Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I didn't notice it at first, but I can see where it looks odd. My point was that there is only "marriage". Not "gay marriage" "student marriage" "athlete marriage" or any other way you want to categorize it. If you argue for "gay marriage", you argue for some special status for those who practice homosexuality. You elevate their behavior above that of others.
|
Now I understand what you were trying to say. "Gay marriage" seems to elevate homosexuals above the heterosexual marriages. The only reason we are mentioning marriages - specificly civil unions - between those of the same gender is becuase they are currently not allowed in 49 states, and some (including yours truely) interprit that as unfair and unequal treatment. As I see it, I am triyng to make sure no marriage is elevated above any other marriage. Are we fighting the same fight from different sides? I dunno.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I'm glad you know how GOD thinks, you should let everyone else know cause there's been some confusion about that.
And if condemning the actions of people is bigoted, then every jury that returns a verdict of "guilty" is bigoted.
|
God is very clear on how to and not to treat your fellow humans. It is in the interpretation that people get lost. I could be wrong, but I think God wanted us to treat all people equally. LAOS, it is accepted by most that you should not force your beliefs on someone. If gay people are allowed civil unions, they are not forcing anything on you or me. If we prevent homosexual civil unions, we are directly forcing our beliefs on them.
[QUOTE=alansmithee]Except in one or two states, there are no civil unions allowed for anyone. It's those states that are denying everyone not homosexual the right to have civil unions.
That's neither here nor there.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
If what you say is true, we cannot condemn any past actions that were legal. We can't condemn slavery, because it was socially acceptable. We can't condemn Jim Crow laws, because they were socially acceptable. And extending that logic, today many in society feel that homosexual sex is immoral/disgusting. So you can't condemn them either, because it's socially acceptable.
|
No. There is wrong then, and there is wrong now. Some of the wrongs are no longer wrong now, as they were then, and likewise some of the wrongs now, were not wrongs then. You have to take into account relative morality, as morality (like most things) evolves a bit with society. Who would have fought for gay rights at the time of the civil war?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
And as for gay bashings, i'm not sure how many there are. But how many nerd bashings, fatty bashings, poor bashings, sex offender bashings, christian bashings, muslim bashings, that-guy-has-better-shoes-than-me bashings, gang bashings, or any other segment of society bashings are there each year? If you want to get rid of "X" bashing, that's one thing. But you can't single out one of those forms of behavior and start trying to elevate its status above the others.
|
It's all wrong. All bashings are wrong, including gay bashings. No elevation or decention about it. Inclusion and specification is not = to elevation.