Perhaps, because most of the social conservatives I’ve met lean libertarian, I am more sympathetic to them than are many gay people, nearly all of whom only read about them in left-leaning media and left-wing blogs. From my first encounters with politically active Christians in the 1980s, I’ve been stuck at how similar their attitudes on some issues are to my own.
They didn’t want government to mandate how others should live, merely wanted it to leave them alone so they could practice their faith and educate their children as they saw fit. They cited numerous court decisions which, they believed, made it more difficult for them to practice their faith and government policies which, they contended, made it difficult for them to profess that faith in public settings.
To wit, a 2004 California Supreme Court decision that “a Catholic group must provide coverage for birth control in its health insurance plan, regardless of the fact that contraception is contrary to teachings of the Catholic Church.” This ruling forced the group to pay for a service which the Catholic Church forbids.
That is one reason I support New Hampshire Governor John Lynch’s veto of a bill which would recognize same-sex marriages in the Granite State; he asked the legislature tweak the bill, including “language that would protect churches and other religious institutions from prosecution if, for example, they refuse to perform same-sex marriages.” Given the record of courts in limiting religious freedom, social conservatives have legitimate concerns that should states recognize same-sex marriage, state courts may require religious organizations to act in violation of their faiths’ creeds as did the California Supreme Court five years ago.
When gay leaders, like Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, accuse the “Yes on 8” campaign “of deceit and lies,” they ignore the serious concerns of social conservatives. But, when they warned of a “parade of horribles” that might follow should Prop 8 fail, social conservatives weren’t deceiving anyone, merely expressing their own fears. With the court mandating that Catholics pay for abortions, they were concerned that it might next mandate that Mormon businesses facilitate gay weddings.
That’s one of the reasons it’s far better to go through state legislatures than through courts. Should the California uphold Prop 8 (as I believe it should), the next step would be for citizens to organize to put another initiative on the ballot, leaving to the legislature to define which marriages the Golden State recognizes. Then, hopefully, our elected officials will balance the concerns of gay people who want our unions recognized as marriage as social conservatives who want to ensure that the state definition not prevent religious institutions from continuing to define marriage according to their creed.
There’s a good debate going on in New Hampshire, as elected officials are doing their job, wrestling with a controversial issue. While the current legislation has hit a “snag,” let’s hope that the legislature sends the Governor a bill which meets his concerns.
To wit, a 2004 California Supreme Court decision that “a Catholic group must provide coverage for birth control in its health insurance plan, regardless of the fact that contraception is contrary to teachings of the Catholic Church.“ This ruling forced the group to pay for a service which the Catholic Church forbids.
What’s wrong with that? Makes sense to me. I wouldn’t want religious doctrine influencing my health care coverage. Birth control pills are also widely prescribed to help women that have debilitating periods or need to regulate their cycles. Your employer shouldn’t be able to prevent you from getting the health care you want because of their religious beliefs. I could make up any set of beliefs and single out any medical procedure and say I shouldn’t have to cover it because of my beliefs, couldn’t I?
When gay leaders, like Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, accuse the “Yes on 8″ campaign “of deceit and lies,” they ignore the serious concerns of social conservatives. But, when they warned of a “parade of horribles” that might follow should Prop 8 fail, social conservatives weren’t deceiving anyone, merely expressing their own fears. With the court mandating that Catholics pay for abortions, they were concerned that it might next mandate that Mormon businesses facilitate gay weddings.
The ‘serious concerns of social conservatives’ are not serious at all. Do you mean to tell me that just because someone expresses fear about something, then those fears are automatically legitimate? The rest of the country — those of us that don’t have those fears and can’t understand why anyone would — we’re all supposed to go out of our way to make irrationally scared people feel comfortable? It’s incumbent upon us to divorce them of their baseless fear? That’s ridiculous.
