1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Why ‘Gay Marriage’ is Evil

David3036 Wrote: Jan 26, 2015 7:38 AM
Of the tens of thousands of gay weddings that have taken place in this country, only a small handful of test cases have been brought against businesses for discrimination. Most same-sex couples seek out gay-friendly businesses. Unfortunately, you can't always tell. The couple in Washington state thought they were doing just that when they asked their regular florist -- a shop they had been doing business with for YEARS -- to do the flowers for their wedding. They were surprised -- shocked even -- to be refused. Nevertheless, the first lawsuit was filed by the state, not by the couple. That is what is happening in many of these test cases -- the actions or lawsuits are being brought by state attorneys general or state Civil Rights Commissions. It is not the wrath of the "gaystapo," but the attempts by state officials to enforce the law. And if faith becomes an excuse for discrimination, all such laws are out the window, because anyone can claim a deeply held religious belief in separation of the races or claim that their religion doesn't allow them to serve Jews. Maybe you're OK with that, but good luck trying to repeal those laws -- we have a better shot at repealing Obamacare than scrapping the laws against discrimination.
In response to:

Why ‘Gay Marriage’ is Evil

David3036 Wrote: Jan 26, 2015 7:22 AM
Jesus invented Logic? What were Plato, Socrates and Aristotle doing all that time? Regardless, there is one FATAL flaw in Barber's "logic." The laws on same-sex marriage address CIVIL marriage only, having nothing to do with religion. Granted, a couple can have a Christian, Jewish or Pagan ceremony -- but that has always been the case. Nothing has changed there, and nothing has changed for the religious institutions that want no part of it. Gay couples who are getting married today are often couples who have already been together for years, and may even have had a ceremony of some kind in the past that was not a legal marriage. The only change is that they can now make it legal with two documents -- a marriage license and a marriage certificate. It doesn't even require a religious leader to sign it -- a judge can do it. And, by the way, if Jesus invented logic, what about that statement that "This is my body...."? Where's the logic in that? A hunk of bread was his body?
Mick, as much as you would like it be be so, the idea that marriage has "always been limited to a union between one man and one woman" completely ignores the REAL history of marriage. Various societies have more often accepted polygamy than required monogamy. Marriage “norms” have included arranged marriages, “purchased” wives, child marriages, slave marriages, forced marriages of widows to their brothers-in law -- and, yes, same-sex marriages in medieval Europe, Japan and China, and among native tribes in Africa and the Americas. There were lesbian wedding ceremonies in China during the ancient Ming dynasty. Both Chinese and Sudanese cultures allow for marrying dead people. The Nga people of Tibet, a tribal group dating back to at least the Ming Dynasty, have no marriage at all. Children are raised and educated in a matrilinial society with no regard or concern for who their fathers are. And, of course, many societies have revered marriage but tolerated men having mistresses or male lovers on the side. The biblical prophets had their concubines in addition to their multiple wives. The idea of “one-man, one-woman” as a traditional marriage that dates back thousands of years is a fantasy. Marriage traditions are as diverse as the world’s cultures themselves.
Someone needs to tell Rachel Maddow not to act so smug, which she does even when she's wrong -- for example, when she smugly declared that the Constitution doesn't have a preamble. She was putting down some conservative who dared to quote the Constitution's preamble -- the "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility...etc. -- THAT preamble. Maddow insisted that the Declaration of Independence had a preamble but the Constitution did not. And it wasn't just what she said, but the smug way she said it, as she does with so many of her reports.
There was a magazine cover picturing Rachel Maddow a few years ago that asked, "Is this the smartest woman in America?" My answer would be, "No, it's the SMART-A$$ woman in America."
Some of those countries have laws against hate speech, which we don't have in the U.S.
Some of those countries have laws against hate speech, which we don't have in the U.S.
If the only issue is the definition of marriage, why do you guys always bring up the "sin" issue, the "perversion" issue, the "laws of nature" issue, the "disgusting" issue, the comparisons to abortion, etc.? These comments are knee-jerk homophobia, not some profound concern about the definition of a word.
i have a gay son too. Does that discredit me?
But here's the difference that you are not seeing. Same-sex marriage addresses a problem experienced by hundreds of thousands of gay couples who were ALREADY together as couples -- some for very long periods of time. The reason it is inconceivable for groups and polygamists is that those relationships are rare -- and there is no groundswell of support for legalizing them. And you know as well as I do that NO judge or voter is going to go for that. It is almost the reddest of red herrings.
1 - 10 Next