Gay Marriage Ruling

[meadandale]

Looks like Rick Santorum made the same argument that I just floated:

http://www.slate.com/id/2081904/

[Anonymous]

“Submitted by Alex_angel on May 15, 2008 – 12:40pm.

I really don’t care whay hole people use when making love so who’s business is it to judge who others HAVE to love and who they HAVE to marry.

The law shouldn’t be based on the bible.”

I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.

To clarify, I don’t sit in the judgement of gay individuals and what goes on in their hearts and minds concerning their sexual orientation, but I don’t think gay marriage as an institution is right.

I don’t want my sons thinking gay marriage or behavior is normal, and they don’t. It’s how I have raised them and it’s in line with our religious beliefs.

And meadandale makes a very good point.

[Anonymous]

“Submitted by Alex_angel on May 15, 2008 – 12:40pm.

I really don’t care whay hole people use when making love so who’s business is it to judge who others HAVE to love and who they HAVE to marry.

The law shouldn’t be based on the bible.”

I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.

To clarify, I don’t sit in the judgement of gay individuals and what goes on in their hearts and minds concerning their sexual orientation, but I don’t think gay marriage as an institution is right.

I don’t want my sons thinking gay marriage or behavior is normal, and they don’t. It’s how I have raised them and it’s in line with our religious beliefs.

And meadandale makes a very good point.

[Anonymous]

“Submitted by Alex_angel on May 15, 2008 – 12:40pm.

I really don’t care whay hole people use when making love so who’s business is it to judge who others HAVE to love and who they HAVE to marry.

The law shouldn’t be based on the bible.”

I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.

To clarify, I don’t sit in the judgement of gay individuals and what goes on in their hearts and minds concerning their sexual orientation, but I don’t think gay marriage as an institution is right.

I don’t want my sons thinking gay marriage or behavior is normal, and they don’t. It’s how I have raised them and it’s in line with our religious beliefs.

And meadandale makes a very good point.

[Anonymous]

“Submitted by Alex_angel on May 15, 2008 – 12:40pm.

I really don’t care whay hole people use when making love so who’s business is it to judge who others HAVE to love and who they HAVE to marry.

The law shouldn’t be based on the bible.”

I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.

To clarify, I don’t sit in the judgement of gay individuals and what goes on in their hearts and minds concerning their sexual orientation, but I don’t think gay marriage as an institution is right.

I don’t want my sons thinking gay marriage or behavior is normal, and they don’t. It’s how I have raised them and it’s in line with our religious beliefs.

And meadandale makes a very good point.

[Anonymous]

“Submitted by Alex_angel on May 15, 2008 – 12:40pm.

I really don’t care whay hole people use when making love so who’s business is it to judge who others HAVE to love and who they HAVE to marry.

The law shouldn’t be based on the bible.”

I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.

To clarify, I don’t sit in the judgement of gay individuals and what goes on in their hearts and minds concerning their sexual orientation, but I don’t think gay marriage as an institution is right.

I don’t want my sons thinking gay marriage or behavior is normal, and they don’t. It’s how I have raised them and it’s in line with our religious beliefs.

And meadandale makes a very good point.

[zk]

“I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.”

Well, one can’t really argue with logic that isn’t there. “I just won’t support it” isn’t logic. Neither is anything anyone else has said against gay marriage. (Previous attempts on this thread to argue against gay marriage have been shot down quite effectively already, so I don’t think it’s necessary to do it here. Although I’ll happily rebut any future arguments).

It seems to me that arguments against it are all based in ignorance. Either saying that marriage is a religious thing or similarly incorrect arguments. But I think most people who are against it are just plain homophobic.

A lot of people say they disagree with it for religious reasons. And that’s fine. You can disagree with it because the part of the bible that you agree with say it’s an abomination (and we’ll just conveniently forget about the parts of the bible that you ignore because you’re a hypocrite). You can disagree with it, but when you try to stop someone else from doing it, that’s wrong. That’s like me saying, “my religion says that shoes are an abomination. Therefore nobody should be allowed to wear shoes.” Just because my religion doesn’t have a billion sheep -oops, I mean adherents – doesn’t mean my religious views shouldn’t have as much weight as yours. (And don’t start with the “founding fathers were christians and our country is based on their religion” argument, because it isn’t true and it won’t fly. Or do start with that argument if you insist, and we’ll go from there). Which is to say my religious viewpoints and yours shouldn’t have any effect on the laws of this country.