Again, if I sat here and said that I was afraid of conservative blogs because they might turn me into a conservative, would that be a reason for society to change things? If someone can shout ‘I’m scared of gay marriage!’ with no rational qualifications and that alone justifies preventing gay marriage, shouldn’t shouting ‘I’m scared of conservative blogs!’ with no rational qualifications justify shutting down this website and others like it?
That’s one of the reasons it’s far better to go through state legislatures than through courts. Should the California uphold Prop 8 (as I believe it should), the next step would be for citizens to organize to put another initiative on the ballot, leaving to the legislature to define which marriages the Golden State recognizes. Then, hopefully, our elected officials will balance the concerns of gay people who want our unions recognized as marriage as social conservatives who want to ensure that the state definition not prevent religious institutions from continuing to define marriage according to their creed.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. If you prefer that legislatures enact gay marriage, that’s fine. You can champion that all you want, but that doesn’t require you to start dismissing the judicial process as some sort of anti-democratic way for activist judges to punish Christians. If gay marriage is the goal of gay marriage advocates, it makes sense for them to use whatever means at their disposal to achieve that objective, doesn’t it?
As often as it gets thrown around at this blog, it sure seems like the people seeking ‘validation’ on this issue are religious opponents of gay marriage.
What’s wrong with that? Makes sense to me. I wouldn’t want religious doctrine influencing my health care coverage.
Excellent. No problem.
Don’t go working for the Catholic Church.
Instead, being the intolerant bigot you are, you wish to force everyone else to follow your preferred rules. The hell with democracy, the hell with the rule of law, all that matters is you getting what you want.
Exactly how do you look into the mirror and think that you’re seeing a worthwhile human being? Are you just that good at lying to yourself?
This should close that second italics tag. 🙁
In re Levi’s comments, I respect his views, but disagree. Levi stopped short of hurling invective at people of faith, as many gay activists do, and for that I am grateful. However, his argument seems to withhold the right for people of faith, in this case the Roman Catholic church, to put its faith and integrity in practice.
People of faith are as entitled to their views as much as anyone else. If the Roman Catholic church wishes to create a health-care benefit plan which will accord with its belief system, why not? In a free-market system an individual or company can choose among many competing systems.
And as it relates to gay marriage, I prefer a system wherein “marriage” would be recognized and performed by the state, but that churches could perform their marriages as they wish. I would not want the state to restrict or to in any way interfere with the church. If a particular church in furtherance of its belief system opts out of gay marriage, no problem. Other churches , if they desire, and the state can perform the wedding. Isn’t that what freedom is about? Doesn’t that respect the diverse wishes and opinions of each other?
It’s unusual for Levi to not hurl invectives at people of faith. He’s fine with people hurling anthrax at people of faith.
Greg, you have a counter he’s unwilling to accept. To Levi, the self proclaimed right of his to do whatever he wants is more important than the constitution.
To use a secular reference, Wendy’s health plan used to not cover abortion, except for the big 3 (incest, rape, health of the mother) however, it did include a credit for adoption. This was from Dave Thomas’ own beliefs and history. Levi would prefer that Dave shut up and give him what he wants.
Livewire, good point!
We need more Dave Thomas’, gay or straight!
In re Levi’s comments, I respect his views, but disagree. Levi stopped short of hurling invective at people of faith, as many gay activists do, and for that I am grateful. However, his argument seems to withhold the right for people of faith, in this case the Roman Catholic church, to put its faith and integrity in practice.
People of faith are as entitled to their views as much as anyone else. If the Roman Catholic church wishes to create a health-care benefit plan which will accord with its belief system, why not? In a free-market system an individual or company can choose among many competing systems.
So you’re saying that only strict Catholics should be working at this charity in the first place? People of other faiths that use contraceptives and want health care plans that cover contraceptives need not apply, is that it? That doesn’t seem right.
To use a secular reference, Wendy’s health plan used to not cover abortion, except for the big 3 (incest, rape, health of the mother) however, it did include a credit for adoption. This was from Dave Thomas’ own beliefs and history. Levi would prefer that Dave shut up and give him what he wants.
