I know the poll is already up, but I'd be curious to 2 polls, one for marriage, and one for civil unions.
I think if you think that they should only be allowed to have a civil union then you are voting no.
I mean you either believe gays should have equal rights or you don't. If you believe gays should not be allowed to be legally married and only have a civil union then that is discrimination to me and works against all that homosexuals have fought for untill today.
The Following User Says Thank You to puckluck For This Useful Post:
This is the reason I try to avoid these discussions. To call me a bigot with so little understanding of my beliefs and reasons is wrong. Who's the bigot here?
This is the reason I try to avoid these discussions. To call me a bigot with so little understanding of my beliefs and reasons is wrong. Who's the bigot here?
So what are your non bigoted logical arguments against marriage?
This is the reason I try to avoid these discussions. To call me a bigot with so little understanding of my beliefs and reasons is wrong. Who's the bigot here?
Well, it's really quite simple. If you regularly beat your wife up, I don't care about your beliefs and reasons.... it's just plain wrong. Same here. I can't think of any possible justification for not granting people equality.
This is the reason I try to avoid these discussions. To call me a bigot with so little understanding of my beliefs and reasons is wrong. Who's the bigot here?
Well, it's really quite simple. If you regularly beat your wife up, I don't care about your beliefs and reasons.... it's just plain wrong. Same here. I can't think of any possible justification for not granting people equality.
See, that's an acceptable answer. I understand and respect your differing opinion, but you never called me a bigot just because of our differing points of view. Someone else called me a bigot merely because he disagrees with me. By the way, disagreeing with gay marriage is not the same thing as beating my wife.
See, that's an acceptable answer. I understand and respect your differing opinion, but you never called me a bigot just because of our differing points of view. Someone else called me a bigot merely because he disagrees with me. By the way, disagreeing with gay marriage is not the same thing as beating my wife.
Assuming you don't beat your wife due to anger derived from repressed homosexual desires.
Seriously though, what's the legitimate argument against gay marriage? It seems as though you think you have one, and I'd love to hear it as nobody else has come up with one as far as I know.
I think if you think that they should only be allowed to have a civil union then you are voting no.
I mean you either believe gays should have equal rights or you don't. If you believe gays should not be allowed to be legally married and only have a civil union then that is discrimination to me and works against all that homosexuals have fought for untill today.
While I doubt this is what the OP was suggesting, there is a defensible third opinion that says that the state should not use the word "marriage" at all to describe legal partnerships between consenting adults because it is such a loaded term. Any such partnership (hetero or homosexual) could be called "civil unions" or even "civil marriages", affording upon those adults the tax status, inheritance, child rearing and legal protection that is currently afforded to married folk. In this system, it would be up to people to decide how they identified their partnerships, be it through the definitions of their church or their own personal or family definitions.
Marriage is a term with specific meaning within certain religious groups so it does create friction to use that term to describe a union that is antithetical to those religious groups' teachings. For instance, the Catholic Church keeps its own council on who it considers to be Married and who is not, using a system of annulments for declaring that certain unions are still valid and that others never were. This is fine in my opinion because churches must be able to set their own definitions unless we seek to strip the right to Freedom of Religion.
I'm pretty certain that setting up a second tier of legal unions just for gay people (even if those rights were identical) would not pass a court challenge in Canada. To me, the choice is: use the word marriage for everyone or use it for no one. That it is the inevitable consequence of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as is the next step that will include the legalization of polygamous relationships as soon as someone challenges the current law.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bownesian For This Useful Post:
Actually Marriage is just a word, you forget there are tons of other languages and not all of them have 1 word for union with a man/woman.
But yes, in English, its pretty common and again its just a word.
If you are in a religion that holds it holy, fine, enjoy your word but do not force your beliefs onto others who do not share that belief, and even worse do not withhold rights from a segment of society because of it.
Its religious freedom, but more importantly as most of the founders were big on, its freedom FROM religion.
Assuming you don't beat your wife due to anger derived from repressed homosexual desires.
Seriously though, what's the legitimate argument against gay marriage? It seems as though you think you have one, and I'd love to hear it as nobody else has come up with one as far as I know.
