What's in a name?
Okay. I've talked about this a lot, I know, but I'm tired and waiting for my brother's chef clothes to finish in the dryer so here I go.
( Actually, I blame the VP debate. Gay rights is apparently not important enough for the presidential candidates to discuss, so they gave it to the VPs. )
( Actually, I blame the VP debate. Gay rights is apparently not important enough for the presidential candidates to discuss, so they gave it to the VPs. )
Comments 4
(The comment has been removed)
You should have seen some of the arguments I found. x.x There was one site (Judeo-Christian, admittedly) that one of it's well constructed arguments was that "if it were equal, we'd have to teach the CHILDREN that this perversion was equal! :O"
And a lot of the arguments are based on a "traditional family structure." I immediately dismiss those because we have single parents, children who are raised by the parent(s) and the grandparents equally. Aunts, uncles, cousins.
Or that marriage is for procreation.
...Yeah, okay. There are lots of people that want to have kids but don't want to get married, see some of those single parents. :P
50 years ago. People didn't think African Americans would be free. =)
That makes me want to look up arguments against inter-racial marriage. =_=
Reply
This is also why some people say that gays should have equal rights to civil unions (and all the equal rights that married couples have by law) but that the government cannot force churches to accept gay marriage.
Personally, I think the church needs to get its hand off the governments *euphemism*. The government should not be swayed by religious babble and the reasons behind those religious arguments. Because honestly, the government cannot find a good non-religious reason why gays can't get married.
But I'm obviously prejudiced.
Reply
Yeah, I've heard that, too. In that case, my parents don't technically have a marriage as they were joined by a justice of the peace, I believe. But they are still 'married' and no one has any moral issues referring to THEM as such.
but that the government cannot force churches to accept gay marriage.
No, they can't, but the churches feel they can force the government to deny it from the looks of things.
The government should not be swayed by religious babble and the reasons behind those religious arguments.
That's the thing, the people in the government (not all of them, and this doesn't even count for all of those that ARE religious) are letting their religious beliefs get in the way of what's good for the people. They don't just sit down and go "okay, all are created equal, right? Well here's a group of people that ARE NOT getting these rights even though there's no reason they shouldn't."
Because honestly, the government cannot find a good ( ... )
Reply
I'll second and expand a bit on what Kitten said---from what I understand, the difference is in the religious conotation. (I will disclaim right now that I've not listened to any debates, and have been for the most part blessedly spared of political discussion at work.) I had the comments explained to me by someone who would be one of the first I know to raise the sword for equal rights, so I trust in her interpretation and lack of anger. And it would seem that---at least where Biden is concerned---it's purely a matter of not forcing any church's hand on the matter, wanting the people to have all the rights but not wanting to over-stepp the line between church and state ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment