tSz42 wrote:Bandmaster wrote:If we want a similar institution for same sex unions, then lets create one that is more idealy suited for those circumstances. Call this new institution what ever you want, except the term "marriage" is already taken.
That's my only problem with Prop 8. You want to go against thousands of years of what marriage has stood for and still call it marriage.
Who gave you the right to define marriage? Marriage existed in dozen of societies for thousands of years before Christ came along, and it wasn't always "one man, one woman." Islam approves of polygamy to this day. Homosexual relations were NOT frowned upon by many ancient societies: Greeks, Romans, Macedons... there's even strong evidence of accepted homosexual relationships in ancient
Jewish and Islamic societies.
Slavery existed for thousands of years before being (justly) abolished. So did the concept that a woman was her own human being and not just "property" of a male. You wouldn't DARE insinuate that white women or blacks don't deserve the same rights as white males, yet the concept that women and blacks are equal to white males have only existed in this country for about 100 and 50 years, respectively. So that
argumentum ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition) about marriage being "the same" for thousands of years really doesn't mean squat.
So
your God tells you homosexuality is a sin. So
your God tells you marriage is for one man and one woman. How good for you. Fine, so no Christian church EVER has to perform a marriage ceremony for members of the same sex. I am 100% okay with that.
But
your God and
your traditions mean absolutely zero to me, and neither I nor anyone else should be
forced to abide by rules and restrictions of a religion we are not a member of.
mkosbie wrote:twinmomma wrote:Do your straight friends hold hands in public?
No.
I think you're either being disingenuous, are hopelessly inobservant or you lead an extremely sheltered life. I cannot remember EVER going out in public ANYWHERE and not seeing someone holding hands.
mkosbie wrote:twinmomma wrote:Kiss their wife/husband when they meet for lunch at the cafe?
Definitely not. In fact, I find PDAs to be offensive.
How very sad. There's a big difference between a loving peck and a make out session. My wife and I kiss in public all the time, and if a one-second peck on the lips bothers you, your social viewpoints are more warped than the Taliban.
mkosbie wrote:Everyone in favor of same-sex marriage (and by everyone I mean the majority) wrote:You wouldn't want someone to deny you your right to get married, so don't deny same-sex couples theirs.
The logical fallacy in this is so glaring, I'm compelled to mention it. I know, I know, it's not PC, but hey, someone's got to do it. Here goes:
I wouldn't want someone to deny me my right to marry
a person of the opposite sex. I have done nothing to deny that right (ie to marry
a person of the opposite sex) to ANYONE.
Including your bigotry in your argument doesn't make it any more legitimate or reasonable. Besides, your argument is a poor one because it's too narrow.
Example: you love apples. You hate oranges. You think everyone should have the right to eat apples, but NO ONE should have the right to eat oranges because you don't like them. What sort of "logic" is that?
Meanwhile, the orange-rights lobby simply wants the right to eat oranges. They don't want to
remove the right to eat apples. Giving orange-eaters the right to eat oranges does not affect, at all, the rights of apple-eaters (any effects to the contrary claimed by apple-eaters are purely imaginary).
But no, the apple lobby likes apples, and insists that EVERYONE can only eat apples, because that's all anyone's eaten for the last 2,000 years. Even though allowing oranges to be eaten would cause absolutely no harm to the apple-eaters, they continue to oppose it.
Why? My guess is because they're a bunch of hateful, selfish, close-minded bigots for whom the happiness of others is meaningless. Because there are certainly no reasonable, logical arguments to support their mulish opposition to oranges.