From a Conservative Point of View...

[gc]

I'm not exactly a conservative, so forgive me for posting in this forum.
I just wanted to get a conservative's point of view as to why same-sex marriage should not be legal, because I have a hard time understanding it. Most of the arguments are based on religious beliefs (especially Christian), but are there any other reasons?
In the bible it says that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that apparently is the reason why same sex marriage should be illegal...but it also says thou shall not worship false idols, and according to Christian belief any other god is a false idol. So does that mean that hindus, muslims etc. should not get married, because it goes against the teachings of the bible? What if someone started their own church/religion which recognized same sex marriage, would they be allowed to marry?
What about judge not lest ye be judged? Let he without sin cast the first stone? Bless them that curse you? etc....

 

[HonestAbe]

A lot of people like to classify me as being a conservative, but I think I'm more of a centrist/Neo-con, who bases a lot of my politics, if not all, on Catholic teachings.

I too have had problems understanding the whole Gay-marriage issue, and I am still trying to get good discussion going where I would be able to figure out what both sides of the argument are saying. However, I have heard a lot of comments on the topic, so I'll try to help you out on this one.

From what I understand, there is a difference between marriage and civil unions. However, I couldn't even begin to tell you what the differences are, because I don't even know what a civil union is. Anyway, I know that some people who are against gay marriage are NOT against civil unions. So that might be something to look into.

Now, from what I understand is that in the U.S. gay activists are arguing that under the 14th amendment, gays should be allowed to be married. The definition of marriage in the U.S. is something around the lines of saying that only a man and a woman can marry, and activists are arguing that the definition should say that a man and a woman, a man and a man, and a woman and a woman, can get married. I can't tell you how that ties into the 14th amendment, but maybe this guy can: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/history/gaymarriage_amendments.html

The conservative argument, I believe, that is in response to the 14th amendment argument, is that if the supreme court were to rule that marriage can be between two people who are not opposite genders, then that would give the polygamy and bestiality argument a fighting chance to also make it legal for someone to marry more than one wife, or marry an animal, under the 14th amendment. Or at least, that's what I've heard.

As far as I know. if someone were to start a religion where they recognize gay marriage, then maybe they would be able to marry two people of the same gender legally, but it is really hard to start a religion. Most likely if someone were to start a religion of that nature, it would be viewed as a cult, and would probably have no merit in the eyes of the government. That's just what I'm thinking.

Lastly, a lot of people think that with same sex marriages legalized, fraudulent marriage would be overwhelming, because then two men would just be able to go in and get married whenever they want.

All in all, I don't agree with gay marriage because my view on marriage involves two people who can come together to start a family of their own, and if they physically can't have children, instead of mechanically not have children, then they should be able to adopt. That's how I see it. That's why I think that only married people should have children, and two people should not allowed to be married if they participate in swinging and other things of that nature, but that's a whole different topic altogether, because there are some problems with that thinking.

The question I have for you though, gc, is why do you wholeheartedly believe that gays should be allowed to marry?

 

[FiveParadox]

I would contend that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry, for civil purposes (as enacted by our Civil Marriage Act, which made a clear distinction between civil marriage, and religious marriage); however, I agree with the provisions of the Act that state that religious persons cannot be forced to perform or celebrate same-sex marriages.

I don't see any problems with this arrangement.

 

[gc]

RE: From a Conservative P

Hi HonestAbe,
Thanks for your response. In response to your question, I believe that gays should be allowed to marry because I believe in equality for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion etc. There are people who believe they should be allowed a civil union (which is a step forward), and I don't know the exact difference between a civil union and a marriage, but I don't see why it matters. I mean if the white majority told let's say black people that they can't get married, they can only get a civil union, people would be outraged (rightly so), so why is it that it's ok to prevent marriage between two gay people? Also, a lot of Christians that I have talked to believe in marriage over civil union because then they are married in the eyes of god. Some people may argue with me on this point, but I believe it is possible for a person to be Christian and be a homosexual, because not every Christian believes in every word of the bible.

Your argument about same-sex marriage opening the door for polygamy/beastiality is probably the only argument I've ever heard that does not make reference to the bible, so thank you for that. Personally, as long people aren't hurting eachother I couldn't give a crap what they do, but that's a whole different story....

Could you also explain the fraudulent marriage to me in more detail, specifically why would fraudulent marriage be a problem, and why would it not be a problem for a man and a woman to get married whenever they want.

