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.
With all the court cases dealing with outlawing ssm, is there a single one that ruled it unconstitutional because the bans violate the establishment of religion clause ? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think supporters of ssm have even presented that argument in court cases.
I understand why proponents of ssm want the disagreements to be about imposing religious [mainly Christian] views on everyone, but that's legal hogwash. imo.
So a Muslim family owned business that donates to Muslim political and legal causes would be boycotted too?
They certainly have a much harsher stance on homosexuality than Christians.
But somehow, I'd bet that gays wouldn't dare do that.
If a Muslim family owned business was providing their profits to organizations that attempt to get laws to change/bend to fit the Muslim religion, I wouldn't be a customer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flem125
I think I will support your boycott by not eating at CFA for the month of July because I don't like intolerant people who try to force their beliefs on everyone else.
Then I think I will boycott your boycott by eating at CFA 3x per week during the month of August because I don't like intolerant people who try to force their beliefs on everyone else.
It's funny how this really goes both ways. CFA is using profits to fund organizations that attempt to use their religion as a strongarm to keep SSM illegal. That's "forcing their beliefs" on people who don't have the same religion or opinion. It's forcing beliefs on these organizations whenever SSM becomes legal.
The question is: Which side should set aside their beliefs for the betterment of society? And before anyone answers, this is a rhetorical question that is the very root of this argument - both sides say that the other is wrong and should back down. Where the real discussion begins is why the other side should back down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
That's nonsensical. They do NOT discriminate. It's not that hard to understand the difference.
You seem to paint a picture of perfection that doesn't reflect reality. There is a very high % of breakups among gays as well. IF a child is involved, he or she ends up in a one-parent family.
And that's the thing. This high percentage is for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. It really boils down to "relationships fail at higher rates than before". When something pertains to both sides of a coin, why is only one downtrodden and discriminated against?
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this seems to suggest that those on the right are not free to vote ("expect") that the government will bend to the majority wishes, as in a referendum, if their vote is guided by or based in their faith system.
Tyranny of the majority is not how the government works in its entirety. While the voting system is pretty much that way, we have a checks and balances system in place to prevent against the majority from trampling the minority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
So, if I'm voting my conscience for or against a particular law, it can't be because of my religion?
As an individual, vote based upon what you feel is right. However, when a decision or vote is brought before the court system, there has to be more evidence and facts to support why such'n'such religious value should have precedence over a differing opinion. The arguments of "my religion says" or "we're the majority" just doesn't fly in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
If government weren't involved and handing out benies, you wouldn't be clamoring for the "right" to marry. Only those who believe in the sanctity of marriage between man and woman would bother to get married.
For the rest, it wouldn't matter. It's all the "benefits" that go along with it that you all want.
Pretty much. The legal contract that was my marriage had nothing to do with the relationship, but rather access to all of the benefits and protections that said contract brought. You don't need a legal marriage to have a successful and rewarding relationship.
Just as a person can be married by a religious figurehead without the state involved.
However, seeing as how the federal and state governments provides benefits and protections, there should be equal access to them by any and all parties who would use them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
Homosexuals can marry persons of the opposite just as can heterosexuals. There is already marriage equality, just not "special privileges".
Just as heterosexuals would be able to marry a person of the same gender with SSM legalized.
It would still be marriage equality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
What are we going to get after gay marriage? Your guess is as good as mine. Why not keep it for one man and one woman and not go crazy about it.
From a legal standpoint, any and all consenting adults should be able to sign the legal document of marriage.
Which is why I think the entire "marriage" word in the government should be replaced with civil union, as that it was that document really is. It's a document stating that two individuals are in a civil union. What people want to call it for themselves is a non-issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
It's not just religious standards, it's few thousand years of history and tradition
You mean the thousands of history where polygamy was not only celebrated, but expected and in some places was a great sign of status and wealth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
I guess polygamists are next, maybe incest too? Who knows.
We are regressing in the name of progress.
Polygamy was the most prominent form of marriage for most of history. Same as incest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
The Chick-Fil-A boycott is part of the gay agenda. They're trying to get all the anti-gays and homophobes to eat themselves to death on bad fast food.
Like the poster who is going to eat there 3x a week for a month? (Talk about yuuuck)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi
The "tradition" that marriage is between man and woman, begun with Adam and Eve. Your feigned ignorance of such a "tradition" is amusing.
If a Muslim family owned business was providing their profits to organizations that attempt to get laws to change/bend to fit the Muslim religion, I wouldn't be a customer.
But you dont see a problem supporting organizations attempting to change laws to bend/fit the gay agenda, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
You mean the thousands of history where polygamy was not only celebrated, but expected and in some places was a great sign of status and wealth?
Polygamy was the most prominent form of marriage for most of history. Same as incest.
Really? Where and when in western civilization was either polygamy or incest a most prominent form of marriage?
Some of the arguments of the gay-activist are simply laughable as they simply disseminate half-truths and absolute no-truths about what we have been studying for centuries: our own history and tradition.
Start a movement if that is what you personally want. I don't personally approve, but if you can get it passed into law, have fun boinking your mommy.
I am simply showing you that inability to marry another adult individual does not have anything to do with discrimination. You are unable to marry your same-sex partner and someone else is unable to marry his sister. Not every legal restriction automatically constitutes discrimination.
Both cases have nothing to do with discrimination.
I am simply showing you that inability to marry another adult individual does not have anything to do with discrimination. You are unable to marry your same-sex partner and someone else is unable to marry his sister.
Both cases have nothing to do with discrimination.
My same sex partner is a consenting, non related adult. Just like current marriage laws, you can not marry a child, animal, toaster, or closely related family member.
Did removing the marriage laws on the race of participants lift the age, or blood relative laws too?
But you dont see a problem supporting organizations attempting to change laws to support gay agenda, do you?
As I stated:
The question is: Which side should set aside their beliefs for the betterment of society? And before anyone answers, this is a rhetorical question that is the very root of this argument - both sides say that the other is wrong and should back down. Where the real discussion begins is why the other side should back down.
In other threads, there is active discussion of this.
But to answer your question, my boycott of CFA isn't directly about gay marriage. It's about the use of religion as a strongarm for legal matters and being against organizations that promote doing so. And my reasoning for that is very simple: We are not a theocracy and not every person has the same religious beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Really? Where and when in western civilization was either polygamy or incest ever a most prominent form of marriage?
Some of the arguments of the gay-activist are simply laughable as they simply disseminate half-truth and absolute non-truths about what we have been studying for centuries: our own history and tradition.
Since when has history been only about what goes on in "western civilization"?
My same sex partner is a consenting, non related adult. Just like current marriage laws, you can not marry a child, animal, toaster, or closely related family member.
Did removing the marriage laws on the race of participants lift the age, or blood relative laws too?
As a straight man, if I were ever to find myself single, i think i would want to marry my TV. It does what I tell it and it never wants to talk to me while the game is on!
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.
