View Single Post
Old August 11th, 2012, 07:06 PM   #100 (permalink)
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Southern Ontario
Gender: Male
Posts: 103
Device(s): Huawei Ascend G312 (u8681) - Stock / ZTE n762 - Voltron ROM (Retired)
Carrier: Wind Mobile

Thanks: 3
Thanked 25 Times in 21 Posts

Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Curious what you all think about it. Personally I think it's a bit BS. The owner states an opinion that is obviously unpopular. The fact that officials in three different cities are moving to block them from building new restaurants is completely ridiculous. I guess we don't have freedom of speech in this country any more if our speech is unpopular.
How is it ridiculous? Why is it OK for Mr Chik-Fil-A to voice his support against Gay Marriage, but it's somehow taboo for a city official to voice his support against Chik-Fil-A?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.

Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
I am against it because it is not right. It flies in the face of a time honored tradition and most people seem to be against it because of their religious beliefs or they simply believe as I do, that marriage is between woman and man.
Traditionally, white people kept slaves. Traditionally, women weren't allowed to work. Traditionally, certain cultures performed body mutilation in an attempt to enforce religious beliefs.

Just because something is a tradition isn't a good reason to keep doing it.

Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
If two people of the same sex want a legally defined relationship, they have options and I have zero problems just as long as they do not call it a marriage. If the laws must change to afford gay people that choose a union the same rights straight married people are afforded, no problems here.
Currently, they have no options that offer the same legal protections and rights as a marriage. Yes, they can get some through other legal means, but that usually involves lengthy sessions with a lawyer ($$$) and whatever they end up with is much easier to contest in court.

Nothing available to gay couples is as binding or legally iron-clad as a marriage. Yeah, you could create a separate-but-identical union for gay couples, but why, when there's a perfectly good legal status ready to go. It's probably a LOT easier (legally and financially) to change the definition of marriage to include gay couples than it is to create a new union for them. Not to mention then it'd have to go through the courts and all that crap.

Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
The LGBT community is free to protest. But so am I. But I do not protest issues like this. When asked, I state my views and let it go at that. It has nothing to do with hate and I do not want to see those folks hurt, beat up or killed. I just want them to use the term married.

They can get together and form some other legal structure and I do not have a problem with that one blessed bit.
Again, I ask, why? What's so sacred about the word "marriage" and why does what someone else use it for affect what you use it for?

It's not about your religion, or your personal beliefs, or changing YOUR marriage. It's about gay couples and their seeking the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as everyone else. It's a legal matter, and quite frankly, religious reasons should stay the hell out of it.
bubkusjones is online now  
Last edited by EarlyMon; August 13th, 2012 at 12:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to bubkusjones For This Useful Post:
RazorSharp (August 11th, 2012)