For those against gay marriage
- Thread starter FancyVest
- Start date
eileenbunny
Druish Princess
The whole religious argument is really invalid unless these crazy religious people really want us to make the laws based solely on the bible, which they don't. They just want to judge people.
If they really wanted us to follow the bible, we'd be punishing people for having sex while a woman is menstruating not to mention that all women need to go away for 7 days every time they get their period, we should be giving sacrifices of meat to God, we should be stoning people for procreating outside of their race, tattoos are right out, shaving isn't a good idea either, mentally challenged people shouldn't be allowed to worship, and possibly worst of all WE WON'T BE ALLOWED TO EAT BACON!!!
It's actually partially true. The people who came here from Europe did so to escape religious persecution so they could be free to practice their religion. The puritans were actually pretty intolerant of other religions, but that's not the way they wrote the constitution, fortunately.
Anyway, politicians love that this is such a heated moral issue so they don't actually have to admit the real reasons why gay marriage has not become allowable most places. It really is just a tolerance and civil rights issue. As dbzeag mentioned, it all comes down to money. We simply can't afford it currently. Our healthcare system will be effected further, small business would not be able to afford benefits, blah blah blah. I think it sucks. I think we should find a way to make room for this in our budget. I don't have all the answers though.
Gay marriage does put an interesting idea into the debate. If we legalize it, it could put the government in the awkward situation of having to force it's morals on religious organizations. For example, what if a gay couple wanted to get married at a place owned by Christians who do not morally agree with the couple. Do those Christians have the right to deny the gay couple access to their facility? Should the government force the gay couple on those Christians? Is that a violation of the separations of church and state? I dunno.
If they really wanted us to follow the bible, we'd be punishing people for having sex while a woman is menstruating not to mention that all women need to go away for 7 days every time they get their period, we should be giving sacrifices of meat to God, we should be stoning people for procreating outside of their race, tattoos are right out, shaving isn't a good idea either, mentally challenged people shouldn't be allowed to worship, and possibly worst of all WE WON'T BE ALLOWED TO EAT BACON!!!
It's actually partially true. The people who came here from Europe did so to escape religious persecution so they could be free to practice their religion. The puritans were actually pretty intolerant of other religions, but that's not the way they wrote the constitution, fortunately.
Anyway, politicians love that this is such a heated moral issue so they don't actually have to admit the real reasons why gay marriage has not become allowable most places. It really is just a tolerance and civil rights issue. As dbzeag mentioned, it all comes down to money. We simply can't afford it currently. Our healthcare system will be effected further, small business would not be able to afford benefits, blah blah blah. I think it sucks. I think we should find a way to make room for this in our budget. I don't have all the answers though.
Gay marriage does put an interesting idea into the debate. If we legalize it, it could put the government in the awkward situation of having to force it's morals on religious organizations. For example, what if a gay couple wanted to get married at a place owned by Christians who do not morally agree with the couple. Do those Christians have the right to deny the gay couple access to their facility? Should the government force the gay couple on those Christians? Is that a violation of the separations of church and state? I dunno.
church's can deny whoever/whatever they want. marriage is more than a religious institution, it's a tax write off too. an athiest judge can marry two people in a courtroom in 5 minutes... thats all the gays are asking for. they can find plenty of ordained ministers to marry them, and plenty of churches will accept them, doesnt mean they all have too.
a non-profit org can still deny anyones business.
I personally do not have a problem with it. But, if you want it, it's all or nothing. My biggest fear is after it is approved, there will need to be 'special' conditions attached because, you know, a homosexual marriage is 'just a little different' than a straight marriage.
The moment I hear a homosexual couple make that arguement and start pushing it, I will lose my nut. I'm all for equal rights, but equal is equal. There is no '95% but we get to decide what 5% we don't' want bullshit.
The moment I hear a homosexual couple make that arguement and start pushing it, I will lose my nut. I'm all for equal rights, but equal is equal. There is no '95% but we get to decide what 5% we don't' want bullshit.
eileenbunny
Druish Princess
This is why I was careful not to say church. It's an issue that actually has already come up. Justices have been fired for refusing to marry gay couples for moral and religious reasons, tax-free statuses have been revoked, even the YMCA has been forced to recognize gay relationships. Also, there was the issue with the Boston Catholic Church abandoning an otherwise wonderful program because the state was trying to force them in to accepting gay couples. There are consequences which aren't necessarily good.
I'm just saying it is going to raise some sticky issues. I understand your point, I've spent a fair amount of time lobbying gay rights to religious conservative politicians. I wouldn't be very good at it if I couldn't argue both sides.
Not only are there religious reasons, which are believed by 75% of the population of the voting electorate, there are non-religous reasons to remove gay marriage.
Also, there are many more important things that should have time and effort to be worked on.
Also, there are many more important things that should have time and effort to be worked on.
People will ALWAYS find a way to segregate themselves, which is really what religion is about.
Is there a link proving this? I have some political science major at work telling me that this country was founded on Christian beliefs. Ugh.
there was me thinking the mayflower were a bunch of puritan fuckups who landed to found a country where they wouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs
unless you have some sort of made up australian history, since australia was founded sometime last tuesday
unless you have some sort of made up australian history, since australia was founded sometime last tuesday
the puritans weren't the only people who founded america. you can hardly apply their reasons for coming here to everyone. i'm absolutely certain that a lot of people who came to the new world were speculators who figured they could make a buck. a lot were probably criminals looking for either a fresh start, or a lawless land. not all came for religious purposes.
Last edited:
Puritans migrated here early on but if anything it's a country based on 17th century british ideals. They were varying shades of Protestant and it shows.
It definitely was never a Catholic country for example.
At the age of fourteen, a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum, it's breathtaking, I suggest you try it.