I do believe, as FiveParadox said, that no religious person should be forced to perform a same-sex marriage, because I also believe in freedom of religion. But with all of the numerous Christian churches out there (not to mention other religions) I believe that at least one of them will agree to perform a same-sex marriage, and I know there are many religous people who would gladly perform a same-sex marriage. And so, I believe in that case it should be allowed.

 

[HonestAbe]

Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the Civil Marriage Act in Canada, or the argument that gays should be allowed to have civil unions, until someone tells me exactly what benefits seperate a couple with a civil union, and a single person. I do not know what would be a benefit for two people to have a civil union, as opposed to just being a couple, in Canada or the U.S.

I too can agree that no religion should be forced by the government to recognize a marriage that they do not want to recognize, whether it be gay or straight.

Fraudulent marriages do happen with straight couples, and that is why I think that governments need to raise the standards needed in order for someone to be legally married. In addition though, this brings up my question as to what are some of the benefits of being married, as opposed to being single?

Finally, I want to ask, can we all agree that Marriage is something started by religions back a long time ago, and civil unions are something started by governments not too long ago?

 

[Finder]

With all due respect many people don't give two shits about what the bible says. Also they don't care what you have to say about them. You and the government have no right to tell two people that they can not be married or not. Please tell me how two people getting married effects you or anyone else. Exclude them from your your little church society, thats your and there right, but to discriminate against them because two people wish to form a union between them and wish to before a cerimoney or have rights as others do is just wrong. You can call it a union, a wedding or whatever you wish it's just a name.

Perhaps you have a Christian Conservative view which I see as the most destructive social order in Canada today. I personally think the right, right ring is generally the moderate right wing libertarians, or Libertarian conservatives. I don't know why the hypocracy of Conservative Christians should be forced onto others.

 

[HonestAbe]

Does anybody else mind if we try to stay on topic here?

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Marriage vs. Civil Unions

I would suggest that, in terms of the laws of Canada (I am unsure as to how this situation would be interpreted in other nations, such as in the United States of America), it is of extreme importance that same-sex relationships be recognizes as "marriages", as opposed to "civil unions", in order to ensure that the relationships are, in fact, of the same status before the law. Marriages are, in Canada, a part of the commonlaw — due to this, court cases concerning marriage can sometimes draw from commonlaw, rather than, or in combination with, the Statutes of Canada.

Due to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada, and the lesser courts throughout the nation, have on many occasions read commonlaw into situations, marriages would have defences through commonlaw to which civil unions would not be entitled. If a relationship were ever brought to court, or one were ever to attempt to deny the rights or benefits of persons due to the combination of genders comprising the civil union, then such civil unions would not have the right to draw upon the commonlaw for a defence.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Re: RE: From a Conservative Point of View...

From what I understand, there is a difference between marriage and civil unions. However, I couldn't even begin to tell you what the differences are, because I don't even know what a civil union is. Anyway, I know that some people who are against gay marriage are NOT against civil unions. So that might be something to look into.

The difference is that there is a difference. That people feel that it is ok to segregate heterosexual and homosexual unions is the problem. If you want eliminate the term 'marriage' and make them all civil unions, fine. The key is ensuring that it is the same. Making it different is just another form of discrimination.

The conservative argument, I believe, that is in response to the 14th amendment argument, is that if the supreme court were to rule that marriage can be between two people who are not opposite genders, then that would give the polygamy and bestiality argument a fighting chance to also make it legal for someone to marry more than one wife, or marry an animal, under the 14th amendment. Or at least, that's what I've heard.

Don't see a problem with poligamy. If multiple people of consenting age wish to do that that is their business. Beastiality is different in the same way as poligamist pediphelia, in that it involves a party that is unable to fully understand the consequences of consent.

As far as I know. if someone were to start a religion where they recognize gay marriage, then maybe they would be able to marry two people of the same gender legally, but it is really hard to start a religion. Most likely if someone were to start a religion of that nature, it would be viewed as a cult, and would probably have no merit in the eyes of the government. That's just what I'm thinking.

There are religion that exist that support same-sex marriage already.

Lastly, a lot of people think that with same sex marriages legalized, fraudulent marriage would be overwhelming, because then two men would just be able to go in and get married whenever they want.

Which would have what consequence exactly?

All in all, I don't agree with gay marriage because my view on marriage involves two people who can come together to start a family of their own, and if they physically can't have children, instead of mechanically not have children, then they should be able to adopt. That's how I see it. That's why I think that only married people should have children, and two people should not allowed to be married if they participate in swinging and other things of that nature, but that's a whole different topic altogether, because there are some problems with that thinking.

