Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scout
Last I checked it's legal to be gay or lead a gay lifestyle. The only thing outlawed in several states now is to get married in the traditional sense.
|
Yes, it's legal to be gay. I would like to point out, however, that in the 60's it was legal to be black as well. You just couldn't sit at the same table as I nor use the same bathroom. I hate to keep bringing up the civil rights movement and segregation, but this is the perfect analogy. "We" don't like black people, but see there's no real way to get rid of them, so, "We" magnanimously "give" them seperate, but equal. Except when concerning homosexuals, we haven't even done that. So, they can't even get married in the non-traditional sense.
Quote:
|
Life is bigoted. Everyone is bigoted in some sense of the word. What's wrong with a few moral constraints on society? Why does it always have to be all or nothing? Why can't we all just live together in peace and obey the laws, even the ones we don't agree with. There's a time and place for all things under the sun. To break existing laws to get what you want is not the proper way get said laws changed or make anyone particularly sympathic to your situation. I personally don't agree with some speed limit laws, does that mean it's ok and I shouldn't have to obey the laws I don't agree with? No, it means I should lobby my representives to get the laws changed.
|
To compare speed limits and gay marriage....well, let's not finish that sentence. Like Charlatan pointed out to break a blatantly stupid law is to point out that it's blatantly stupid. How is it not blatantly stupid to award half of society something and not all of society. How is it not blatantly stupid to say it's okay for you guys, but you fuckers, no way!?! Not to mention basing that decision on something as blantantly stupid as who you like hanging round in your bed.
There's nothing wrong with a few moral constraints on society. Can't walk around naked, can't beat it at the supermarket out in the open, can't marry animals, aren't supposed to have sex with them and the list goes on. The point I'm trying to make....We are all citizens of the United States. We vote, we work, we pay our taxes and pay our bills. Why do we deserve the right to be joined with someone we love and they don't? They're not trying to marry other animals, vegetables or minerals, right? Just another human being. Another citizen of the United States. I'm no better than them. I don't possess some super gene that makes me superior to them, do I? Why am I afforded the right and they aren't?
If this is about God, then make it about God. The government has no business legislating the will of the Almighty. It has no business legislating articles of faith, even if that faith is the majority. The purpose of government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. To speak for the littlest man and allow his voice to be heard just as well as the biggest. The government has no business in fulfilling articles of faith.
Quote:
|
One can be tolerant and still not accept someones chosen lifestyle as being morally healthy. I live near and work in the city gays proudly call the "gay capitol of the midwest". I have to be tolerant, tolerance which I most happily extend. However, that doesn't necessarily mean I have to morally agree nor morally support their lifestyle decisions. From what I understand it isn't necessarily marriage most of them want anyway, they merely want the same rights as married couples. This can be accomplished by legal civil unions, unless you live in Ohio. So be it then, if that's what they want then do what every other law abiding citizen does and get the laws changed. Don't you think it's a bit ironic that gays made this huge political statement, basically said "fuck you" to the system and society and now that the system and society has said "no fuck you", their leaving?
|
Why do
you need to accept
anyone elses chosen lifestyle? This particular lifestyle choice hurts no one. That being said, I fail to see how who I'm banging is any business of yours and your
acceptance is both unwarranted and unwanted.
You don't have to be tolerant. People don't have to be tolerant. That's the beauty of America and free speech. Anyone can be a loud mouthed, homophobic shithead. And thanks to the size of the country, chances are they can find people just like them. However, it's a helluva a lot easier to spread intolerance as long as you appear to be tolerant. It's a lot easier to defend your position while dressed in a nice dark suit rather than cut off jean jackets with anti-gay pins and holding signs that say such charming things as "God hates fags" and "Matthew Shepard is burning in Hell."
Intolerance is intolerance no matter the source. You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig...or one of my ex-girlfriends.... The methods may have changed, but the message remains the same.
You say you "happily extend" tolerance because you "have" to. If you didn't "have" to, would you "happily extend" that same tolerance?
I don't care a bit about what you want to call it. Marriage, Civil Unions, Civil Marriage Unions. I couldn't possibly care less. The point is make it the same for everyone or no one. I read online (it was a while ago and I have no idea where it might have been, I apologize) a modest proposal to make all unions as far as the government was concerned civil unions and let churches issue marriage licenses. If you wanted to be joined, you'd get a civil union. If you wanted to get the blessings of the church then you'd also have to get married. You'd have both. As far as the government was concerned joined couples would be in a civil union and equal under the eyes of the law. Marriage would be a superfluous add-on for those who wanted to have the church recognize their union. I don't know why I mentioned it, but it sounded pretty reasonable, so there it is....
What I find ironic is that the federal government, which is supposed to be about bringing folks together and inclusion for all, of the United States, a country founded on the principle that we're all equal under the law and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is giving anyone the big "fuck you." That's what I find ironic.
Nope. Wait. I find that sad.