GatewayRedbirds.com

Schlich wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

cardsfansince82 wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote: I don't have a "strong" position, but I see the issue with it.

Quit being a coward. It's not that hard to say where you stand.

I'm not racist because I have a black friend, you guys.

Are you so close-minded that you can't accept that people can have a viewpoint without being judgmental of people who don't have the same viewpoint?

The answer to this, on issues like this, is an overwhelming "yes," Soc. People aren't, and shouldn't be, tolerant of other forms of prejudice and this is no different.

I completely agree, Schlich. I don't consider it to be "prejudiced" just because we have different societal definitions of marriage..... based on the historical intent of marriage. In my mind, gay marriage is more of a political issue than a moral issue. Do we want to reward people simply because they love each other and are wiling to sign a contractual agreement.............. or has there been a deeper intent (historically) for the union that's beneficial to society? I don't really care, because I don't see where it impacts me in the least. However, I do see why the question is there. Why do we reward married people?

Socnorb11 wrote:

Arthur Dent wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

Arthur Dent wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:That has nothing to do with "hating gays" or not wanting them to be happy.

How would you describe the view that mixed race marriages should be prohibited because society can thrive without them?

I wouldn't acknowledge race......... that's how I would view it.

Man/woman. That's all that's needed for procreation.

But if someone tried to argue that such marriages should be prohibited, I imagine that you'd consider that person to be a racist.

I would. As I said, race has nothing to do with this issue, in my opinion.

Right. So, perhaps you can understand why people see opposition to equal marriage rights to be prima facie evidence of bigotry.

If you publicly announce your opposition to equal rights and then say you wouldn't hire the gay guy, people are going to be suspicious that your hiring decisions are also bigoted especially when your explanation for why you'd make such a decision is that equal hiring practices would be too much of a bother.

Arthur Dent wrote: Right. So, perhaps you can understand why people see opposition to equal marriage rights to be prima facie evidence of bigotry.

If you publicly announce your opposition to equal rights, and then say you wouldn't hire the gay guy, people are going to be suspicious that your hiring decisions are also bigoted especially when your explanation for why you'd make such a decision is that equal hiring practices would be too much of a bother.

I don't see the connection. "Race" has nothing to do with the basis of marriage, historically. Heterosexuality (procreation) does. Marriage is a contractual arrangement supported by the state as best suited for the bearing and raising of children, a matter in which there is a legitimate state interest. That determination is not inherently Christian, as every major world religion (not just Christianity), and many communist countries, which are by design atheist, support traditional marriage.

"Equal rights" aren't an issue here. I am straight, and I don't have a right to marry someone of the same sex, either. Dan Savage is gay, and he has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I have (in fact, he did just that).

Socnorb11 wrote:
"Race" has nothing to do with the basis of marriage, historically.

Except for when people seemed to think it did?

Also, re: procreation (and equality), there are literally millions of children in foster care and homosexual couples deserve every right to operate as parents to them under the law.

Soc, do you think people choose to be gay?

cardsfansince82 wrote:Soc, do you think people choose to be gay?

I actually don't.

Schlich wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:
"Race" has nothing to do with the basis of marriage, historically.

Except for when people seemed to think it did?

Also, re: procreation (and equality), there are literally millions of children in foster care and homosexual couples deserve every right to operate as parents to them under the law.

So since people were wrong about "that", then they must be wrong about "this", too? Why is there automatically a correlation?

Single people have every right to operate as parents to foster kids too........... but they don't have the same legal and financial benefits of a married couple.

Socnorb11 wrote:I think Dungy is dealing with the criticism fairly well, so I guess he's made his choice (if he can't have it both ways). He'll take the criticism every time.

Yeah I guess he has. But not everyone has.

There's also millions of children starving worldwide that could use a home. One with food, preferably...sexuality not as important as bread and water.

Not that allowing gay marriage would rectify the situation, or even alleviate it in the least. But, it kind of puts it in perspective how silly this whole issue is.

Socnorb11 wrote:

cardsfansince82 wrote:Soc, do you think people choose to be gay?

I actually don't.

Then why would you ever support anything that denies them the same rights as you? That's no different than supporting different rules for black people, or autistic people, or people who were born more athletic than you, etc etc.