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.
Just 20 years ago, I could make this statement and there would hardly be a cringe among a crowd.
Today, it is seen as taboo; as if a damning slander suddenly leaped out of the dark ages. Heck, someone might close this very thread.
Why is this? How is it that a societal opinion can change so quickly, and so fiercely?
I do agree with you that 20 years ago-- when Coldwine was but a young lass who still had hopes and dreams-- no one would have cringed.
Except I would have. I also would have been very combative and gotten nowhere, because I had yet to understand that anger and aggression get you nowhere in discussion.
These days, my go-to response for "I do not support gay marriage" is "You don't have to."
Your personal religion, if you are religious, need not accept gay marriage. Or recognize gay marriage. No one ever demanded that.
These days my response is, "That's fine. You do not need to support it. But the disagreement of one person does not, and should never, deprive the LGBT community of the right to marriage."
I have no problem with religious institutions refusing to recognize, or perform, same sex marriages. They are religions, and I believe it would be unacceptable to assault those beliefs.
This is my "But..." line: They are still deserving of the legal institution of marriage. That knife cuts both ways. We do not dictate what religions believe, and religions are private institutions that have no place in dictating federal law.
I do agree with you that 20 years ago-- when Coldwine was but a young lass who still had hopes and dreams-- no one would have cringed.
Except I would have. I also would have been very combative and gotten nowhere, because I had yet to understand that anger and aggression get you nowhere in discussion.
These days, my go-to response for "I do not support gay marriage" is "You don't have to."
Your personal religion, if you are religious, need not accept gay marriage. Or recognize gay marriage. No one ever demanded that.
These days my response is, "That's fine. You do not need to support it. But the disagreement of one person does not, and should never, deprive the LGBT community of the right to marriage."
I have no problem with religious institutions refusing to recognize, or perform, same sex marriages. They are religions, and I believe it would be unacceptable to assault those beliefs.
This is my "But..." line: They are still deserving of the legal institution of marriage. That knife cuts both ways. We do not dictate what religions believe, and religions are private institutions that have no place in dictating federal law.
Notice how the liberal viewpoint is "you don't have to support me, you just have to concede to my beliefs"? That's why they love totalitarianism.
2) You claimed that everyone supports gay marriage, so clearly they're not in the minority, according to you.
3) You just admitted that the majority vote opposes gay marriage, which would not exist if it was "up to the masses," which contradicts the unscientific polls you tried to post.
4) I'm still interested in the story you're going to make up to tell me how homosexuality was normal and accepted until it wasn't and how that occurred.
Marriage is considered a civil right in this country.
There is state majority and countrywide majority and they don't always match up.
I didn't make up history and you obviously are ignorant of it or choose to ignore it.
Are you not aware that many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex? Are you that naïve?
Misread your post. Of course I know that. However its not to the extant homosexuals do it. Otherwise gays wouldn't make up 80% of people who contracted HIV/AIDS.
So you are using that argument against gay marriage, just stop already
How can you not understand this? It's very simple. You're for any relationships between two consenting adults, right? So why is incest excluded? Better yet why stop at two? Why can three or more marry if they wanted to?
The process of the enlightenment is accelerating. Mind your own damn business.
The enlightenment is accelerating? What? Is this even an enlightened age? Where exactly are all these enlightened people?
There are multiple factors which have led to same-sex marriage becoming legal. But it is mainly about politics.
And same-sex marriage is less the result of social-optimism, than it is the result of a wave of cynicism. A distrust of everything, and everyone.
Throw on top of that a growing nihilism from the loss of faith, you have a society of materialists, who believe the only point of life is to have as much fun as possible before they die.
The lines aren't being drawn between the enlightened and the unenlightened. It is the materialists going to war against civilization itself.
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.
