Yeah, it would sure suck to have someone else dictate your sandwich options... Interesting that it isn't gays exhibiting that behavior. Are you suggesting that straight folks who get hitched in a courthouse aren't really "married"? Yeah, those darned liberals should display the same level of tolerance as conservatives, by forcing others not only to accept their rules as valid, but force everyone to abide by them through legislation... - - - Updated - - - Wondering how this is relevant...?
The Goal. BEYOND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE A NEW STRATEGIC VISION FOR ALL OUR FAMILIES & RELATIONSHIPS http://www.beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html
Mesopotamia, Egypt, Rome, and a host of other civilisations that pre-date Western religion accepted gay marriage... So it seems it's religious folk who have attempted to reinvent marriage while pretending they created it. Even if this were not the case, changing this "institution" so that everyone can pick their partner has no detrimental ability on you picking yours.
Let us know when we were ever any of those failed empires. They failed for a reason. Detriment to the nation and civilization certainly does affect me.
Is this supposed to be evidence for some sort of widespread gay conspiracy/agenda? Did you happen to glance at the "About Us" section? This is what 20 people have agreed to. I've had barbecues where more people than that showed up. - - - Updated - - - You seem to be missing the point that your position is BS, even if it wasn't an appeal to tradition fallacy.
That's an interesting assertion. If you're suggesting more than just these 20 people want gays to have the same rights as everyone else, I agree.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...preme-court-perspec-0702-20150701-column.html Hey, in this topsy turvy world where the written law means nothing anymore and new rights can be invented, anything goes.
I'm sure folks said the same thing when blacks were given equal rights and when women were given the right to own property and vote... Don't worry, Chicken Little, it'll be ok.
Those rights were identified as natural rights long before government reversed it's direction. In fact it was the religious that fought for those natural rights, so FAIL.
marriage is like a pop, comes in many flavors, sometimes they even mix the flavors - - - Updated - - - marriage is like a pop, comes in many flavors, sometimes they even mix the flavors funny the right never had issue with a heterosexual marrying a homosexual of the opposite sex
That's funny. As if confederates believed black folks were humans with natural rights, rather than cattle... Anyway, back on topic: are you suggesting that having a lifelong partner of your choice isn't a natural right?
We've already covered the fact that marriage predates your religious tradition, and that people get married without involving churches all the time. Cognitive dissonance much?
How did they "Redefine" anything in religious tradition? Do churches now consider gay marriage acceptable and get forced to perform them? Do they have to replace ANYTHING with a rainbow flag? The Church is not effected in any way beyond having to watch them on TV...and they can simply change the channel.
http://www.charismanews.com/world/40685-millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/gay-couple-files-complaint-for-refusal-of-wedding it seems that's exactly what they are trying to force
No it is more like guy in front ordering a Halal Shwarma at Subway and forcing the fast food chain to make it for him even though its not on the menu.
whether the attempt has proven successful yet, does not change the fact they are trying to do exactly what you claimed they aren't doing
This is a case from 2013 from England, which is not relevant since it's England, and they're not subject to our laws, nor we to theirs. Haven't seen any recent news reports on if the lawsuit managed to get any traction in the UK Courts. This is an internal church issue. No lawsuit was filed in a state or federal court. Discussions of allowing same-sex marriages within the church are ongoing. Some pastors within the church are already performing same sex marriages.
And the people who didn't want it changed did so because they wanted it to stay the same, just for them. The result is now inclusive and in the spirit of freedom, the former system appears to have deserved preservation, according to your assessment of those who opposed the change anyway, simply because it already existed. What a terrible argument. Should we still use cars even though horse conveyance was used for centuries before it? Should we still bleed people with leeches? Of course not We're not locked to the past just because it's the past. And in this case, the proponents of time travel couldn't make a better argument than the proponents of progress. Which is usually the case because time travel is a bad idea.