I’ve got more, but I’ve got to get back to work.

[zk]

“I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.”

Well, one can’t really argue with logic that isn’t there. “I just won’t support it” isn’t logic. Neither is anything anyone else has said against gay marriage. (Previous attempts on this thread to argue against gay marriage have been shot down quite effectively already, so I don’t think it’s necessary to do it here. Although I’ll happily rebut any future arguments).

It seems to me that arguments against it are all based in ignorance. Either saying that marriage is a religious thing or similarly incorrect arguments. But I think most people who are against it are just plain homophobic.

A lot of people say they disagree with it for religious reasons. And that’s fine. You can disagree with it because the part of the bible that you agree with say it’s an abomination (and we’ll just conveniently forget about the parts of the bible that you ignore because you’re a hypocrite). You can disagree with it, but when you try to stop someone else from doing it, that’s wrong. That’s like me saying, “my religion says that shoes are an abomination. Therefore nobody should be allowed to wear shoes.” Just because my religion doesn’t have a billion sheep -oops, I mean adherents – doesn’t mean my religious views shouldn’t have as much weight as yours. (And don’t start with the “founding fathers were christians and our country is based on their religion” argument, because it isn’t true and it won’t fly. Or do start with that argument if you insist, and we’ll go from there). Which is to say my religious viewpoints and yours shouldn’t have any effect on the laws of this country.

I’ve got more, but I’ve got to get back to work.

[zk]

“I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.”

Well, one can’t really argue with logic that isn’t there. “I just won’t support it” isn’t logic. Neither is anything anyone else has said against gay marriage. (Previous attempts on this thread to argue against gay marriage have been shot down quite effectively already, so I don’t think it’s necessary to do it here. Although I’ll happily rebut any future arguments).

It seems to me that arguments against it are all based in ignorance. Either saying that marriage is a religious thing or similarly incorrect arguments. But I think most people who are against it are just plain homophobic.

A lot of people say they disagree with it for religious reasons. And that’s fine. You can disagree with it because the part of the bible that you agree with say it’s an abomination (and we’ll just conveniently forget about the parts of the bible that you ignore because you’re a hypocrite). You can disagree with it, but when you try to stop someone else from doing it, that’s wrong. That’s like me saying, “my religion says that shoes are an abomination. Therefore nobody should be allowed to wear shoes.” Just because my religion doesn’t have a billion sheep -oops, I mean adherents – doesn’t mean my religious views shouldn’t have as much weight as yours. (And don’t start with the “founding fathers were christians and our country is based on their religion” argument, because it isn’t true and it won’t fly. Or do start with that argument if you insist, and we’ll go from there). Which is to say my religious viewpoints and yours shouldn’t have any effect on the laws of this country.

I’ve got more, but I’ve got to get back to work.

[zk]

“I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.”

Well, one can’t really argue with logic that isn’t there. “I just won’t support it” isn’t logic. Neither is anything anyone else has said against gay marriage. (Previous attempts on this thread to argue against gay marriage have been shot down quite effectively already, so I don’t think it’s necessary to do it here. Although I’ll happily rebut any future arguments).

It seems to me that arguments against it are all based in ignorance. Either saying that marriage is a religious thing or similarly incorrect arguments. But I think most people who are against it are just plain homophobic.

A lot of people say they disagree with it for religious reasons. And that’s fine. You can disagree with it because the part of the bible that you agree with say it’s an abomination (and we’ll just conveniently forget about the parts of the bible that you ignore because you’re a hypocrite). You can disagree with it, but when you try to stop someone else from doing it, that’s wrong. That’s like me saying, “my religion says that shoes are an abomination. Therefore nobody should be allowed to wear shoes.” Just because my religion doesn’t have a billion sheep -oops, I mean adherents – doesn’t mean my religious views shouldn’t have as much weight as yours. (And don’t start with the “founding fathers were christians and our country is based on their religion” argument, because it isn’t true and it won’t fly. Or do start with that argument if you insist, and we’ll go from there). Which is to say my religious viewpoints and yours shouldn’t have any effect on the laws of this country.

I’ve got more, but I’ve got to get back to work.

