Either gay marriage or no marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

False equivalency. That argument was used in the 1960s when interracial marriage was banned and the laws were being challenged. "A black person has the same rights as a white person, to marry someone of the same race." You know who advanced that argument back then? BIGOTS. The same kind of bigots who try to advance yours today.

In the past, homosexual couples would have considered marriage were it not for people like you who made them feel inferior. Things are different today. The ship has sailed. You're either on it or you're back on shore with the rest of the dinosaurs.

So lgbt people are mutants?

And I know how an orgasm works. That said, they would exist if two genders didn't.

Albert Einstein?

"Coincidence is God's way of staying anonymous."

Which God would that be? Allah? Vishnu? the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Oh, lemme guess, you're one of those "There is only one God ... mine" people.

Allah, Allaha, Yahweh, El, Elohim, Elosha, Elijah, Jesus, The Holy Spirit, God, He Is Who He Is.

Albert Einstein was a Jew. He believed in one God.

But did Albert Einstein attempt to make his God's law "the" law of our secular nation? No. That's why bacon is legal.

I should probably make it clear I'm playing devil's advocate here: I don't believe that marriage should be restricted from gay couples. However, I don't think that believing such automatically makes one homophobic, and such accusations are not only illogical but they are being used for the sole purpose of making ad hominem attacks.

Well, I apologize if I seemed harsh, but I have gay relatives and friends, and people who would deny them the right to marry seem to me to be cruel and, sorry but it's the only word ... homophobic. It is homophobic to deny gay people equal rights. If you don't want to be called a homophobe, then don't advance arguments like that. There's no way around it.

Yes. Straight people are mutants too. So are autistic people. So are neurotypicals. A "mutant" allele is just a term used to describe anything different from an arbitrarily-assigned "wild-type" allele. Given the sheer number of genes a given organism has, every living creature is effectively a mutant.

So did you plan on addressing anything I said, or just try to denigrate gay people as "mutants" like the homophobe you are?



Who cares?

You are misrepresenting his religious beliefs, he wrote a far amount on his religious beliefs, and you cannot get clearer than this;

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."(Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

He certainly seems to have held spiritual beliefs, possibly along the lines of pantheism. But this digresses from my point about common sense. Many science researchers guard against common sense for very good reason as it can lead a person to misinterpret or ignore the evidence.

Personally, I think that the second option would be better, not for any opposition to Gay marriage, but I don't think marriage is something that the State should control

While you have a point, attempting to remove the state from marriage entirely would mean that couples married outside of a religious setting (church, temple, mosque) would not be considered married anymore. I can assure you that there are far more couples like that, who would vehemently object to removing the state's sanction and therefore rendering them unmarried, than there are people who object to same-sex marriage.

The fact is, the only objections to same-sex marriage are religious in nature. No one is calling for laws forcing religious officials to marry same-sex couples. Civil marriage is the issue here, and there is no legal argument for barring same-sex couples from marrying.

The thing is, most people, even those against gay marriage, don't want to deny anyone any rights, most of them want an option that's somewhere between the two extremes OP gave, namely keeping marriage in law while allowing gays into civil unions which are for all purposes legally identical to marriage. I think it's silly to make the distinction, but there are reason people want to keep the definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

Well at least in our country where liberty and justice for all is the way..of equal opportunities..

This is the only true constitutional way to go...

Until the constitution changes..

Private churches could maintain a practice of hate..of not including folks who are homosexuals or any one else for that matter..they don't want to be fully 'friends' with..as private organizations have that right anyway..per cultural practices..outside of disability...and minority rights...

The law cannot make the practice of hate..obsolete in churches...

As that too..is freedom of expression...

And fits well under the first amendment..as long as it is not a hate crime...

That's the best solution in my opinion..to keep separation of church and state fully..

And let the gay folks get married in the churches that already can and will allow this opportunity..
If the law provides it..which oh my god..is already against the separation of church and state..in general...

As currently some state laws provide gays with no right to get legally married..in a church..my friend...

But that's just my opinion...

And yes It does mean a whole lot..and even everything for some religious gay folks to have the right to get married in the church.. that will allow this..of their own choosing in their individual state....

That would be nice..but likely still a long time coming..in all 50 states....

I think it's a silly idea too and needlessly complicated. Why create two different groups that you're providing the exact same service for both just because of the terms and genders being used with them? Most people don't realize that there is a HUGE difference between marriage and civil unions. Even if you were to provide all the same benefits of marriage to civil unions, it still creates much complication and confusion.

And the desire for marriage goes far beyond legal benefits. Suppose if you had a significant other of the same gender who was in the hospital and the only way you could visit him or her was to say "we had a civil union". Who on earth would want to speak of their relationship with their spouse like that? Being able to say something as simple as "we're married" is the type of recognition that same sex couples want.

This is far too much fuss over a word. Though I do find it ironic that there was little complaint about our secular government's involvement in marriage until same sex couples became a big deal. Same sex couples pursue marriage for the same reasons that a heterosexual couple would. Outside of the irrelevant religious arguments, I just can't understand the need behind most of the typical arguments to ban it. I'm getting sick of same sex couples being blamed for the diminishing of marriage that was mainly done by straight couples long before this even became an issue.