Well its good that you are in the majority and don't have to worry about falling into any of the groups you mentioned isn't it.

The question I have for you though, gc, is why do you wholeheartedly believe that gays should be allowed to marry?

Because it doesn't effect me in any way. If it doesn't effect me, why should it make a difference to me what they do? If they want to get married, more power to them. If they want to have massive poligamist sex orgies, that their business not mine.

Finally, I want to ask, can we all agree that Marriage is something started by religions back a long time ago, and civil unions are something started by governments not too long ago?

No we can't. If you could find proof for me that marriage was a result of religion, I can accept that. However, the first thing that I found on marriage in Google was this.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=567

Which states:

The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

 

[HonestAbe]

The difference is that there is a difference. That people feel that it is ok to segregate heterosexual and homosexual unions is the problem. If you want eliminate the term 'marriage' and make them all civil unions, fine. The key is ensuring that it is the same. Making it different is just another form of discrimination.

O.K., I'm down with that. A civil union should be considered a civil union no matter who it's between. Also, I do feel that if people were to seperate marriage from civil unions, and make it so two people can get a civil union without being married, that would probably work. However, I can't further comment on this until someone tells me the advantage of having a civil union as opposed to being single. In addition, this would make it so that marriages from different religions are viewed as being different, because they are. A christian marriage is not the same as a muslim marriage, despite the government thinking they are.

Also, you don't see a problem with poligamy? Have you ever asked a woman who had to secretly run away from her poligamyst cult if she had a problem with poligamy? In addition, if a man has more than one wife, would all of his relationships with his wives be considered a civil union. Would that be an o.k. thing as far as a person having more than one civil union is concerned?

Another thing is that you don't care if two people of the same gender get married, because it doesn't effect you. That means two things though, either all other types of marriage effects you, or not any other types of marriage effects you. Either way, if same-sex marriage does not effect you, then why even comment on the topic. Sure you can say whatever, but why would you think that it's o.k. to say a bunch of stuff supporting your argument, and then say that it didn't matter anyway because you don't care. With that reasoning, you're pretty much telling me that my response to your statements doesn't make a difference, because you really don't care about same sex marriage to begin with. If you are not effected by two men or two women who want to get married, then why even say anything? I think it's just that by your statements, you wanted people to think that I was an ignorant hateful person, or something of that nature. Whatever.

Also, I cannot prove that marriage started with religion, and in fact, the article you posted is most likely right. However, if you were to think about how marriage is thought of in today's society, which version of marriage is it most similar to? The version that they practiced back in Mesopotamia when a wife was considered a man's property, or the version where religion influenced marriage by making it a union between two people who are to stay faithful to each other and start a family? Not to mention the fact that the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman societies were very much influenced by religion in general.

Last thing I want to mention is that I couldn't comment on the government/Law's view on Marriage, because I do not know exactly any of the differences between a married couple and a single person, other then the differences on filing Taxes. I suppose that could be a big issue for some who want to file jointly or something. However, if the government changed the word married into civil union, as in "Civil Unioned filing jointly/seperately" I think that would be swell. As far as civil unions being classified as marriages in order for them to use marriage type defenses in lawsuits. I have no idea exactly what that means, but I'm sure there would be a way to change the word marriage into civil union or something.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Also, you don't see a problem with poligamy? Have you ever asked a woman who had to secretly run away from her poligamyst cult if she had a problem with poligamy?

Have you ever talked to any woman who has run away from an abusive relationship? Not all poligamist relationships are abusive, just as not all manogamist relationships are perfect.

In addition, if a man has more than one wife, would all of his relationships with his wives be considered a civil union. Would that be an o.k. thing as far as a person having more than one civil union is concerned?

I guess thats something that would have to be worked out between the people participating in the union. Either a) it would be a set of exclusive unions, or b) it would be a single collective union, or c) a combination.

Another thing is that you don't care if two people of the same gender get married, because it doesn't effect you...

The point is that if it doesn't effect me, or frankly anyone not in the union, I shouldn't have any reason to be against it. It doesn't mean necessarily that I don't care about the issue, it means that the same-sex marriage issue in general will have not effect on me. Just as it will have no effect on you unless you choose to participate in a same-sex union.

I think it's just that by your statements, you wanted people to think that I was an ignorant hateful person, or something of that nature. Whatever.

