Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well when somebody says (repeatedly and vehemently) that she doesn't agree with something it usually means she's against it.
You've have got to be the first person I've heard say (I'm paraphrasing) "I don't agree with gay marriage, but I support it". Given your many, many posts talking about your disagreement with gay marriage, I never pegged you as somebody who, if your state had a referendum to repeal its gay marriage ban (in other words to legalize gay marriage), would cast a "YES" vote.
I'm for equal rights. I'm not for gay marriage. I don't believe enough has been done to seek full rights under civil unions. IMO, that would be the easiest route for gays having full rights. But it seems to be some sort of weird way for gays to make this a religious fight.
I oppose gay marriage, so I wouldn't vote to support it. I would abstain from any vote against it.
This is where we differ. I don't agree with homosexuality and/or gay marriage, but I don't think that heteros are better than homos. Those two don't go hand in hand, no matter how much some would like to make it so.
I don't hate anyone because of who they are, what they look like, who they choose to love. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't agree with who my sister married; doesn't mean I hate my BIL!
Don't really want to go into the separate but equal thing because it has no bearing on this issue.
And I'm all for gays having equal rights. I don't agree with them getting married, however if the government isn't willing to grant them full rights under civil union laws, then I guess that will have to be the way they get them. I wouldn't want my religious choices/beliefs to infringe on anyone else's freedom. Doesn't mean I can't wish there was an alternative solution and it doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Still not getting why everyone has to agree. Will that be the new argument? Well, we have full rights, but now you have to AGREE with homosexuality!
No one is saying anything about have to agree with it. If someone wants to be a bigot, they can be a bigot. However, everyone should be treated equally and fairly under the law.
Personal religious views should not dictate the laws that others should follow. That is a Theocracy. Civil Marriage exists in this country, plenty of people get married outside of the church for many different reasons. The Church has every right to dictate who gets married in side their church, but they should not have influence over laws on who can get legally married outside of the Church.
No one is saying anything about have to agree with it. If someone wants to be a bigot, they can be a bigot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
However, everyone should be treated equally and fairly under the law.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Personal religious views should not dictate the laws that others should follow. That is a Theocracy. Civil Marriage exists in this country, plenty of people get married outside of the church for many different reasons. The Church has every right to dictate who gets married in side their church, but they should not have influence over laws on who can get legally married outside of the Church.
I agree that religious views should not serve to infringe on anyone's rights. However, I am of the belief that marriage should be a religious ceremony while civil unions should be for all who want to form a non-religious union.
I'm for equal rights. I'm not for gay marriage. I don't believe enough has been done to seek full rights under civil unions. IMO, that would be the easiest route for gays having full rights. But it seems to be some sort of weird way for gays to make this a religious fight.
I oppose gay marriage, so I wouldn't vote to support it. I would abstain from any vote against it.
Huh??? I asked you earlier if you thought gays should have equal access to civil marriage law in the 40 some states that currently deny them that and you said: "Absolutely. 100% YES." Yet now you're saying you don't support allowing gays equal access to civil marriage law (the exact opposite of what you said earlier) and that you could not vote for it. Which is it? Do you support homosexuals having equal access to the law or not?
And what's with the "religious fight" comment? Civil marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
Huh??? I asked you earlier if you thought gays should have equal access to civil marriage law in the 40 some states that currently deny them that and you said: "Absolutely. 100% YES." Yet now you're saying you don't support allowing gays access to civil marriage law (the exact opposite of what you said earlier) and that you could not vote for it. Which is it? Do you support homosexuals having equal access to the law or not?
And what's with the "religious fight" comment? Civil marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
Is what I'm saying so difficult for you to understand? I agree with FULL RIGHTS and access to FULL RIGHTS. I don't agree with gay marriage. I don't agree that gays have fought hard enough to receive these FULL RIGHTS under civil unions. HOWEVER, if marriage is the only way for gays to obtain these rights, then go for it. I wouldn't vote FOR it, but I certainly won't vote AGAINST it. I still won't agree with gay marriage....but my religious views have no bearing on what rights a couple should have access to. Is that clearer?
