issue about the most basic concept of American society, equal rights. It is very closely tied in with the basis of the 14th Amendment.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
http://www.springvalleyhospital.com/patients-and-visitors/visitor-information "Visitors are limited to immediate family in intensive care units."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hosp...artners-effect/story?id=12642543#.UOsKEeS7OAg
DougK62
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2001
- 8,035
- 6
- 81
Living in the rural midwest I have this conversation with someone probably a few times per year:
Someone: We need to keep those gays out of marriage, that stuff is sacred (paraphrasing)
Me: What's so wrong about giving all adults the same legal rights?
Someone: Oh they can have their rights, but you just can't call it "marriage". Why not call it a "civil union"?
Me: Well if it's the word that you don't like then how about if the government doesn't recognize any "marriages" and just calls the legal contracts - regardless of sexual orientation - "civil unions" for everyone? That would be equal.
Someone: Well, now that isn't right either...
Me: ...
Someone: ...
Always leaves me shaking my head.
Someone: We need to keep those gays out of marriage, that stuff is sacred (paraphrasing)
Me: What's so wrong about giving all adults the same legal rights?
Someone: Oh they can have their rights, but you just can't call it "marriage". Why not call it a "civil union"?
Me: Well if it's the word that you don't like then how about if the government doesn't recognize any "marriages" and just calls the legal contracts - regardless of sexual orientation - "civil unions" for everyone? That would be equal.
Someone: Well, now that isn't right either...
Me: ...
Someone: ...
Always leaves me shaking my head.
We will still have religious opponents (the "Church" in particular) and a whole host of other issues to deal with.
Bottom line, I think this solves nothing, to be honest. I personally think the SCOTUS needs to just rule in light of said rights and be done with it and not drag this out till mid 2013.
It should be a State issue, however, but since they have it, rule on it and be done with it.
I wouldn't be suprised to see a ruling that this should be handled at the State level.
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
If we took the point of view of allowing it to be a state issue you'd likely still have states that don't allow interracial marriage. And I hope everyone in here can at least see why that would be wrong.
All adults do have the same rights. SSM is about couples, not individuals.
So in other words Obama came up with a solution that gets even better results. And it doesn't require redefining marriage.
Awesome.
Interracial marriage is only a relevant point if you think that men and women are fundamentally the same.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
There is not a separate Constitution and Bill of Rights for men and another for women.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter