{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/28/2015 7:13:43 PM
3
I personally don't mind if they do, but marriage is a sacred act between a man and woman. Would it work to call it a union, or possibly something else?
English
-
Edited by Stickman Al: 5/29/2015 5:47:58 PMThis is what I was coming to in our discussion. If your only objection is the word we use to describe it (let's mash together the word 'gay' and 'marriage' and call it garriage) then you are actually supporting limiting someone's rights [b]over a word[/b]. That is truly ludicrous, and should be obviously so to you. If they are allowed the same rights, the [b]name[/b] of their union is the only difference, and all of a sudden we can see how petty your objections are.
-
Limiting someone's rights because I want to keep a sacred activity and its name separate from something that is considered an abomination? You want to know what limiting rights looks like? Look up the story of the girl on a college campus that was forced to move and was told it was because it was offensive. Know what she was promoting? The second amendment. One of our AMENDMENTS. Talk about petty. I never said I felt they should get this or that right. I just know they will.
-
I don't know what that story is about without a link but it's not really on subject from what you're telling me. Your last sentence implies you think gay people should have different rights from straight people
-
Edited by beardedwonder12: 5/29/2015 11:13:51 PMWhat rights are different? And the reason I bring up that story is because I'm sick of Christians, conservatives, pro life people, basically everyone but the left getting attacked and hated on. Basically, your stance is to defend someone's beliefs while squashing someone elses.
-
Yes, because your beliefs 'squash' someone else's, so they need to be held to a higher standard of evidence. At the moment it boils down to this; You believe gayness is inherently wrong, but with no evidence other than your book, which cannot be proven true. You think that we should therefore limit the rights (pursuit of happiness etc) of these people. At the end of the day we don't have any good reason to follow your beliefs, because they are simply your beliefs - I'm sure you would admit they are faith based rather than based on irrefutable evidence. By the same logic we should all live under sharia law, but that wouldn't be fair because you can't force people to live by the rules of a religion they don't follow. I'm sure this is something you agree with when it comes to islam, but you aren't applying the same thinking to your own religion.
-
I haven't said all humans shouldn't have the same rights. To be fair, why should a homosexual couple not have any right from the government that allows them to be in a legal binding relationship, that are bestowed upon a Heterosexual couple. I'm not saying what should or shouldn't happen, mostly because I've never been married and don't know what type of benefit it holds. But we must remember they aren't the same type of relationship, so if the govt granted some type of tax break (I'll use as an example) for heterosexual couples, it will only be seen as unfair. It will always be unfair to people. I think there's room for improvement in many areas. Christians feel this in their soul, it doesn't make any of us mean or hateful. I'm sorry you think anyone despises anyone else. I don't, and I like to think most don't either. But it's good we can have this discussion.
-
I have not mentioned hate at all.
-
[quote]I personally don't mind if they do, but marriage is a sacred act between a man and woman. [/quote] Says who?
-
why call it something else if it gets all the same things as marriage?
-
What married people get is decided by government, like tax benefits. What is sacred is the act of marrying defined in the Bible. Two separate things. You're saying that if the couple receive the same treatment by the [i]government[/i], that we can call it marriage as defined by the [i]bible[/i] to be between man and women. It wouldn't be marriage, no matter what either couple received after.
-
the legal definition of marriage, in a handful of states still, is between a man and woman.
-
My point is the term marriage comes from the bible. Just because a gay and straight couple would receive the same tax breaks from the governments doesn't mean they could both get married. Marriage is a sacred thing, to Christians. Why wouldn't someone who was gay want to call it something else? They most likely don't consider themselves Christians, so why like the term so much? Maybe because Christians believe it isn't right?
-
marriage was a thing long before the bible was around. [quote] Marriage is a sacred thing, to Christians. [/quote]nobody's forcing christians to change anything about their beleifs. [quote]Why wouldn't someone who was gay want to call it something else? They most likely don't consider themselves Christians, so why like the term so much? [/quote]because marriage is the legal word we use.