Nope. Not at all. I feel that attempting to legislate morality is wrong as there is no justification behind the legislation other than you finding it icky. Other than that, I have no problem with you.

Also, I cannot prove that marriage started with religion, and in fact, the article you posted is most likely right. However, if you were to think about how marriage is thought of in today's society, which version of marriage is it most similar to? The version that they practiced back in Mesopotamia when a wife was considered a man's property, or the version where religion influenced marriage by making it a union between two people who are to stay faithful to each other and start a family?

Two points:

1. Look at most religions. In most religions, including the Christian faith, docrine teaches that women are considered the property of the husband. Read your Bible, its right there in black and white.

2. I am an atheist, I have committed to my partner that I will stay faithful to her. I am not married yet, but even when we do marry it will not be because of a religious doctrine telling me to do so, or instructing me in the manner of the union.

 

[Finder]

I do not care what any law says in the USA or Canada as FiveParadox does, he is just lucky the law currently supports his opinion, and it has not always done so and could always change back to the anti-gay way at anytime really. We are also lucky in Canada that we have three parties which support minority rights, though the Liberals have not always supported them and may one day go back to their old ways as well, leaving only the Democrats and the Bloq to defeand the minority rights in Canada, and the bloq is a little too nationalist at times as well. So we are at least lucky to have one party which will always look out for their rights.

However as I was saying this is not about the law but the government sticking there heads into the bed room of the nation where it doesn't belong. You can not legislate morality, you can not tell me how I should live my life, as long as I do not harm others I should be allowed to do what I wish. If I want to get married to a women, men, Asian or African it should be allowed. If you wish to live you life by a book of morality go ahead and do so, if you wish to believe in the bible go ahead I wish you all the luck, if others chose to see your bible as nothing more then another book of fiction, let them, this should not bug you. If two men or two women wish to marry, how does this effect your life and your morals. The only way it would is if you chose to let it, and thus the problem with same sex marriage is not the two gay people who got married but you. The people with problems over same sex marriage sould seek help, at least the ones who have passionate problems over it.

 

[Outta here]

the problem with same sex marriage is not the two gay people who got married but you.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell isn't it? I mean no offense to anyone who feels strongly attached to their viewpoints on this subject, but anytime the issue of morality arises in conjunction with government intervention, I get concerned. Laws should exist to keep society safe and well functioning. Other than that, what gives any one of us the right to dictate how another should live? Choices others make regarding marriage have zero bearing on our own well being, and the only ones who live with lifestyle choices are the ones participating in that lifestyle. I happen to be in a segment of society that is not discriminated against on any basis, (unless you count being a female, but in Canada, I don't feel that's a problem - not for me anyway). There are still people though, who have to fight to enjoy the same rights I have....this troubles me. We'd do well to remember that if we condone the infringement of rights in one group of people, we open the door for more of the same in other areas... sooner or later we could all be affected in some way or another by someone else deciding on our behalf what is 'the right and only way' to live our lives. No thank you. I like my freedom, but it isn't freedom if it's only granted to some people.

 

[Finder]

Zan, at least someone understands my views points, and just not the cold souless laws or the morality lessons in bibles and texts, founding fathers and so on. Thanks.

 

[FiveParadox]

Finder, I think you misunderstood my sentiments; I was not saying that same-sex marriage should be lawful because it would be facilitated by the law — I was saying that it should be lawful because everyone is equal. Civil unions are not marriages, and the commonlaw would not apply to civil unions — if I decide to get married, one day, and someone decides to deny me my rights, I am entitled to have the same defences at my disposal as would any heterosexual couple.

It's a matter of rights, not a matter of law.

 

[Finder]

Fiveparadox, you are right we should all be seen as equal, and yes in the legal contest Civil unions do not have the same rights as marrages, but that could be changed. It's just legal definitions. My point is that legally this is a none issue to start with. This issue does not effect anybody else but the two people involved. Changing the laws to make civil unions the exact the as marrages is still wrong as it is government legislating morality, saying one group can not do what another group does. To me this is a none issue not a legal issue, if the government has to change the wording of legal documents to say any two people can be married then they should do this, instead of saying any man and woman can.

I'm surprised FiveParadox that a man who believes so much in tradition throws away the tradition of marrage... interesting and in a sence a paradox at best and hypocrisy at worst. We should talk one day about these conservative traditions you hold so dear yet conveniently ignore others. Perhaps I'm being a little too harsh and frank, I just find it interesting.

