I don't get how people can cite Christianity when opposing gay marriage.
Do other religions not matter or something? What about Christians who support gay marriage? Do they not matter either?
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39174460]I don't get how people can cite Christianity when opposing gay marriage.
Do other religions not matter or something? What about Christians who support gay marriage? Do they not matter either?[/QUOTE]
Christianity is the overwhelming majority religion in the US.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39174471]Christianity is the overwhelming majority religion in the US.[/QUOTE]
And that shouldn't matter at all with a concept that holds legal benefits.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39174457]Homosexuals get their marriage benefits, religious zealots keep their "tradition". Everyone wins. :v:[/QUOTE]
all little suzie wanted to do is have a storybook wedding
instead she gets to have a joining of civil partnerships
doesn't quite have the same emotional weight behind it
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39174484]And that shouldn't matter at all with a concept that holds legal benefits.[/QUOTE]
Never said it should.
i'll never understand why people will put all their power against gay marriage
religion and ignornace are strong things i guess
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;39174488]all little suzie wanted to do is have a storybook wedding
instead she gets to have a joining of civil partnerships
doesn't quite have the same emotional weight behind it[/QUOTE]
The ":v:" was to designate sarcasm.
"Emotional weight" is irrelevant either way. It's simply unequal. Emotion has nothing to do with the fact it's unfair. You could say people who claim marriage is part of their religious belief has an "emotional weight" to it.
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;39174378]or we should just call it marriage because we don't need to be pandering to archaic viewpoints[/QUOTE]
Well a common criticism of marriage equality is that it's forcing hegemonic and heteronormative structures of relationships where they don't totally fit. There should really be an alternative with all the legal benefits, but not marriage, as that is implying a specific relationship that they may not want. It comes with implications like mother and father (which is which?), monogamy, and stuff like that. I'm fine with gay couples who want this for themselves and openly support it, but if they want a different style of relationship with their partner and the legal benefits of marriage, this should be available too.
Just some more options would be good for them.
My solution is simple.
Marry all the gay people and divorce everyone else.
Then the Republicans can pretend they're a minority and win over black voters.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;39173287]Simple, create a new status that allows for any two consenting individuals to be "partnered", call it something other than marriage, grandfather in all existing marriages into this new system. "Marriage" then becomes purely religious, this new system allows for same-sex couples to become equal to other couples in the eyes of the law, problem solved forever. This isn't difficult, people.[/QUOTE][URL="http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043/butt-buddies"]It's a pretty stupid idea.[/URL]
This isn't new, the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_cabin_republican"]Log Cabin Republicans[/url] sect as always existed.
Why do all these secular right wingers say that they should be given something that's equal to marriage, but isn't marriage itself. Why not just give them marriage instead?
There is literally no reason why you shouldn't, apart from religious people not liking it, but that doesn't really effect the secular righties and nor should it matter in the first place, since we don't base laws on religion anymore.
[QUOTE=N0 WAR;39175528]Why do all these secular right wingers say that they should be given something that's equal to marriage, but isn't marriage itself. Why not just give them marriage instead?
There is literally no reason why you shouldn't, apart from religious people not liking it, but that doesn't really effect the secular righties and nor should it matter in the first place, since we don't base laws on religion anymore.[/QUOTE]
Ban the practice of marriage, and give the benefits that come with marriage to civil unions.
[t]http://puu.sh/1MgLd[/t]
"gay marriage goes mainstream"
I married men before marrying men was cool.
[QUOTE=N0 WAR;39175528]Why do all these secular right wingers say that they should be given something that's equal to marriage, but isn't marriage itself. Why not just give them marriage instead?
There is literally no reason why you shouldn't, apart from religious people not liking it, but that doesn't really effect the secular righties and nor should it matter in the first place, since we don't base laws on religion anymore.[/QUOTE]
marriage has always been an abrahamic thing, and has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. The state shouldn't have any say in whether or not the church allows same-sex marriage, and shouldn't be calling their civil unions by that name.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39175593]marriage has always been an abrahamic thing, and has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. [/QUOTE]
except not and except not; marriage predates the abrahamic religions and existed in cultures which had no contact with those religions and in a lot of places it's been defined as other things, like a union between a man and multiple women or the inverse
as far as I can see the only reason for a secular rightwinger to oppose same-sex marriage is because they'd rather not agree with liberals than come out and support something that should really be a fucking no-brainer
[editline]10th January 2013[/editline]
there isn't even a unified "church" with which to argue on those grounds; there are many churches in the united states who completely support same sex marriage and would (and in the states that allow it, do) perform them
there's no secular argument against it that has any sound basis
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39175593]marriage has always been an abrahamic thing, and has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. The state shouldn't have any say in whether or not the church allows same-sex marriage, and shouldn't be calling their civil unions by that name.[/QUOTE]
marriage existed long before 3000 years ago.
marriage predates all abrahamic religions and all monotheistic religions
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39175593]marriage has always been an abrahamic thing, and has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. The state shouldn't have any say in whether or not the church allows same-sex marriage, and shouldn't be calling their civil unions by that name.[/QUOTE]
Well firstly, marriage is plenty older than the Abrahamic religions. They don't have a monopoly on marriage either, and even if they did invent it, so what? They still shouldn't have the ability to oppress who they like.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39175593]marriage has always been an abrahamic thing, and has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. The state shouldn't have any say in whether or not the church allows same-sex marriage, and shouldn't be calling their civil unions by that name.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzfGNI[/media]
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39173151]I'm a conservative and I've never had a problem with gay marriage. I'm not sure why so many conservatives do. It is a shame, really.[/QUOTE]
I'm gay and liberal and I've always had a problem with gay marriage!
:v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
