Subway Sandwich.

I went to subway and ordered my favorite sandwich for $5, the guy in front of me got upset because his favorite sandwich cost more than $5. He then began crying "tastebud equality" and said his rights to pay $5 for a footlong were being violated. Then he called me an "avocadophobe" and called the sandwich artist an ignorant bigot.

Nevermind, he wasn't denied the Buffalo chicken sub, and was even offered one at the $5 price which he declined, because he would rather redefine what subs were included in the $5 footlong promotion because his favorite sub wasn't included.

 

That's a horrible analogy. Really.

 

The minute it went to a referendum was the moment those who disapprove of Gay marriage were asked for their opinion/permission. They gave their opinions and expressed their preferences.

Now they are telling you why.

Can't deal with that?

Grow up.

 

Well, i think there is some room to say that there's a potential problem should churches be forced into violating their beliefs in some way, and it doesn't just pertain to gay marriage, but other things as well. Should a Catholic institution, formulated as a specifically Catholic institution be forced to violate its laws because of political lobbies? There are cases like that with Obamacare, where church based charities were told that they must offer free abortion/contraception coverage for anyone they employed, which violates the Canon Law of the Church. Gay marriage would also violate the same Canon Law, which means that it would be a violation of Catholic's right to be Catholic to force them into doing such a thing. Curtesy is one thing, but I think we need to be careful that your idea of "not letting other people treat you as inferior" happens to coincide with their right to be religious. There's room for compromise, and so far the states that have allowed this have made it clear that churches' right to define their canon laws is protected, but it's still a potential problem.

I would oppose forcing specifically religious institutions from being forced into offering anything that violates their right to worship freely. If your religious beliefs are "no meat" my demanding that you give me a hamburger is violating that right. They wouldn't have the right to ban hamburgers, and they wouldn't have the right to prevent me from buying a hamburger, but I don't have the right to demand a hamburger from people who find such food immoral. Once you get outside the specifically religious realm, it's public accomodation of course, and normal rules apply, as in nondiscrimination and following all federal laws pertaining to that institution.

As I said, room for compromise. But I don't think it's fair to the other side to pretend that there won't be some issues that cut their way as well. it's dishonest.

 

Same sex marriage law has nothing to do with religion. No church has been forced to marry a same sex couple, nor will they be, much like they can deny to marry many other couples. That argument is completely ridiculous.

 

You have made the first step toward emotional maturity. Recognising your problems with hypocrisy and bigotry, is the first step to solving your problems.

I hope you can find the peace of mind that emotional maturity brings. For example, I can`t enter the Para Olympics, because I don`t fit the criteria. This dosen`t cause me the slightest inkling of resentment, or envy, neither do I feel inferior to anyone because of this. In the contrary, I applaud the Para Olympians, and wish them well. The same goes for the "gay marriage" issue, emotionally mature people easily recognise the right of people to believe that marriage is heterosexual.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are different, obviously, and so should the commitment process be different. Any other approach is hysterical whining.

 

Actually a more accurate representation would be "I was able to order the Buffalo chicken sub, and the other guy was told that he could only have the basic chicken sandwich. The Subway had no limit to the number of Buffalo chicken subs they could make, but they only make them for specific people. If they made them for everyone, it would have no impact on the flavor of my sandwich; but I think people should just accept that only special people (like me) get to enjoy the Buffalo chicken goodness."

 

So, gay marriage should be opposed because of something that isn't an issue? We should protect the rights of institutions, but not provide equal rights to individuals - purely on the basis of religious dogma?

 

Given the ludicrous nature of your analogy, and the condescension with which you presented it, it appears that only one of us has any level of emotional maturity.
As for the "marriage is heterosexual", you have yet to present any reason why this should be the case. After all, marriage used to be about "two people of the same race".

 

You are far from being truthful or realistic.

Come on.

- - - Updated - - -

Brilliant and awesome!!

 

You must be embarrased when you read your post.

 

What's actually so 'embarrassing' about his post?

 

It`s nothing but evasive, judgemental, emotive hysteria.

 

Well, you might see it that way; I don't.

 

Unlike posts that say "marriage is just for straight people because I said so, and anyone that thinks otherwise is oppressing me"...

 

Still waiting for something substantial, adult, and tolerant, bearing in mind that tolerance is something that gays need to practice towards others. Not just exclusively be the receivers.

 

Those who are bigoted and homophobic, should not expect "tolerance" from others.

 

In English, we can use the same word to mean many things.

And in 12 states, marriage can refer to the union between 2 people of the same sex.
That's just reality, nobody is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.
That's the point.

 

Ok, how about this: I'm a heterosexual male veteran of active duty infantry service who has been happily "straight married" for 17 years (almost half my life) to the same girl, with whom I have two sons...
Given that, as a straight guy, I do not believe my marriage would be affected by a marriage involving "Phil and Bill", I don't see any reason why marriage should be limited to people like me.

How's that for tolerant?

 

Still waiting for you to give something substantial and adult for a reason to deny same sex couples equal rights under the law. I'm sure if laws were made denying religious people the right to marry, you would not be very tolerant of that. Likewise for us. Why should we say, "Oh, it's OK for you to deny us rights because you don't like us"? Are you serious?

 

they aren't being denied any right.

their right to marry is simply limited, just like free speech is limited, just like 2nd amendment is limited.

But since a gay man can go down, and get a marraige license..... I'm leaning towards they aren't being denied the right to marry.

what IS being denied are privliges.... that's a big difference between those and rights.


It's not a quear's right to get a tax credit, an estate tax exemption, etc.....

- - - Updated - - -

typical retort is typical

 

no, mine was more realistic... thanks

 

Limiting rights of a particular group of people and excluding their access to benefits enjoyed by the rest of the population, is discriminatory.
Supporting this type of discrimination is bigotry.

This has nothing in common with reasonable limitations on constitutional rights, as those limitations are applied to ALL people.

 

Actually, no. Gays are asking for the exact same rights and privileges that are enjoyed by the rest of the population, not more. And they're not asking for anyone else's rights or privileges to be changed in any way.

 

they have the same rights.... and I'm under no moral obligation to give privileges.