[zk]

“I don’t sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It’s just something I’ll never be in support of.”

Well, one can’t really argue with logic that isn’t there. “I just won’t support it” isn’t logic. Neither is anything anyone else has said against gay marriage. (Previous attempts on this thread to argue against gay marriage have been shot down quite effectively already, so I don’t think it’s necessary to do it here. Although I’ll happily rebut any future arguments).

It seems to me that arguments against it are all based in ignorance. Either saying that marriage is a religious thing or similarly incorrect arguments. But I think most people who are against it are just plain homophobic.

A lot of people say they disagree with it for religious reasons. And that’s fine. You can disagree with it because the part of the bible that you agree with say it’s an abomination (and we’ll just conveniently forget about the parts of the bible that you ignore because you’re a hypocrite). You can disagree with it, but when you try to stop someone else from doing it, that’s wrong. That’s like me saying, “my religion says that shoes are an abomination. Therefore nobody should be allowed to wear shoes.” Just because my religion doesn’t have a billion sheep -oops, I mean adherents – doesn’t mean my religious views shouldn’t have as much weight as yours. (And don’t start with the “founding fathers were christians and our country is based on their religion” argument, because it isn’t true and it won’t fly. Or do start with that argument if you insist, and we’ll go from there). Which is to say my religious viewpoints and yours shouldn’t have any effect on the laws of this country.

I’ve got more, but I’ve got to get back to work.

[DWCAP]

I would have to agree with Nos and the rest, I just dont think the Gov should be in this game. If you want to be married, go to a church and deal with the requirments they set out. Dont like those requirments, go to a different one, or start your own. Want what we now define as a civil union for the taxes, benifits, or psycological support reasons? Fine, go to the courthouse and fill out a form.

This whole debate is more about societal acceptance than about any real rights. Gays already had the same rights to life, liberty and the persute of happness (short hand for all the rights we have) in CA, what they dont have is the name of ‘marriage’ and the supposed social acceptance that comes with it. What you are seeing in the voting booths is more peoples unwillingness to be told that they WILL accept something that they are not comfortable with by a judge, even if they have nothing against any single individual.

[DWCAP]

I would have to agree with Nos and the rest, I just dont think the Gov should be in this game. If you want to be married, go to a church and deal with the requirments they set out. Dont like those requirments, go to a different one, or start your own. Want what we now define as a civil union for the taxes, benifits, or psycological support reasons? Fine, go to the courthouse and fill out a form.

This whole debate is more about societal acceptance than about any real rights. Gays already had the same rights to life, liberty and the persute of happness (short hand for all the rights we have) in CA, what they dont have is the name of ‘marriage’ and the supposed social acceptance that comes with it. What you are seeing in the voting booths is more peoples unwillingness to be told that they WILL accept something that they are not comfortable with by a judge, even if they have nothing against any single individual.

[DWCAP]

I would have to agree with Nos and the rest, I just dont think the Gov should be in this game. If you want to be married, go to a church and deal with the requirments they set out. Dont like those requirments, go to a different one, or start your own. Want what we now define as a civil union for the taxes, benifits, or psycological support reasons? Fine, go to the courthouse and fill out a form.

This whole debate is more about societal acceptance than about any real rights. Gays already had the same rights to life, liberty and the persute of happness (short hand for all the rights we have) in CA, what they dont have is the name of ‘marriage’ and the supposed social acceptance that comes with it. What you are seeing in the voting booths is more peoples unwillingness to be told that they WILL accept something that they are not comfortable with by a judge, even if they have nothing against any single individual.

[DWCAP]

I would have to agree with Nos and the rest, I just dont think the Gov should be in this game. If you want to be married, go to a church and deal with the requirments they set out. Dont like those requirments, go to a different one, or start your own. Want what we now define as a civil union for the taxes, benifits, or psycological support reasons? Fine, go to the courthouse and fill out a form.

This whole debate is more about societal acceptance than about any real rights. Gays already had the same rights to life, liberty and the persute of happness (short hand for all the rights we have) in CA, what they dont have is the name of ‘marriage’ and the supposed social acceptance that comes with it. What you are seeing in the voting booths is more peoples unwillingness to be told that they WILL accept something that they are not comfortable with by a judge, even if they have nothing against any single individual.

[Author]

Posts