I am an 85 year old hetrosexual male and am neither Gay or homosexual, But I don't care if my brother is, or my sister, or neighbor or anyone else, so long as they can accept their own sexuality. IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Therefore, It is equally true that It is completely agreeable to me is they wish a same sex or multiple sex union, In keeping with the understandable wishes of religious persons, I don't believe that they should refer to it as a marriage, even tho by dictionary definition, it is.(*) Further, from a standpoint of the constitution, I believe that any two or more people should be allowed the legal considerations allowed to religious marriage partners.--- so long as they join together within the limits of the law and the constitution.
Renaming SSM to avoid offending the religious seems equally as ridiculous as saying that the act of consuming pork isn't eating in order to avoid offending Jews.
Liberals don't care about civility. they only care about imposing themselves upon people and forcing people to to obey them. They're nothing more than soulless automatons.
Pleasant day to you too, good sir. Ironically, I dont think I've ever said something like you just did about someone I consider "conservative"
Good day, how do and I send a smile to you Don't waste, waste your breath, and I won't waste my hate on you I think I'll keep it all to myself
...or maybe, they're human beings. Human beings with different opinions. For all your complaints about liberals being vicious and intolerant towards those they disagree with, you sure are vicious and intolerant to people you disagree with.
Well, the right to associate is a natural right protected by the Constitution so I am with you on that. As far as forcing gay marriage on traditionally religious grounds where marriage is between a man and a woman, I find that reprehensible. There is nothing wrong with the State defining a contract between same sex partners but to force this on religion is an attack on religion.
That has nothing to do with what I just said. See, if people that disagreed with my sexual orientation would be calm about it and not discriminate against me, I would be a lot more willing to put up with them. But I've never heard of anyone respectfully disapproving of my orientation. So I'm sure you can understand why I'm so frustrated with homophobia when it's caused so many people like me to kill themselves, and even more to severe emotional damage. I don't think you're a bad guy, but you have a hard time seeing things from the other side. You always think we're evil when the average liberal or queer person just wants to live life normally, the same way you do.
@donniston Gr8 post and it's me KARL from the "other" place and nice to see ya we need to get "GOOSEY" over here but I need to do a little work to "jailbreak" that other place
That's good, because I dont hate you. I tend to believe the best in people, even those I disagree with. I belive they act with the best of intentions, doing and saying what they believe they need to, based on their understandiny of the world. I can accept even the harshest of critics, even those who try to call us things lime pedophiles... because I dont believe theu are knowingly and intentionally being malicious. I am sorry for any unfair criticism you may have faced and probably will continue to face. Civility will lead to understanding. Have a good evening.
I would never condone "forcing" a church to marry two gay people if it were against their theology. There ARE, however, many Christian denominations that willingly, joyfully, perform same sex marriage ceremonies and such an act is in accordance with their denomination's theological position.
I disagree with your interpretation. sorry. I am a former UCC minister. I refused to marry several heterosexual couples because I didn't believe their relationships met the standards of faithfulness that my denomination required. They freely went to another church - or in some cases to a J.P and got married anyway. No government intervention was there to force me to perform a marriage ceremony I did not believe in.
to suggest that, somehow, changing the laws that allow SSM would FORCE religious institutions to perform ceremonies that violate their theology is silly. If that were true, what has stopped the state stepping in long ago and forcing the Catholic Church to perform marriages on divorced Catholics without annulments... or better yet, why hasn't the state required Christian churches to perform marriages for two Jews or two Muslims? What about SSM do people think will cause the state to step in and violate the separation of church and state?
Yeah, I hate those damn liberals always trying to make their religion the only one allowed in schools, trying to push for sodomy laws, telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies... Oh, wait...
Thats the crazy thing about all this. If anything was going to be "forced" on anybody, it already has been in the form of heterosexual couples who did not meet the standards of various religions. But now thr sky is falling because same sex couples can be rejected or accepted under the exact same standards? There are civil codes that require recognition for legal, public purposes, which has been true even of heterosexual couples married under a stamdard that might not satisfy many religions. That has always been the case. But I still believe religious institutions should ne exempt. I think there is debate when it comes to for profit businesses, but I generally fall into the camp that tries to preserve as much religious freedom as possible. My limits there only come into play when denying you are dealing with a type of servious that can cause serious harm... for an obvious example, lets say doctors who cant just let you die or refuse to let your spouse make medical decisions for you just because they disagree with your marriage. I dont know exactly where to draw the line, but I believe there is reasonable space on both sides.
Clearly you missed the irony of the post. I'll explain it in terms you might be able to understand: those are conservative positions, so they are the ones "obsessed" with those issues. How's that for civility?
Sorry but I disagree. Most of what people perceive as discrimination is really that which they impose on themselves. If kids aren't calling you queer, they would be calling you fat, ugly, poor, short, dumb, whatever. It is the nature of childhood/adolescence. People exorcise their demons on others. The rest are just details.
Yeah, defending the country from liberal obsessions like race, sex, gay marriage, invasion from illegals, ect. is just a conservative issue.
You don't seem to grasp the difference between the amount of background misery everyone has to put up with and the colossal amount of (*)(*)(*)(*) you get for being queer. Being in the closet is miserable, believe me.