Abortion is totally different than birth control pills. There are about a million reasons to cover one under health care plans and no reasons to cover the other.
Thank you Levi, for appointing yourself abatrator of what’s worth covering and what isn’t.
Here in the real world, we like to let the people who are paying the lion’s share of the premiums to do that.
No, levi. I’m not Roman Catholic, but can’t you agree that a faith-based (or athiest) organization which has a belief structure should be free to create and operate its health care organization or any other service) which does not offend its beliefs? Surely you as a gay man can wish to offer to all your fellow americans the opportunity to live life as they see fit, so long as they are not hurting others? Isn’t that what we as gay people want from others?
Surely the Roman Catholic church has the right and duty to operate its organizations in a manner consistant with its belief structure.
That includes whom they wish to employ, and which benefits they wish to provide.
Actually, that was one of the deciding issue for a lot of people of my faith to oppose gay marriage as a public policy. I really didn’t care but watching the California Supreme Court decide to decide against religious freedom and force someone to do something they think is morally wrong makes me worry if my faith will be told we have to accept gay marriages… After all, look at how rational and tolerant the pro side is.
I lost respect from the RC Church when they didn’t just shut down everything affected in California. I still think they should of carried it to civil disobedience or left.
I was brought up Catholic, and I’m stunned that people continue to demand respect for the Church, considering it was involved for decades in the systematic protection of numerous child abusers within its ranks. What if the Democratic party did that?
If the Catholic Church chooses to hire lay people and non-Catholics to perform non-religious duties, then of course they have to follow the law. If they don’t wish to participate in a system that requires coverage of things they find morally objectionable, then get out of the business of employing people, or have an out-sourced company handle their lay-employment for them separately.
The freedom to practice (or not) the religion of your choice is part of living in America, but religion doesn’t trump our laws.
This argument is so childish it’s beyond stupid. Social conservatives, almost universally, are opposed to gay marriage based on the concept of two people of the same sex marrying, not simply because it would force church’s to hold the ceremonies.
You’re attacking a straw man argument and feigning “moderation” on the issue. The prototypical social conservative activist or preacher would laugh in your face if you made this argument to him. He doesn’t think you have the right to marry, regardless of who officiates and where.
Try to deny it all you want, but sooner or later you will face facts. The latest CNN poll showed that 47% of Americans said they thought homosexuals were “immoral”. Face it.
They hate you. And you know it.
Levi, you cut and paste, so you can pretend to reply to my points. I’ll address you first comment and then leave you alone to rant against the walls, pretending you’re arguing with someone else.
What’s wrong with forcing a company to pay for something its owners believe is wrong (as Catholics believe abortion is wrong)? You don’t want religious doctrine influencing your health care coverage? Fine, then don’t work for a Catholic organization.
And that’s the issue here. Just as you shouldn’t be required to subsidize a conservative political foundation, so should a private Catholic organization not be required to pay for abortion.
Man, you are blind to the concerns of others. Glad to see that some other commenters already took you to task for your intolerance. 🙂
FIFY. I have a hard time believing you’ve actually met a conservative activist…
evangelist – – activist
a person who enthusiastically promotes or supports something
or
an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause
Unformed, contradictory, and illogical comments from Levi and Kevin, as usual. Obama is taking steps to rescind the “conscience rule,” which protects employees who refuse to perform or participate in abortion procedures that violate their religious beliefs.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-conscience-rulefeb27,0,1515759.story
No doubt, Levi and Kevin’s response to any objections to rescinding the policy would be that the individuals affected should simply not take jobs where they might have to perform or assist in abortion procedures as part of their duties.
However, if a religious organization has employment policies that are consistent with the religion’s tenets, then the organization should be persecuted by the government and punished by non-believers with lawsuits, judgments, and injunctions designed to force religious institutions to violate their own doctrines and deeply-held beliefs. As always, the purported champions of “equality” and “freedom” remain completely obtuse to their own advocacy of fascist methods to achieve their personal vision of “equality” and “freedom.”
