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.
nah, since someone said that you cant impose your beliefs on others. Its not a choice for you but it is a choice for them. you have your belief and i have mine
i would not recognize their marriage or allow their friend to sleep in the same room at my house, as I would not for my heterosexual non married child
So if you lived in Boston instead of Philadelphia and your gay child was LEGALLY wed, you'd still treat them inferior to your married heterosexual child and on the same basis as a non-married heterosexual child? I'm sorry, but I don't understand that logic.
I think this is the crux of the matter: the imposition of faith on civil liberties.
I totally respect the rights of all Christians, and other religionists to believe and follow their faith, it is the imposing it, directly or indirectly, on others that is the principle issue of these debates.
Thanks, giz, for making that crystal clear.
You're very welcome. That's exactly the point... I don't believe in Christianity, but you don't hear me protesting their existence, or suggesting they shouldn't be treated equally. I still fully support the right of others to believe it, to attend church, to marry other Christians (or non-Christians), and so forth. Therein lies the difference between tolerance and exclusionary thought.
We can argue logic, but values are subject to the individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScrantonWilkesBarre
So if you lived in Boston instead of Philadelphia and your gay child was LEGALLY wed, you'd still treat them inferior to your married heterosexual child and on the same basis as a non-married heterosexual child? I'm sorry, but I don't understand that logic.
nah, since someone said that you cant impose your beliefs on others. Its not a choice for you but it is a choice for them. you have your belief and i have mine
And as I've said to you before, it's completely your right to believe that... but when you think your beliefs should dictate laws, or excuse unfair treatment of others, that's where I have a problem.
how did i say that? please in what i wrote did i say i would treat them inferior,whatever that means?
It maybe legal in Massachusetts but it is still immoral and a sin in my house and in my belief
And THAT is where you're treating them as inferior... calling somebody immoral, sinner, not allowed in your house, etc. How can you possibly be so blind to your mis-treatment of gays, and the way you're treating them as second-class citizens? It's your right to do so, but don't expect us to pat you on the back, or agree that you're treating them fairly.
how did i say that? please in what i wrote did i say i would treat them inferior,whatever that means?
It maybe legal in Massachusetts but it is still immoral and a sin in my house and in my belief
slavery was legal at one time too, so was segregation and racism
You implied that your MARRIED heterosexual child would be permitted to share a room in your home while your UNMARRIED homosexual child would not be allowed to, as referenced to you comparing him/her to an unmarried heterosexual child. There's a big difference there---the unmarried heterosexual child has the option to wed in every state whereas the unmarried homosexual child is denied that option in most states. For all you know the unmarried heterosexual child could have been with his/her partner for one year before tying the knot while the unmarried homosexual child could have been with his/her partner for ten years but are legally barred from marriage. In that sense, the married couple who knew each other for just one year is given bedroom arrangement preference over the gay couple who were together for ten years but were unable to wed?
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but I was under the impression that you held the belief that unmarried people are not permitted in the same bedroom in your home while married people were, which is blatantly unfair to a gay individual who is legally UNABLE to marry!
yes married heterosexual because that is right. the unmarried hetero child can wed, the homosexual child does not marry and in Mass it may be legal(not what i was talking about) doesnt make it moral or right and in my house it is not legal or right any more than my 21 year old may have a right to smoke but not in my house.
so they would not be able to sleep together in my condo in western mass because they would not be deemed legal in my house no more than slavery would be
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.
That's exactly the point... I don't believe in Christianity, but you don't hear me protesting their existence, or suggesting they shouldn't be treated equally. I still fully support the right of others to believe it, to attend church, to marry other Christians (or non-Christians), and so forth. Therein lies the difference between tolerance and exclusionary thought. 
