Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[zabu of nΩd]

Where is the line between tolerance and agreement? Obviously there must be disagreement for their to be tolerance, correct? Must tolerance = approval?

You don't take away people's rights just because you have a disagreement with them. It's perfectly clear that your position toward homosexuals constitutes more than just "disagreement". See my above post.

 

[AchrisK]

I say we take away rights for people of all religions other than Christianity in the U.S. since they're not normal here and those people live alternative lifestyles such as observing kosher laws and wearing burkas.

Seriously Ack, your view on this is despicable. If you want to shelter your child from homosexuality then send him to some private Christian school, but don't impose your bigotry on everyone else by opposing equal rights for homosexuals.

No need to be stupid. It's not a parallel your making, it's a strawman.

I didn't say I wanted to shelter my child from homosexuality. He knows it exists, and what it is, and that people have the right to choose it. I don't oppose equal rights for any group of people. I oppose the redefinition of marriage.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You do oppose equal rights. Get over it.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No need to be stupid. It's not a parallel your making, it's a strawman.

I don't think so really, since you cited those points as justification for your opinion.

I didn't say I wanted to shelter my child from homosexuality. He knows it exists, and what it is, and that people have the right to choose it. I don't oppose equal rights for any group of people. I oppose the redefinition of marriage.

And how is opposing this redefinition of marriage anything but opposition of equal rights, given the current legal implications of marriage?

 

[skeptik]

1) Stop using the word choice when referring to sexual orientation.

2) Marriage is not exclusively a religious term or institution. It is not redefining marriage as a 'sacred' religious institution for anyone that chooses not to participate in it. I highly doubt that a constitutional amendment giving gays the right to marry would force churches to wed gay couples. All it would do would be to allow them to LEGALLY marry and receive the benefits that go along with being a married couple versus an unmarried couple or a couple in a civil union.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

d00d its totly a chois ever ceen youung people goin i am now geigh my gurlfrend don like me nemore :[

 

[zabu of nΩd]

One other thing Ack: how is allowing gays to marry a "redefinition of marriage"? If a certain religious sect does not want gays to marry, they don't have to perform any marriages for them at their churches. Gay marriage might be perfectly fine at other churches, though. Redefining marriage as between a man and a woman basically mandates to ALL religious institutions that they must adopt the policies of the ones which oppose homosexual marriage.

 

[Einherjar86]

The reason it passed is that blacks and Hispanics, who are overwhelmingly democratic, are also some of the most homophobic cultures in America. Also think of all the independents that voted Obama.

As well as a significant number of moderate conservatives. I was talking with my girlfriend about this earlier today. And you're right cookie, that is a reason. A lot of democrats also just didn't even bother to vote at all on the amendments.

I'd also just like to add that the whole thing about homosexuality being a "choice" (which I don't think it is) shouldn't even matter anyway. Even if it was a choice, it should still be a choice people are free to make. While it is important to realize that homosexuality is most likely caused by social factors (and potentially genetic factors) and therefore not a choice, it still doesn't make much of a difference. If that's how people "choose" to live their lives, then so be it. We still have no right to dictate what their choice should be.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Another possibility is they were confused by the phrasing of the question. I know I had to do a double take at a few of them when I was reading other states' descriptions of props/ballot questions.

 

[AchrisK]

So what do you suggest I do? Change my views?

 

[Einherjar86]

Another possibility is they were confused by the phrasing of the question. I know I had to do a double take at a few of them when I was reading other states' descriptions of props/ballot questions.

I also mentioned this in my first post. The syntax was very difficult.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I suggest you don't let your bigoted religious beliefs dictate how you vote.

 

[Einherjar86]

So what do you suggest I do? Change my views?

I'd suggest that you try and look at it from the most logical perspective that you possibly can.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So what do you suggest I do? Change my views?

That's up to you of course, but if your views are so indefensible I don't see why you would want to hold them.

 

[AchrisK]

So you all suggest that I conform to your view?

Interesting that we are reading the book 1984 right now. This is very thought police of you all.

 

[AchrisK]

I'd suggest that you try and look at it from the most logical perspective that you possibly can.

I feel I am. My beliefs are part of what shapes the way I see reality. What next?

 

[Omni]

So what do you suggest I do? Change my views?

Not being an illogical bigot and accepting that homosexuality is natural, that homosexuality is not a choice, that allowing gay marriage does not redefine what marriage is or force religions to accept or honor it and that homosexual couples deserve equal rights just like everyone else would be a good start.

 

[AchrisK]

Not being an illogical bigot and accepting that homosexuality is natural, that homosexuality is not a choice, that allowing gay marriage does not redefine what marriage is or force religions to accept or honor it and that homosexual couples deserve equal rights just like everyone else would be a good start.

So, you also think my best option is to conform to your view? Ok, Thought Police.

 

[Omni]

Considering that almost everything I stated in that post is fact and not opinion, yes.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Thought Police. This is sad.