foxyman1167
From Zero To Hero
Yes, everyone should have the same rights. The same thing already happened with women, blacks, and native americans. It'll be a struggle for now, but eventually it'll happen.
Thank you, Ethan, for using such sound logic in this statement. You cannot compare the two scenarios because homosexuals can come from any ethnic group.
Take a look at what Wikipedia says about what happened.
These laws were designed to oppress a certain group of citizens. The laws that are being brought forward today are not designed with the intent to oppress a certain people group. The laws are stating that no men have the right to marry men and no women have the right to marry women. So in fact everyone does have equal rights. They are not being denied something that heterosexuals get.
Except the problem with that statement is that homosexuals choose to not have kids. J.T. won't like this, but let me use an argument from evolution. If beneficial mutations are passed down by reproduction, isn't it possible that homosexuals are prohibiting evolution by wanting to be married to the same gender? If you believe evolution, why would you want to endorse a law that hinders evolution?
That's about as good logic as saying that police say it's wrong to murder but people on the street do it so the laws against it must be nonsense.
Thank you, Ethan, for using such sound logic in this statement. You cannot compare the two scenarios because homosexuals can come from any ethnic group.
Take a look at what Wikipedia says about what happened.
These laws were designed to oppress a certain group of citizens.
The laws that are being brought forward today are not designed with the intent to oppress a certain people group.
The laws are stating that no men have the right to marry men and no women have the right to marry women. So in fact everyone does have equal rights. They are not being denied something that heterosexuals get.
Except the problem with that statement is that homosexuals choose to not have kids.
J.T. won't like this, but let me use an argument from evolution.
If beneficial mutations are passed down by reproduction, isn't it possible that homosexuals are prohibiting evolution by wanting to be married to the same gender?
If you believe evolution, why would you want to endorse a law that hinders evolution?
Except the problem with that statement is that homosexuals choose to not have kids. J.T. won't like this, but let me use an argument from evolution.
If you believe evolution, why would you want to endorse a law that hinders evolution?
That's about as good logic as saying that police say it's wrong to murder but people on the street do it so the laws against it must be nonsense.
Some gays can't help it, it's in their genetics. And the government is not listening to SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Heck one person provided an arguement that approval of homosexual marriages would be bad simply because that would mean changing the dictionary definition of marriage.
I am all for gay rights and I have nothing against any homosexuals. I am against gay marriage though. I am fully supportive of civil unions which is basically a government sanctioned marriage. I do not believe gay couples should be married in a church.
Personally, I don't understand why people get so hung up on whether its called a marriage or a civil union. They are both binding you as a couple legally. They both give you the same benefits as a couple (insurance, hospital visitation, tax deductions, etc). The only difference is one's in a church and the other isn't.
I just don't believe you can force a religion to change it's belief structure just because society as a whole is changing its attitude.
Actually I hate to challenge you here, but you're wrong. Marriage is also a social-economic-political thing as well, and not just involved in Religion.
Also, Civil Unions and Marriages do not have the same rights, Marriage has a lot more (most hospitals do not accept civil unions as a way to visit a lover)
Antiyonder said:It's not about changing their beliefs, but convincing them to respect the rights of others.
A person can't and shouldn't be punished for merely disliking homosexuals, but they can and should be penalized for forcing that hate onto others and denying homosexuals their freedom to marry (ala Prop 8).
So while religions should have the right to have their beliefs, they shouldn't be given the right to force those beliefs on others. Live and let live afterall.
I am all for gay rights and I have nothing against any homosexuals. I am against gay marriage though. I am fully supportive of civil unions which is basically a government sanctioned marriage. I do not believe gay couples should be married in a church.
It would be a completely different story if the church came along and said, "You know what, there is nothing wrong with the way you are living. You are fine people and as long as you love each other, you deserve to be together." Then I would be all for gay marriage. I just don't think you can force a religion to change its whole belief structure with a bunch of protests.
Personally, I don't understand why people get so hung up on whether its called a marriage or a civil union. They are both binding you as a couple legally. They both give you the same benefits as a couple (insurance, hospital visitation, tax deductions, etc). The only difference is one's in a church and the other isn't.
My mother when she got married the 1st time, she had to have a civil union because her husband wasn't catholic. so what if she didn't get married in a church. we rented out a hall and the ceremony was still beautiful. of course later on down the road, he converted to catholicism for her and they went to our church to have the wedding blessed by the church.
No one needs a parade to show off their sexuality. It's like painting a bulls-eye on your back in some situations.
Actually the whole point of religion is to convince others why your way is the right way.
gays are sick its sooooooooooo gross