A legitimate argument is that we were given instructions on what is right and what is wrong by a perfect divine creator and just as we were instructed not to murder, we were told that homosexuality is wrong.
That you don't share that belief does not make it an illegitimate argument and de-legitimizing that belief (and mocking religious belief in general) is bigoted because you are belittling the thing that many people hold most dear. Put another way, people who mock religious people for defending their most personal beliefs are showing intolerance for a group of people whose beliefs are different from their own, the very definition of bigotry.
Fortunately (in my opinion), we do not live in a Theocracy where the rules of a divine creator are also the Laws of the Land. We are in a democracy that has chosen to live under the aegis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which does not allow for the imposition of laws that unreasonably discriminate against people. Our courts (also our choice through the selection of our system of government) said that the old definition of marriage was discriminatory and thus our parliament (also our choice) has changed the law.
I agree with all of those steps but I understand how people could believe those choices are wrong.
A legitimate argument is that we were given instructions on what is right and what is wrong by a perfect divine creator and just as we were instructed not to murder, we were told that homosexuality is wrong.
That you don't share that belief does not make it an illegitimate argument and de-legitimizing that belief (and mocking religious belief in general) is bigoted because you are belittling the thing that many people hold most dear. Put another way, people who mock religious people for defending their most personal beliefs are showing intolerance for a group of people whose beliefs are different from their own, the very definition of bigotry.
Not really. That's just bigotry masked by "faith." The fact is, if your religion is telling you to be intolerant, then your religion is bigoted too.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
A legitimate argument is that we were given instructions on what is right and what is wrong by a perfect divine creator and just as we were instructed not to murder, we were told that homosexuality is wrong.
That you don't share that belief does not make it an illegitimate argument and de-legitimizing that belief (and mocking religious belief in general) is bigoted because you are belittling the thing that many people hold most dear. Put another way, people who mock religious people for defending their most personal beliefs are showing intolerance for a group of people whose beliefs are different from their own, the very definition of bigotry.
Fortunately (in my opinion), we do not live in a Theocracy where the rules of a divine creator are also the Laws of the Land. We are in a democracy that has chosen to live under the aegis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which does not allow for the imposition of laws that unreasonably discriminate against people. Our courts (also our choice through the selection of our system of government) said that the old definition of marriage was discriminatory and thus our parliament (also our choice) has changed the law.
I agree with all of those steps but I understand how people could believe those choices are wrong.
I get your point, but there are hundreds of different belief systems out there. The fact that one says x and another says y isn't a legitimate argument in a state that is based upon notions of freedom of religion. It may be a legitimate argument if you throw out the second part, but you can't have both.
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Not really. That's just bigotry masked by "faith." The fact is, if your religion is telling you to be intolerant, then your religion is bigoted too.
That is your opinion.
The opinion of a person with strongly held religious beliefs is that you are wrong; that their religion teaches them that homosexuality is a mortal sin that threatens one's eternal soul. Their religion also teaches them that it is their duty to help sinners be saved.
By writing "faith", you are belittling someones most important personally held beliefs. By using the words intolerant and bigoted to describe those beliefs compounds the insult. This is not the level of discourse of someone whose mind is open and accepting of the beliefs of others.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Bigot (n): a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
People on both sides of this debate fall into that definition.
I've said this many times before. I absolutely refuse to be tolerant of the intolerant. It is tolerance of the intolerant that allows bigotry and hatred to thrive.
If I were open-minded and accepting of people that insulted people of other races, genders or sexual preference I'd not be "enlightened" but rather an enabler and an accomplice to the continuation of thousands of years of hatred.
As I said further up this page, there is NO justification, religious or otherwise, for treating someone as less than an equal. None. And if that makes me evil in your eyes, so be it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Devils'Advocate For This Useful Post:
A legitimate argument is that we were given instructions on what is right and what is wrong by a perfect divine creator and just as we were instructed not to murder, we were told that homosexuality is wrong.
That's a legitimate argument for an individual about themselves for homosexuality, but that isn't a legitimate argument for someone to limit someone else's rights. If it was then people should be arguing to make every biblical standard law, but there's no one suggesting that divorce should be illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bownesian
That you don't share that belief does not make it an illegitimate argument and de-legitimizing that belief (and mocking religious belief in general) is bigoted because you are belittling the thing that many people hold most dear.
