First off Kris, are gays second class citizens? Shouldn't they have the protections granted by the 14th amendment? Or should there be special provision made for those with slightly different genetic dispositions from the rest of us?
Marrying the person of your choice has been considered a fundamental constitutional right ever since Virginia vs. Loving in 1964. Does the Constitution apply to gays as well as straights in this case? Or are fundamental constitutional rights perhaps not so fundamental? A related question, can basic human rights as guaranteed by the Constitution as applied to a minority group be removed by a vote by the majority? On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Sisk, Kris <[email protected]> wrote: > > I disagree. Opposition to gay marriage is VERY MUCH about two things. > One is the sanctity of marriage. The other that most people opposed to > gay marriage believe that homosexual sex is an immoral act. Allowing gay > marriage is, to them, our society saying that a morally wrong act is OK. > They see the acceptance of gay marriage as a harmful moral decline in > our society. > > It's easy to call those opposed to gay marriage haters and dismiss them. > Some of them, admittedly the most visible, are just haters, but do try > to remember that there is a reason besides hate for the views most gay > marriage opponents hold. You'll make more headway in changing their > minds that way than by calling them homophobic bigots. That is unless > you want to go after the true haters like Phelps. Nothing's going to > change their minds. > > A more effective argument is pointing out how ludicrous it is to try to > outlaw everything immoral. Extramarital sex (most of them are guilty of > that, even if it were just premarital and not adultery), drinking, > smoking, cussing....the list goes on and on. I've seen that approach > convert people on the issue. > > -----Original Message----- > From: G Money [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:25 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: interesting opinion piece on Beck and the teabagging party > > > Opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with people preserving the > sanctity of marriage. > > They find homosexuality icky, and they don't want to think about them as > sharing a part of the same "normal" life as they do. They don't want to > have > to have discussions with their children about their friend who has two > daddies, because they themselves can't even come to terms with it, even > though I guarantee that their kid would have absolutely no problem with > it. > > If we could just get over our own icky feelings and grow up a little > bit, > explain it simply and honestly to our kids, homophobia could be all but > erased in only a few generations. > > Sounds easy, don't it? But alas....... > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> There would still be people against it. Most likely still the Bible >> thumpers. >> >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > So why isn't that your fight. Fight to change the marriage license > to >> > civil union and it's done. >> > Oddly enough that could be done easily bit what's the fun in that. >> > With no opponents who do you get to brand as haters? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I have stated for quite sometime that the biggest hurdle with gay >> >> marriage is the religious institutions and the government use the > same >> >> word for different reasons. >> >> >> >> Religious institutions use the word 'marriage' to describe a > religious >> ceremony. >> >> The government uses the word 'marriage' to describe a civil > contract >> >> between 2 consenting adults. >> >> >> >> A lot of opponents of gay marriage I have spoken to seem to think > that >> >> because I am a proponent of gay marriage that it means that I want > to >> >> force their church to allow gay couples to be married in a > religious >> >> ceremony. I would be willing to bet there are quite a few opponents > fo >> >> gay marriage who feel the same way. >> >> >> >> I think that government should get out of the marriage business. > When >> >> I got married in a religious ceremony in a church, I had to get a >> >> 'marriage license' from the state. That 'marriage license' should > be a >> >> 'civil union' license. And the guidelines for a civil union should > be >> >> simple. Any 2 consenting adults should be allowed to enter into a >> >> civil union so long as both are not in a civil union with another >> >> person. >> >> >> >> If you get married in a church, you go through the religious > ceremony >> >> of marriage, but need to get the civil union or contract handled >> >> through the government. >> >> >> >> To me, the biggest hurdle in gay marriage boils down to > nomenclature. >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:326421 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