 

[FiveParadox]

Finder[/i]]I'm surprised FiveParadox that a man who believes so much in tradition throws away the tradition of marrage... interesting and in a sence a paradox at best and hypocrisy at worst. We should talk one day about these conservative traditions you hold so dear yet conveniently ignore others. Perhaps I'm being a little too harsh and frank, I just find it interesting.

You are quite fortunate that I'm feeling civil tonight, or I would quite "frankly" tell you where you can go. I am not urging anyone to "[throw] away" the traditional definition of marriage; the religious definition can stay the same, if a particular institution wishes it to stay the same — I don't care, so long as persons who choose to marry someone of the same sex have the same rights, prerogatives, privileges, freedoms, defences and utilities on-hand as would anyone else.

As for certain "conservative traditions", ask me about any one of them, and I can assure you that I have not come to any conclusions without a great deal of thought, consideration and, in many cases (as you should be aware, given our discussions on various topics in the past), compromise.

Hypocrisy? If you have some criticism of me you would like to express, then by all means please do so; however, I would remind you to do that in Wreck Beach, because I am not in the best of moods at the moment, and I might very well come across the urge to bitch you out if you in fact decide to do so.

 

[HonestAbe]

Woh, woh, woh buddy. Who ever said anything about the government legislating morality? Did I say anything about it. I said I, ME, Personally, I don't recognize gay marriages, nor do I recognize marriages in which a spouse commits adultery, or a marriage between two people who do not intend to raise children. If you have a problem about what I say, save that for another thread in another room. Perhaps private message me.

I don't think anyone said that the government should be allowed to legislate morality. I'm pretty sure we all agreed that marriage that is recognized by the government should be seperated from marriage which is recognized by religions. I then proposed that the marriage that the government recognizes should be called a "civil union" so that citizens as a whole would be able to distinguish between a religious marriage and a government civil union. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, my bad.

It's just a couple of you guys came in here looking for an argument, and I decided to participate. Then you resort to calling me crazy and insane because I believe in God. Real fucking mature you guys, and that's always how these things get started. My initial post was meant to inform gc of some arguments referring to same-sex marriage. I also told them my opinion on the issue. We were discussing it too, until Finder decided to generally state that "Many people don't give two shits about what the bible says." HA, and you are an idiot. Then LittleRunningGag decided it was his right to blatantly chastise me although I wasn't trying to prove anyone wrong nor impose my views on other people. In his defense, I would say that I did in fact reply back to his post in an argumentative way. However, in the post that was in response to my response, he proceeded to say that I wanted the government to legislate morality, which is not even close to anything I said, nor could it be deducted from what I said.

You just have a problem with people like me, and you are too afraid to admit it. You and Finder have chosen to ridicule my beliefs and attack MY views, all because you are uncomfortable with people like me having a voice. There was no argument in this thread, which can be seen by this quote:

"The difference is that there is a difference. That people feel that it is ok to segregate heterosexual and homosexual unions is the problem. If you want eliminate the term 'marriage' and make them all civil unions, fine. The key is ensuring that it is the same. Making it different is just another form of discrimination."


O.K., I'm down with that. A civil union should be considered a civil union no matter who it's between. Also, I do feel that if people were to seperate marriage from civil unions, and make it so two people can get a civil union without being married, that would probably work. However, I can't further comment on this until someone tells me the advantage of having a civil union as opposed to being single. In addition, this would make it so that marriages from different religions are viewed as being different, because they are. A christian marriage is not the same as a muslim marriage, despite the government thinking they are.

Since you two can't seem to understand what that means, I am saying that a marriage should be seperated from a civil union, which would allow religions to have marriages and governments to have civil unions. This means, that in the world of government, there is no marriage, only civil unions. Which means, that whatever the government views as a marriage today, would be called a civil union tomarrow. That also means, that if two people were married in a church, that wouldn't do anything for the government wise, because they would still have to get a civil union. See, you were saying you should be able to marry for being you, I was saying that the government should call marriage a civil union, and fiveparadox was saying that a civil union wasn't the same as a marriage, and so I said,

As far as civil unions being classified as marriages in order for them to use marriage type defenses in lawsuits. I have no idea exactly what that means, but I'm sure there would be a way to change the word marriage into civil union or something.

Which means, that I feel that the government should use the term civil union to describe what people refer to as a marriage, and marriage should be a term that religions use.