Also, keep in mind that when there was a discussion on this blog about the concerns of religious conservatives that new same-sex marriage laws might compel churches to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies or risk discrimination lawsuits, Levi was quick to dismiss the concerns as silly, right-wing, homophobic alarmism. I recall that he specifically observed that it was crazy to think that gays would want to be surrounded by a bunch of Bible-thumping hate-mongerers on their wedding day (“would you want Michael Moore to officiate at your wedding,” or words to that effect, I believe.) But this thread proves conclusively that the “homophobic alarmism” is absolutely legitimate and well-founded. Levi and Kevin have once again revealed themselves to be enthusiastic supporters of the eradication of the constitutional protections and freedom of people who disagree with them. The bright side is al least they’re too stupid to know how to diplomatically conceal their support for outright fascism (a skill their despicable leader Obama has mastered).
Levi, you cut and paste, so you can pretend to reply to my points. I’ll address you first comment and then leave you alone to rant against the walls, pretending you’re arguing with someone else.
What’s wrong with forcing a company to pay for something its owners believe is wrong (as Catholics believe abortion is wrong)? You don’t want religious doctrine influencing your health care coverage? Fine, then don’t work for a Catholic organization.
Except you can’t do that. You can’t say that you’re only going to hire strict Catholics any more than I could say I’m only going to hire sexy, large-breasted women. You know we’re not allowed to discriminate like that in this country, don’t you? Baptists, atheists, Catholics that use contraception, etc., are going to end up working for organizations like these, and you’d rather they be forced to make changes to their lifestyle? What about their beliefs? Why is it okay for their employer to intervene in their doctor-patient relationships because of their beliefs? And again, birth control pills are frequently prescribed to women that have particular difficulty with their periods – something you might not know as a gay dude.
And that’s the issue here. Just as you shouldn’t be required to subsidize a conservative political foundation, so should a private Catholic organization not be required to pay for abortion.
Wouldn’t that mean that I would I be entitled to make up whatever set of beliefs I wanted to in justification of not covering certain medical procedures for my employees, too? I could start a company and say that it was part of my beliefs to use only natural remedies developed before the 17th century, would I be justified in offering a health care plan that provided only that much?
I’m not sure why you’re saying the church is having to pay for abortion. Is that what you believe birth control pills are? A form of abortion?
Man, you are blind to the concerns of others. Glad to see that some other commenters already took you to task for your intolerance.
I’m not blind to others’ concerns, I can read them loud and clear. What I’m saying is that those concerns are ridiculous, irrelevant, and oppressive.
Wouldn’t that mean that I would I be entitled to make up whatever set of beliefs I wanted to in justification of not covering certain medical procedures for my employees, too? I could start a company and say that it was part of my beliefs to use only natural remedies developed before the 17th century, would I be justified in offering a health care plan that provided only that much?
Since most health insurance plans will cover it if you’re willing to pay for the plan’s provisions… Yes. If you think you can hire people who want that kind of lousy healthcare plan, and you think you can pay the obscene premiums that a health insurance company would charge to write a contract so far below their basic levels of benefits (since they’d have to program in exceptions to processing logic for your loony plan, it would be expensive) by all means, go for it.
(Wendy’s paid a premium for their abortion/adoption riders. With Dave Thomas gone, I don’t know if they’re still there or not.)
But then again, Levi, you’re the kind of guy who would willingly report to a mental hosptial, if a judge struck down the DSM IV and we had to go back to the DSM III.
Unformed, contradictory, and illogical comments from Levi and Kevin, as usual. Obama is taking steps to rescind the “conscience rule,” which protects employees who refuse to perform or participate in abortion procedures that violate their religious beliefs.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-conscience-rulefeb27,0,1515759.story
No doubt, Levi and Kevin’s response to any objections to rescinding the policy would be that the individuals affected should simply not take jobs where they might have to perform or assist in abortion procedures as part of their duties.
