Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[chequita guevara]

Could we just throw them and the Islamicsts and the Hebrewists and the Hindists into an ocean?

[MrFun]

There is a difference between being intolerant of a person's opinion, and being intolerant of a person for who they are.

Those that disagree with you are the former. You are the latter.

Indeed; I am intolerant of intolerance and bigotry. And there is nothing wrong with that.

[MrFun]

Don't go bashing all Christians just as homophobes bash gays.

[Q Classic]

Don't go bashing all Christians just as homophobes bash gays.

We're talking about certain Christianists, not all Christians.

[MrFun]

Thought I would head that off though before it goes down in that direction as it has in the past.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Ok, he's arguing that the fourteeenth explicitly prohibits discrimination based on race. Fair enough. Is your argument based on the 14th too?

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, if you want a serious answer to that, the Nazis targeted an ethnic group, which is not something one can choose or leave. Anyone that had Jewish blood was rounded up and sent to the camps, whether or not they were practicing Jews. But nice try, *******.

I was hoping you'd say that.

So, you said it was wrong to discriminate against homosexuals, but it was perfectly ok to discriminate on the basis of religion, because religion is a choice?

One of the fundamental freedoms inside liberty is religion. People have freedom to worship, and that means they can practice their religion without discrimination.

You are not, but you support laws that would be oppresive.

Laws, in and of themselves are not necessarily oppressive just because they restrict conduct. All laws restrict conduct in some way shape or form. Why is a law barring gay people from getting married to each other oppressive?

There is a difference between being intolerant of a person's opinion, and being intolerant of a person for who they are.

Actually, one of our fundamental freedoms is speech. So again, you find yourself violating one of the fundamental freedoms by seeking to restrict the expression of those you oppose.

Those that disagree with you are the former. You are the latter.

Unless you are arguing that gay people are a protected class, your argument falls flat.

I have read the Bible, I've read theology. I remain unconvinced, because the arguments are founded on the conclusion that God must be good and God must love people.

I asked a very specific question. I know you reject him and have reasons for doing so. I'll ask again. What were your expectations of Christ where he let you down?

And **** like this is creepy and drives people away; it doesn't bring them back.

I'm curious, that is all.

[Q Classic]

I was hoping you'd say that.

So, you said it was wrong to discriminate against homosexuals, but it was perfectly ok to discriminate on the basis of religion, because religion is a choice?

Wrong, you disingenuous ****er. I said that it was wrong to discriminate, but unlike religion, which is something that one can choose, the gay is something one cannot. Thus, it is worse to discriminate on the basis of orientation.

Laws, in and of themselves are not necessarily oppressive just because they restrict conduct. All laws restrict conduct in some way shape or form. Why is a law barring gay people from getting married to each other oppressive?

Imran's been answering this quite succinctly.

There is a difference between being intolerant of a person's opinion, and being intolerant of a person for who they are.

Actually, one of our fundamental freedoms is speech. So again, you find yourself violating one of the fundamental freedoms by seeking to restrict the expression of those you oppose.

Wrong. I may be intolerant of your opinions, but I am not seeking to prohibit your expression of them. Rather, I'm calling you out on how hate-filled they are--and your intolerance of entire groups of people, whose rights you are seeking to restrict.

The problem with your line of argument there is that I can just as easily spin that right back on you: you're intolerant of my disagreement with your opinion, and thus you seek to stifle it. You yourself are also restricting the freedom of speech.

Unless you are arguing that gay people are a protected class, your argument falls flat.

It doesn't, actually.

I asked a very specific question. I know you reject him and have reasons for doing so. I'll ask again. What were your expectations of Christ where he let you down?

I have no reason to discuss this with you.

If you truly believe your God is trying to reach me, your attempts to prosetylize to me are actually harming any opportunity for it, because it's your kind of ham-handed, disingenuous, passive-aggressive, irritating, counterfactual, blatantly hateful rhetoric and behavior that removes you as any possibly useful vessel for carrying "the Good Word" to me.

I'm curious, that is all.

See that paragraph above.

[Drake Tungsten]

Triad marriage

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-07/threesome-marriages/

[KrazyHorse]

Getting rid of civil marriage entirely

[Drake Tungsten]

[KrazyHorse]

The income sharing's sort of important given the current tax system.

Wouldn't matter under my favoured tax/benefit regime, though.

[Ramo]

The biggest problem related to eliminating civil marriage would be health care. You'd need a universal system first.

[KrazyHorse]

I have no idea why you say that. Some private employers have allowed their employees to register same-sex (or even hetero) unmarried couples for health/survivor benefits for many years now.

[Drake Tungsten]

Marriage free-for-all

Flat tax