Mocking what someone believes may be rude or insensitive, but it is not bigoted.. because what they think is something they choose and can change.
Or are you suggesting that all of the back and forth between fans of different teams is bigotry? After all if you tell someone the oilers suck you are belittling something they hold most dear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bownesian
Put another way, people who mock religious people for defending their most personal beliefs are showing intolerance for a group of people whose beliefs are different from their own, the very definition of bigotry.
Usually people get mocked for failing to or refusing to defend their beliefs, not for defending them. If someone makes a well thought out post here they usually get a well thought out response and a good discussion..
But let me ask you this, if someone was trying to defend the practice of slavery based on their religious beliefs, and all rational arguments of why slavery is bad had failed with that person, can you see why they might be mocked? Not that I think mocking is the best option, but I also don't see it as bigotry.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Bigot (n): a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
But should all things be tolerated? If someone's religious beliefs tell them that keeping slaves is ok should they be allowed to keep slaves? Should we say "well I disagree with you but that is your religion and I respect that". Or should we say "sorry, but your religion does not meet the basic standards of human society and is wrong"?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
A legitimate argument is that we were given instructions on what is right and what is wrong by a perfect divine creator and just as we were instructed not to murder, we were told that homosexuality is wrong.
Sure, within 'that' religion only, how anyone justifies pushing that personal belief to others who do not share it is beyond me.
Quote:
That you don't share that belief does not make it an illegitimate argument and de-legitimizing that belief (and mocking religious belief in general) is bigoted because you are belittling the thing that many people hold most dear.
lol, really? So this is what you believe in regards to those Christians who fought feverishly against interracial marriage and ending slavery? Because that is exactly what the majority of American Christians did, they opposed ending slavery until it was eventually no longer acceptable to hold that belief.
It evolved, because enlightenment thinking and secular values forced the hand of the religious.
Quote:
Put another way, people who mock religious people for defending their most personal beliefs are showing intolerance for a group of people whose beliefs are different from their own, the very definition of bigotry.
Beliefs based on a particular belief should not dictate laws of our nations. You can believe that god will spare your child with cancer and deny modern medicine, but we all know your a moron to think that. You can deny evidence that the earth is billions of years old but you shouldn't be dictating geo-earth education!
Scientology believes in Xenu, so am I intolerant if I suggest those that believe in a sci-fi book are dead wrong?
Not sure when debating ideas and calling the other side out was considered bigotry.
Quote:
Fortunately (in my opinion), we do not live in a Theocracy where the rules of a divine creator are also the Laws of the Land. We are in a democracy that has chosen to live under the aegis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which does not allow for the imposition of laws that unreasonably discriminate against people. Our courts (also our choice through the selection of our system of government) said that the old definition of marriage was discriminatory and thus our parliament (also our choice) has changed the law.
I agree with all of those steps but I understand how people could believe those choices are wrong.
Sure, but I also can understand that people believe all kinds of things, but that does not give them rights to push their own beliefs to deny others their own secular civil rights at bare minimum.
lol, really? So this is what you believe in regards to those Christians who fought feverishly against interracial marriage and ending slavery? Because that is exactly what the majority of American Christians did, they opposed ending slavery until it was eventually no longer acceptable to hold that belief.
While it is true that most pro-slavery Americans were Christians, it's also true that Abolitionists were profoundly guided toward that viewpoint by their faith.
True but there was a great deal of those opposed to it who clang to the bible for justification.
The fact they eventually turned it around doesn't change the point that we drag, kick and scream the faithful into modern morality because of their stubbornness of clinging to their old 2000yr old beliefs.
It's crazy how much of this thread has been about 19th-century U.S. history!
I actually would take issue with that statement, though. It's true that there were churches in the south that used piety as the basis for racial inequality. But the abolitionists were perhaps the least secular, most zealous and most evangelical (if I can use a 20th century term to describe 19th-century Christians) Christians around. They were true believers, and whereas slavery was tacitly supported by some churches, abolitionism was organized and channeled through the church.
I only bring it up because whenever I'm asked "what good has Christianity ever done," my response is usually that Christianity probably ended slavery in the U.S.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