However, if a religious organization has employment policies that are consistent with the religion’s tenets, then the organization should be persecuted by the government and punished by non-believers with lawsuits, judgments, and injunctions designed to force religious institutions to violate their own doctrines and deeply-held beliefs. As always, the purported champions of “equality” and “freedom” remain completely obtuse to their own advocacy of fascist methods to achieve their personal vision of “equality” and “freedom.”
Employees opting out of something is entirely different than employers preventing their employees access to certain medicine. And what does abortion have to do with anything? No one is being forced in this country to participate in abortions. Or are we considering birth control pills a form of abortion now?
Also, keep in mind that when there was a discussion on this blog about the concerns of religious conservatives that new same-sex marriage laws might compel churches to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies or risk discrimination lawsuits, Levi was quick to dismiss the concerns as silly, right-wing, homophobic alarmism. I recall that he specifically observed that it was crazy to think that gays would want to be surrounded by a bunch of Bible-thumping hate-mongerers on their wedding day (“would you want Michael Moore to officiate at your wedding,” or words to that effect, I believe.) But this thread proves conclusively that the “homophobic alarmism” is absolutely legitimate and well-founded. Levi and Kevin have once again revealed themselves to be enthusiastic supporters of the eradication of the constitutional protections and freedom of people who disagree with them. The bright side is al least they’re too stupid to know how to diplomatically conceal their support for outright fascism (a skill their despicable leader Obama has mastered).
That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. Freedom and the Constitution don’t give people in this country the right to dictate to others what rights they’re allowed to enjoy. This is one of the most basic elements of American democracy, and if you don’t get that, then you’re barely an American — you just live here. Religious people think they’re entitled to special protections and special abilities available only to them and then walk around acting like everybody else owes them something. Sorry, but that isn’t how this country works.
So, Levi, I’ll accept your response as a concession that you do believe that churches should be compelled to perform same-sex weddings or face EEOC investigations and discrimination lawsuits.
So, Levi, I’ll accept your response as a concession that you do believe that churches should be compelled to perform same-sex weddings or face EEOC investigations and discrimination lawsuits.
Accept it as whatever you want, I know that’s what you do anyway. The bottom line is that no one is going to be forced to marry gay people when gay marriage is legalized.
#20: “Employees opting out of something is entirely different than employers preventing their employees access to certain medicine…Religious people think they’re entitled to special protections and special abilities available only to them and then walk around acting like everybody else owes them something.”
Wrong again, Levi. Your narrow and obtuse grasp of the issues involved is showing. It’s liberals that demand special protections and act as though they are owed something. Employers, religious or otherwise, aren’t required to provide their employees with health insurance in the first place. Religious organizations would be well within their rights to not provide healthcare coverage to their employees at all if they wished, but in your world, employees of religious organizations somehow have a “right” to insurance coverage of specific healthcare services. Brilliant.
Heh, and how are they ‘prohibiting’ it anyway?
My plan doesn’t cover viagra or other ‘performance enhancing’ drugs (seriously that’s what they’re called). I can still get my doctor to write me an Rx, go down to the pharmacy, and pay for it myself.
Does Levi even live in the real world?
#22: “Accept it as whatever you want, I know that’s what you do anyway. The bottom line is that no one is going to be forced to marry gay people when gay marriage is legalized.”
Why shouldn’t they be forced to, Levi? Your position is that religious organizations are entitled to no “special protections.” Therefore, if a gay couple wants to get married in a Baptist church, then the gay couple should get whatever they want. Why can’t you just admit that you would support the government or the gay couple suing the church for discrimination if the organization refused to perform the ceremony on religious grounds? You’ve already admitted that you consider objections based on religious beliefs “ridiculous, irrelevant, and oppressive,” so why not just cop to it? Why can’t you admit to your own beliefs?
Tom:
This one doesn’t. Plenty of gay activists think I am in immoral but I don’t think each of them hates me. Just most of them … that’s intended to be playful banter.
