Why "protecting marriage" is retarded

I only saw 2 in the entire slide show.

You viewed the entire slide show.

6a00c2251ce3f4f21900e398f379e80004-320pi
 
I'm hesitant to post input cuz I didn't read the entire debated thread, but here's my opinion. Clearly, its a freedom of religion vs gay rights battle. The problem rests with the state not issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Which is understandable because only a church has the right to perform ceremonial marriage.

The definition of civil union, n., a legal joining of two individuals that confers all the legal rights of marriage, but lacking a spiritual or religious dimension. In use since at least 1992

Why not have gay rights activists fight for the expansion of civil union laws? That way churches can keep their freedom, and gays can be "married" minus the ceremony. If the church in your local area agree to wed same sex couples, then the state can still issue a civil union license and the couple can also have their ceremony too. Everyone's happy. :)
 
I'm hesitant to post input cuz I didn't read the entire debated thread, but here's my opinion. Clearly, its a freedom of religion vs gay rights battle. The problem rests with the state not issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Which is understandable because only a church has the right to perform ceremonial marriage.

The definition of civil union, n., a legal joining of two individuals that confers all the legal rights of marriage, but lacking a spiritual or religious dimension. In use since at least 1992

Why not have gay rights activists fight for the expansion of civil union laws? That way churches can keep their freedom, and gays can be "married" minus the ceremony. If the church in your local area agree to wed same sex couples, then the state can still issue a civil union license and the couple can also have their ceremony too. Everyone's happy. :)

excuse me? Religious freedom VERSUS gay rights? Why can't gay rights be protected as a religion? Only a church has the right to perform marriage ceremonies? What about synangogues and temples? What about gay churches? What about mock churches? Are they breaking anybody's copyright monopoly by competing with churches to perform weddings?

Why not have gay rights activists fight for the expansion of civil union laws? Because "civil union" is a term that's only different in name, much like calling black people "black people" instead of just calling them "people"

Why should they be called something different unless legally they have to be treated differently? Why should they be "separate BUT equal" not "separate" or "equal"? I am NOT saying gay people should be treated equally, I am saying, we should be open about our bias and hatred, not dress it up and disguise it.

"Churches can keep their freedom" (or else they may lose it) is a lie, churches ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL have the freedom to deny gays marriage just like synagogues deny gentiles marriage and Mormon Temples deny non-Mormons. Furthermore, just like how black people can still be hated, society is still free to hate gays and gay couples even if they are legally equal.

Just because black people are given full human rights as whites and called "people" rather than "black people", does not force anybody to see them as people, you are (and certainly I am) free to believe blacks are dirty, stinky subhuman beasts (and teach your children that), if you feel like it.

No rights of any religious bigots are violated by giving marriage licenses to gays, just like nobody's rights are violated if I gave driver licenses to monkeys or gave drinking licenses to dogs.
 
excuse me? Religious freedom VERSUS gay rights? Why can't gay rights be protected as a religion? Only a church has the right to perform marriage ceremonies? What about synangogues and temples? What about gay churches? What about mock churches? Are they breaking anybody's copyright monopoly by competing with churches to perform weddings?

Why not have gay rights activists fight for the expansion of civil union laws? Because "civil union" is a term that's only different in name, much like calling black people "black people" instead of just calling them "people"

Why should they be called something different unless legally they have to be treated differently? Why should they be "separate BUT equal" not "separate" or "equal"? I am NOT saying gay people should be treated equally, I am saying, we should be open about our bias and hatred, not dress it up and disguise it.

"Churches can keep their freedom" (or else they may lose it) is a lie, churches ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL have the freedom to deny gays marriage just like synagogues deny gentiles marriage and Mormon Temples deny non-Mormons. Furthermore, just like how black people can still be hated, society is still free to hate gays and gay couples even if they are legally equal.

Just because black people are given full human rights as whites and called "people" rather than "black people", does not force anybody to see them as people, you are (and certainly I am) free to believe blacks are dirty, stinky subhuman beasts (and teach your children that), if you feel like it.

No rights of any religious bigots are violated by giving marriage licenses to gays, just like nobody's rights are violated if I gave driver licenses to monkeys or gave drinking licenses to dogs.

One question to your rebuttal. If rights were amended giving same-sex couples the right to be wed, would you sue your church for not performing a wedding for you and your same-sex partner?

I dislike grouping individuals as much as anyone here, but unfortunately that's the system we live in. Without causing direct conflict between two self-proclaimed groups, separation is necessary to a degree. In a perfect world, "Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims." - Dr. Paul
 
One question to your rebuttal. If rights were amended giving same-sex couples the right to be wed, would you sue your church for not performing a wedding for you and your same-sex partner?

I dislike grouping individuals as much as anyone here, but unfortunately that's the system we live in. Without causing direct conflict between two self-proclaimed groups, separation is necessary to a degree. In a perfect world, "Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims." - Dr. Paul

Would I sue? Maybe if I had nothing better to do, which I can today to any synagogue that denies my right to marry gentiles in their building. But I would have no case, frivolous lawsuits are 100% legal but almost always dismissed because there are no victims and is a waste of everybody's time. What do I gain by suing a synagogue (other than the entertainment of annoying bigoted Jews)? NOTHING.

So to answer in short, NO I WOULD NOT SUE anybody for denying gays married, just like racist people today are free to deny that interracial couples are married or blacks are people. Nobody sues racists for being bigots, so why should religious bigots get sued?
 
Back
Top