BF2S Forums Gay Marriage in CA? OK!

rawls2 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

This is what I am afraid of. Taking my kids to see Indiana Jones and have to pass them through this crowd.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665965

That, my friend, is the burden of living in a free country.  Pandering to your prejudice would be no better than pandering to the prejudices of racists.

You may find gays repulsive, but if they aren't breaking any laws, then you really can't do much about their freedom of expression.

EDIT: and you do indeed have the freedom to be anti-gay....  just like people have the freedom to be racist, and people have the freedom to mock you and others for their prejudices.

Would I be allowed to throw a hetrosexual parade? Have scantilly clad but legally dressed women dancing with shirtless men simulating sexual activities in the form of dance. Probably not. Double standard I say.

Indeed it is...  This is why I side with neither prejudice nor political correctness, because they are 2 sides of the same coin.  Freedom of expression should mean exactly that -- equal freedom to express yourself regardless of your viewpoint.

God Save the Queen wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

That, my friend, is the burden of living in a free country.  Pandering to your prejudice would be no better than pandering to the prejudices of racists.

You may find gays repulsive, but if they aren't breaking any laws, then you really can't do much about their freedom of expression.

EDIT: and you do indeed have the freedom to be anti-gay....  just like people have the freedom to be racist, and people have the freedom to mock you and others for their prejudices.

Would I be allowed to throw a hetrosexual parade? Have scantilly clad but legally dressed women dancing with shirtless men simulating sexual activities in the form of dance. Probably not. Double standard I say.

ARE YOU NUTS!?!!?!?!?!?!


why dont you google image "Mardi Gras"

that couldnt be a better reply to your biggoted post.

LOL i just did a Google image search for mardi gras.  Godamn jubblies everywhere! I so gotta go to New Orleans one day.

rawls2 wrote:

Atleast I know I'm not the only bigot here.

youre right, youre not.  That makes it a good thing?


I think thats what one might call "A loss for words"

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-05-16 16:07:31)

HurricaИe wrote:

This music video's a favorite of some folks here

The "Born to be Alive" one was a little bit funnier.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

So...........you want them to be happy about their right to do something different to everyone else?

And call that equal?

If marriage is a religious institution, it should not be legally recognised (not necessarily saying it is or isn't, though).

It shouldn't.  It's mostly a silly religious thing.  If two people want to get married, fine, just don't tangle it in law shit.

Which is exactly the problem I have with marriage: that it's a religious institution.

TBH, I don't even think there should be legal unions: living with someone else saves you enough money without tax breaks aswell.

Tax breaks for married couples is just incentive for people to get married.  It's very sad that people like you and I are simply islands in a sea of ignorance and whatnot.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

Tax breaks for married couples is just incentive for people to get married.

Which I don't understand.  We want people to marry...............why?

At least in Aus we don't have alimony.

Here's why they want people to get married:

Conservatives are pissy about the degrading of 'traditional values'.  The divorce rate is at 50% or so, children are raised by single parents, and so on.  They see this as the very root of every problem with our society, ranging from crime all the way to homosexuality.  Conservatives in office try their best to encourage people to get married, that's why married couples get all these stupid-ass legal benefits.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I think you're putting too much into the Conservatives/traditional values argument.  Those arguments don't hold nearly as much sway here, and yet we have tax breaks.

Then what do you think is the cause of this?

My guess is it's a hangover from when women didn't work, and supporting a wife would be a burden.  And it hasn't change because most people are married, so there isn't enough political pressure.

Pubic wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Which is exactly the problem I have with marriage: that it's a religious institution.

BZZZT!  Non-religious marriages are both possible and given legal recognition, therefore the "marriage is religious" objection is irrelevent.

At what point did I object to gay marriage?

it's the responsibility of liberals to wreck a perfect world where women and colored folks have no rights 

While Pubic is right in certain ways, the simple truth of the matter is that, in America, marriage is simultaneously regarded as a religious and government institution.  This is why gay marriage is a conundrum for religious conservatives.

It would be much simpler to just separate marriage from the government, and then institute gay civil unions to accompany straight civil unions as the only legal recognition for the equivalent of marriage.  Once the issue is reduced to civil unions, it becomes a purely secular issue of civil rights.

Religion has no jurisdiction over secular affairs in a secular government.

Are you against gay civil unions?