Is what I'm saying so difficult for you to understand? I agree with FULL RIGHTS and access to FULL RIGHTS. I don't agree with gay marriage. I don't agree that gays have fought hard enough to receive these FULL RIGHTS under civil unions. HOWEVER, if marriage is the only way for gays to obtain these rights, then go for it. I wouldn't vote FOR it, but I certainly won't vote AGAINST it.
It's hard to understand because you keep saying different things. In one post you say you're for gay people having equal access to civil marriage law, and then in the next post you say you don't support gay people have equal access to civil marriage law.
It's very simple. We have a law. The law in most places has been written (in most cases recently modified) so that gay couples are denied access to the law. The way to rectify this injustice is to repeal the provisions in the law that require the unequal treatment of gays.
Quote:
I still won't agree with gay marriage....but my religious views have no bearing on what rights a couple should have access to. Is that clearer?
No, it makes even less sense. If you truly meant this, you would have no problem whatsoever with allowing gay people to contract civil marriages. Civil marriages have nothing to do with religion, yet you still seem to conflate the two. You've now made it crystal clear that you do not support gay people having access to civil marriage law. The only reason you ever give for that is based in your religious "disagreement" - you are using your religious beliefs to justify not supporting equal access of gay couples to civil marriage law.
It's hard to understand because you keep saying different things. In one post you say you're for gay people having equal access to civil marriage law, and then in the next post you say you don't support gay people have equal access to civil marriage law.
It's very simple. We have a law. The law in most places has been written (in most cases recently modified) so that gay couples are denied access to the law. The way to rectify this injustice is to repeal the provisions in the law that require the unequal treatment of gays.
No, it makes even less sense. If you truly meant this, you would have no problem whatsoever with allowing gay people to contract civil marriages. Civil marriages have nothing to do with religion, yet you still seem to conflate the two. You've now made it crystal clear that you do not support gay people having access to civil marriage law. The only reason you ever give for that is based in your religious "disagreement" - you are using your religious beliefs to justify not supporting equal access of gay couples to civil marriage law.
Wow....just wow. I'm done going over and over and around and around with you. You insist on being insulted and oppressed...have at it.
Wow....just wow. I'm done going over and over and around and around with you. You insist on being insulted and oppressed...have at it.
Then say what you mean. Here's how I understand your position:
Marriage law, while being governed by the state, is based in religion. In my particular religious tradition homosexuality is a sin and it is therefore forbidden that gays marry each others. Since marriage law is based in religion, it is therefore okay for the government apply this religious belief and deny gays access to civil marriage law.
However, I do feel bad since the effect of this is that gay people are denied some 1400 rights (not bad enough to allow them access to marriage law however) so I think we should either:
1) While still denying gays access to civil marriage law, create a separate law for homosexuals that confers the same equal rights and then title it something different - civil unions for instance.
or
2) Take the religion out of marriage law although. Make marriage totally secular by scrapping marriage law for everybody and replacing it with union law for everybody. That way everybody is treated equally under the law and we don't have to let gays have access to marriage law.
Then say what you mean. Here's how I understand your position:
Marriage law, while being governed by the state, is based in religion. In my particular religious tradition homosexuality is a sin and it is therefore forbidden that gays marry each others. Since marriage law is based in religion, it is therefore okay for the government apply this religious belief and deny gays access to civil marriage law.
However, I do feel bad since the effect of this is that gay people are denied some 1400 rights (not bad enough to allow them access to marriage law however) so I think we should either:
1) While still denying gays access to civil marriage law, create a separate law for homosexuals that confers the same equal rights and then title it something different - civil unions for instance.
or
2) Take the religion out of marriage law although. Make marriage totally secular by scrapping marriage law for everybody and replacing it with union law for everybody. That way everybody is treated equally under the law and we don't have to let gays have access to marriage law.
How hard did you work to come up with wording that allowed full rights, but still oppressed gays? What rubbage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
