Gay Marriage Threatens Our Freedom

[Odysseus]

This is ridiculous.

First of all, the idea that one person's rights might be violated with a different law if group B gets their rights is not a good enough reason to deny group B of their rights. Would we deny black people of their rights because some people would eventually take Affirmative Action too far? No. We let the minority have their rights and then take care of the reverse discrimination later.

This does not address the argument as stated in the article. We are not denying the minority their rights. There is no attempt to reimpose sodomy laws or to ban cohabitation. As the article points out, "Traditional marriage supporters are simply working to preserve the legal definition of our most important social institution (older than the state and older, even, than institutional religion; more on this below) against those who themselves want to use the force of law to compel the rest of us to agree to a new definition, a definition that nobody anywhere has ever held (up until the last few years), and one which will change our understanding of that most important institution in fundamental ways. By any objective measure, the gay-marriage advocates are trying to deprive the rest of us of our liberty to hold and to express our beliefs. " It is the minority that is attempting to use the force of law to impose its definition of marriage on the rest of us. The argument against equal rights for African Americans is a straw man. Those who support equality oppose affirmative action, because it is not equality, but preferential treatment based on race.

Next, non-traditional marriage is already legal, and not all churches are recognizing it. If you're re-married and you didn't get an annullment with the RCC, then my church doesn't recognize your marriage. It's as valid to them as a gay marriage would be. However, priests have not been forced to remarry people. Why would gay marriage do that? What's up with the hypocritical stance that we can get remarried thousands of times, but yet a gay couple can't get married? Doesn't make sense.

There's nothing hypocritical about defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman. What is hypocritical is pretending that just because the activists haven't won the fight to force churches to sanction their unions, that they won't eventually press for just that. Again, as stated in the article: "Outside of the school system we see professional photographers, Knights of Columbus halls, and even dating services facing lawsuits simply because they decline to include same-sex weddings among their services. In the case of Chik-Fil-A we have seen public officials threaten to ban a business simply because its owner has expressed his personal support of traditional marriage, which is still the law of the land in most of our country. It is not at all far-fetched to project that today's harassment will become full-scale prosecution if the full gay marriage legal agenda is enacted (as is already the case in Canada and parts of Europe)."

Local governments THREATENED to ban chick-fil-a, but it never happened. There was a boycott, but I think that makes up for the countless timse that conservatives advocated a boycott of a company. It's legal to boycott.

But, the important point is that they did make the threat. And what they threaten today, they will seek to take the power to do tomorrow. The mayors who threatened CFA didn't have the power to make good on it, but someday, thanks to people like you, they just might.

The schools. I'd like to hear the other side of the story. Nine times out of ten, the students are not in a religious mood. They're in a taunting mood. They'll taunt somebody for being gay or supposedly gay. The idea that these people are victims in life makes me sick. You can't keep using religion as an excuse to harass gay people. My gay friend left our secular school in favor of a religious one, and wasn't harassed every day. People are using religion to excuse hatred, plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lanie;534582]Nine times out of ten, or 90%, sounds like a statistic. You have supporting documentation?

[noonwitch]

The boycott worked out real well, lol.

People that had never ate at chick fil a, ate their for the first time...they had record sales!

The ban by local mayors never happened due to the First Amendment.

The reason the Chick-fil-a boycott didn't work was because the company was not actively discriminating against gays. There are a lot of people who may have boycotted if that had been the case. The head of the company stated his political opinion, and gays were pissed off about it. That's all. No firings of gay employees, no refusal of service to gay couples-things that would be worth a boycott, imo.