DoDoGuRu:
First off… love the name, not sure I want to know what it means but … it’s fun to say out loud. Secondly … HI! My name is Randy and some would describe me as a Conservative Activist.
Now that’s out of the way. This post is another reason why I appreciate this blog. It addresses the concerns of both groups in an informed manner.
This is going to sound ridiculous but hang in there. A reverse scenario, in my humble kinda’ pseudo intellectual opinion, would be for the Federal/State government to FORCE the HRC or GOProud or Lambda Legal to hire someone like me (a guy on a post-gay journey) AND/OR develop programs that accommodate my ideology.
While I suspect if I went to work for the HRC I would probably get a raise and meet a few celebrities … it’s ridiculous to expect them to develop employment or programs that affirm the tens of thousands of people like myself. It should be just as ridiculous to force or expect conservative religious groups to give up their freedom of conscience and religion to accommodate the gay activist community.
Neither community has ever, will ever, live in their own version of Utopia. Public policy is important but it is a false context for the overall community we share as Americans. The true common unity (community) is in our ability to keep our interests in mind, do what we gotta’ do, but also look outward to clearly understand our opponent who is also our neighbor.
I think that is the only way to get to workable pragmatic solutions.
Why can’t you just admit that you would support the government or the gay couple suing the church for discrimination if the organization refused to perform the ceremony on religious grounds?
I don’t support that. In addition, no one is fighting for that, no one wants to do that, and it will never happen for any reason. Two gay people couldn’t march into any church they chose and demanded that they be married right then and there any more than two straight people could march into my house and demand that I marry them. People refuse to perform ceremonies on religious grounds all the time in this country and no one tries to stop them or force them to.
This is why religion is stupid. You can justify anything with religion, and indeed, everything from war to slavery to discrimination has been justified with religion. On matters of public policy, we should be setting it aside, wholly. This stuff drives me crazy. In arguments, I rely on legal precedent and sound reasoning, but religious people get to invoke whatever wafts into their head as some sort of trump-card ultimate justification.
In arguments, I rely on legal precedent and sound reasoning, but religious people get to invoke whatever wafts into their head as some sort of trump-card ultimate justification.
Yes sound reasoning like the courts get to say one part of a constitution is more important than another, or that Californians don’t have the constutional right to restrict the actions of the legislature by referendum.
Quite the legal scholar you are.
Yes sound reasoning like the courts get to say one part of a constitution is more important than another, or that Californians don’t have the constutional right to restrict the actions of the legislature by referendum.
Quite the legal scholar you are.
At least I don’t rely on fairy tales and the voices in my head.
Once again, confronted with the absurdity of his own words, Levi is forced to retreat into insults.
I recall that he specifically observed that it was crazy to think that gays would want to be surrounded by a bunch of Bible-thumping hate-mongerers on their wedding day (“would you want Michael Moore to officiate at your wedding,” or words to that effect, I believe.)
He did. But for some reason he shut up when I showed him how his fellow Obama Party members were using the law to force people who didn’t want to be there to attend their weddings or be punished.
Now, if Levi were intellectually consistent, he would bash the judiciary, the leftists, and the Obama Party for what is clearly a case of forcing people to go against their religious beliefs to promote gay-sex marriage. But since that would neatly undercut his entire argument, expect him to throw another flurry of insults or, like last time, run screaming back to his mommy.
I’m still waiting for him to define the moderate Taliban he’s claiming we should negotiate with.
Hmm, California Surpremes to release ruling on 5/26/09.
Tells me they’re going to uphold Prop 8. If they were going to release it today, I’d guess they’d overturn it and want to bury it in the news cycle.
For those who want to bash the Catholic church because of their stance on birth control, don’t forget the church took a stand in MA when forced to do adoptions to homosexual couples that went against their church’s beliefs, the Catholic church shut down the service. I’m sure that greatly benefited the all foster children who were hoping to find a home.
