“"They want to force religious people to accept a direct contradiction to their basis of faith."
And how, exactly, would that be the case? Please explain.
The real ruse is the "you can have anything but marriage" position. We've already seen this is a bald-faced lie, as demonstrated in the states of Washington, Delaware and Wisconsin. Same-sex marriage opponents fight against civil unions just as fiercely as they do against same-sex marriage. That's a fact.”
“Why would any church be forced to perform a same-sex marriage, when they can already refuse to marry any couple who does not follow the church's teachings? An orthodox Jewish couple cannot force a Catholic church to marry them.
It *is* a conservative scare tactic; in other words, a lie.”
“To be honest I already knew it was/is a scare tactic/lie. I was just trying to make a point of what kind of lie they are spreading and how people easily believe them.”
“What happens when two people who have each been divorced want to get married in a Catholic church because they claim they are Catholic? Absolutely nothing, because a church can refuse to marry any couple that does not adhere to its teachings.
“David Boies spoke about the defense's case shortly after Walker rendered his decision. He basically said that the defense attorneys were extremely competent, but that they simply had no evidence to support their case. It's a pretty inspiring and fascinating commentary:
“The notion of wives as property is more complicated than your statement implies. The idea of wives as partners has a much longer history than the idea of marriage being about love. Look to Abraham and Sarah whose progeny formed the Jewish nation. Sarah was not treated as property according to the Bible. Muhammad's first wife Khadijah was a wealthy merchant and Muhammad's employer until he married her. She helped and encouraged him to take serious his visions and write the Koran. Look at Osama bin Laden's mother who was Syrian and used to many western practices. When she took Osama outside of Saudi Arabia she wore western clothes. She even initiated the divorce with Muhammed bin Laden. Look at the the Eighteenth century French Court where married females were having and even initiating affairs. The practice was normal and generally accepted. Marriage was about children, affairs were about fun and love. Even the imperial dynasties of Tenth century Japan allowed far more freedom and independence to aristocratic women than the concept of property would allow. The same with the Choson Dynasty in Korea. Less is known about the practices of the lower classes, but it is hard to imagine that husbands treating their wives as property was universal. While some courts held that women were property that idea was never universal nor often even the norm.”
“Yours is the sleight of hand, since to date, every piece of "evidence" same-sex marriage opponents have used has been exposed -- in a court of law -- to be a blatant lie, or at the very least, a gross, intentional distortion of the truth.
The racists who used the "there is no discrimination!" argument believed it as fervently -- probably more fervently, I would argue -- about interracial marriage as you do about same-sex marriage. You can only call theirs a "discredited" position because you have the benefit of hindsight and all the social progress that we've made since.
Of course there are differences between sexes, but you -- and everyone else who opposes same-sex marriage -- have failed to prove how that has anything to do with the right to marry, how it would negatively affect heterosexual marriage, or how it would negatively impact society. You have nothing. ZERO. That's why you've had to resort to lies and truth distortions.
By the way, racists also the irrational "there are differences between races!" argument. Really, you need to get some new material, because what you've been using is *beyond* tired.”
“Which is utterly ridiculous, because everyone would not be gay. There are far more heterosexual women in the world than there are homosexual men and women, yet people aren't coming unglued and saying irrational things like, "If everybody were female, we'd all go extinct!"”
“Of course it's ridiculous. (And even if somehow everyone in the world did turn gay, it's not like we don't know HOW to make babies if any are needed)”
Homosexuality exists everywhere in nature, making it inherently natural.
"To say otherwise, to deny the nature benefit of a man and woman is, well, not wise."
Yet, no one opposing same-sex marriage has *ever* been able to demonstrate how same-sex marriage would affect heterosexual marriage. In fact, they even failed miserably to do so in a court of law, in the most important same-sex-marriage court case to date.”
“huh...have you discovered the fountain of youth? The doorway to judgement is death. The doorway to eternal life is Christ Jesus. The Creator is not offering you laws, He is offering you the one who lead a perfect life, and died for our sins, Christ Jesus. You can repent and partake of His divine nature and have that life now. This is an inclusive offer. Does not matter who you are.”
“I guess some people like your sleight of hand. Diverting attention does not address the point made. In the past a similar argument may have been misused to support a discredited postion. But that does not counter the current reasoning. Or did I misunderstand your point? If you believe that there are no significant differences between men and women then there is probably nothing more to discuss. If you recognize that there are major differences then explain why society should ignore that fact.”
“"Prop 8 denied no one equal rights… Unlike the case of anti-miscegenation laws…"
How ironic that you would make those two statements in the same breath, since that is *exactly* the same "reasoning" that racists used in the late 1800s to claim that laws against interracial marriage were not discriminatory. "No one can marry anyone of a different race, blah blah blah." It was ridiculous then, and it's ridiculous now.
"For one thing the union of a man and a woman generally has the potential to create children."
Key word: "generally". If you are going to bar same-sex couples from marriage because they are unable to produce children, then you must also bar infertile couples, and couples who don't want children.
"…but that is a decision for the people to make, not for some unelected judge to impose upon us."
Really? Well, "the people" of the U.S. now support marriage equality by a slim margin, and that margin is growing every day. When "the people" decide to legalize across the board, will you sit back and accept it, or will you start shrieking about "the tyranny of the majority"? Never mind. I think we all know the answer to that one.”
Edit Preferences
Logout