In the dictionary, the definition of civil union should be: A union between two people that is recognized by the government. The definition of marriage should be: A union between two people that is recognized by a religion.

This is what my next post was going to state, but you atheists took it upon yourselves to attack me with your condescending posts, and get completely off track from the original topic of the thread. I said I agreed with you, you said I had to get my head examined. Furthermore, LittleRunningGag, you said you are an aitheist, yet you are staying faithful to your partner. However, it says in the article you posted, that men weren't faithful to their partners until religions started having an influence on the issue. So, are you gonna stay faithful because of religion, because it's the "nice" thing to do, or because you don't think married men should have sex with people other then their wife? Cuz, from what I understand, I don't think you're going to get arrested for cheating on your wife. I mean, I could be wrong.

All in all, until you and Finder can admit that you have a problem with people like me because of your own personal hate towards people who practice religion, :idea: go fuck yourselves.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Woh, woh, woh buddy. Who ever said anything about the government legislating morality?

Unfortunately that is the idea behind prohibiting same-sex marriage. It is all about legislating morality. According to the majority of same-sex marriage detractors, SSM is a sin and therefore immoral.

I'm not saying that you are in the crowd supporting this legislation, but generally when someone from that side of the argument is speaking up, they is usually in favour of legislation. Obviously there was a misunderstanding on my part.

I don't think anyone said that the government should be allowed to legislate morality. I'm pretty sure we all agreed that marriage that is recognized by the government should be seperated from marriage which is recognized by religions. I then proposed that the marriage that the government recognizes should be called a "civil union" so that citizens as a whole would be able to distinguish between a religious marriage and a government civil union. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, my bad.

In this we agree. I would also suggest however that there are some sects within Christianity that support SSM and would be willing to perform SS marriages. So long as you don't want to prohibit that, we're all good.

You just have a problem with people like me, and you are too afraid to admit it. You and Finder have chosen to ridicule my beliefs and attack MY views, all because you are uncomfortable with people like me having a voice.

If you could point out where I ridiculed your beliefs, I would appreciate it. I took a quick glance back and couldn't see anything.

This is what my next post was going to state, but you atheists took it upon yourselves to attack me with your condescending posts, and get completely off track from the original topic of the thread. I said I agreed with you, you said I had to get my head examined.

Again, I couldn't see where I did this. If you could point it out for me that would be appreciated. I usually try and stay as polite as I can in my discussions on this forum.

Furthermore, LittleRunningGag, you said you are an aitheist, yet you are staying faithful to your partner. However, it says in the article you posted, that men weren't faithful to their partners until religions started having an influence on the issue. So, are you gonna stay faithful because of religion, because it's the "nice" thing to do, or because you don't think married men should have sex with people other then their wife?

It is a discussion that I and my partner have had. We mutually agreed that we would both rather be in a manogomous relationship as opposed to a "swinging" relationship. We did this for many reasons. We felt that it was in our mutual interest to behave in this manner. It had nothing to do with religion, more to do with reason and what makes sense for us.

All in all, until you and Finder can admit that you have a problem with people like me because of your own personal hate towards people who practice religion, :idea: go *censored* yourselves.

*sigh*

I really don't think that this was justified. I didn't see any part of the discussion that had resorted to profanity, or name calling before this post.

 

[Finder]

HonestAbe, you could believe in anything you want, and as long as you don't push your beliefs on other I'd even have tons of respect for your beliefs most likely. But when you try to legislate morality such as same sex marrage, such as banning it or saying it should be banned or trying to pass it as some sort of tradition which is being stolen from you, I have a simple responce to this. Get the fuck out of other peoples lives. You have no right to tell two people who love each other no matter who they are and what sex they may be that they do not have the right to get married and then try to hung a carriot over their head and say it's just as good.

I've known enough religous nut balls who have tried to push there beliefs on other people in such a passive aggressive way that it makes me sick.

Look you may not believe in Same sex marrage, fine and well I respect that, hell my sister in law wants to get married to a women, whatever I think it's stupid. Even further they want to adopt a kid, I think thats somewhat wrong too personally, but would I ever try to stop them, or say it should be stopped, or elect people who would stop this , no. Because I believe in there rights. Look them getting married having kids having the same rights as my wife and I have no effect on our lives what so ever... The only way it does is if we let it.

Oh and yes; if you mean I don't respect your beliefs... well if you believe that we should base morality on the Bible, Koran or the book of the great tree, well yes I don't respect your belief, as your belief does not respect my freedoms.