#27: Oh, man. I go to work and come home to see that Levi has not only managed to reach new heights in the stratosphere of his stupidity, but he’s actually punched a hole through its ozone layer. In just two paragraphs, he treats us to the following:
“I don’t support that. In addition, no one is fighting for that, no one wants to do that, and it will never happen for any reason.”
Then this:
“This is why religion is stupid. You can justify anything with religion, and indeed, everything from war to slavery to discrimination has been justified with religion. On matters of public policy, we should be setting it aside, wholly.”
And for the big finale:
“In arguments, I rely on legal precedent and sound reasoning”
Hopeless. Just hopeless.
#29: “At least I don’t rely on fairy tales and the voices in my head.”
ALL evidence to the contrary.
“(a guy on a post-gay journey) ”
Randy, that’s a great statement. It gets the point across without being confrontational or making any claims that can’t be backed up with reality.
“In addition, no one is fighting for that, no one wants to do that, and it will never happen for any reason.”
Yeah Levi, some are fighting for that, want to do it and it’s guaranteed to happen and probably in the very near future. Is it a valid reason to deny legal protections for same sex relationships, no, but don’t be foolish enough to deny something that is a given. Your attitude is the same as the fundamentalists.
“Don’t forget the church took a stand in MA ”
No Louise, they did not take a stand, they copped out. If they really wanted to continue providing adoption services they could have simply refused any gov’t money.
I dont get it, some of these comments are insane (WARNING: Comment is like, 5 minutes of reading, there is a “tl;dr” at the bottom)
i like how “liberals” only use things that are convenient, the constitution, something they hate with a fiery passion, but arent afraid to (incorrectly) cite when convenient for them
or separation of church and state, they want no such thing as church in the state, but they DEMAND that churches marry gays or face severe punishment from the government.
Personally, i dont think gays should be allowed to marry, not religiously, anyway (unless the religion allows it, of course). like it or not, dispute its lineage, but marriage is a religious institution.
i literally dont care what rights you give gays, just dont call it marriage, and dont force the church to do it, you could call it marriagel, or garriage, or superronisonifonicans, or funscott.
just leave the word alone, leave the churches alone, its not much AT ALL to ask, and the debate is not about equality, its about political advantage, this kinda thing always is…
once, after saying this, a guy asked me “and what happens when your neighbor calls the cops on you for having sex with your boyfriend in front of the window?”
to which i replied:
“well, im pretty sure what i did counts as indecent exposure, so it might be less that its gay sex, and more that its any sex at all”
my point being that, some people just dont see “equality” for what it means to this country, some people are making themselves victims, because it gives them a platform to gather support, anti gay marriage isnt some gay hating view, those same people will argue against polygamy, and what ever it means to marry an animal, single person marriage, triad marriage, child marriage, etc.
its not about oppression, its not about hate, its about being equal, being equally able to oppose viewpoints, being equal to form your own institutions
think of marriage as a club, some get in, some get kicked out, and some arent allowed, does it mean those not allowed are hated by those allowed? no, it means you have to be 21 to enter, or you have to be this tall, or you have to be able to eat some severely spicy food, or you have to be damn good at baking a cake, or maybe you have to have served in the military.
sure, not everyone can get in, but its almost less fun if everybody has the same party, instead of forcing your way into the club, why not make your own? then you can do everything the way YOU want it, maybe a little less techno, a little more rock and roll? maybe instead of girly drinks, some beer? maybe instead of dance floors, there is a pool hall, maybe-wait, im describing a biker bar…hrmm, bikers are a good example of doing your own thing, and rolling with it.
maybe im not thinking straight, but it just seems like infringing on the rights of the religious for the “rights” of the gays, isnt what you would call “equal” and its very left minded (left minded believe that equality is made, not by lifting all poor to dine with the rich, but to push all rich to scrounge with the poor [i dont mean just economically, this applies to all those poor or rich in aspects of life)
maybe, if you want gays to be equal, dont go on about gay pride, dont create stupid parades to show how different you are, only to demand to be just the same as everyone else, you wont get anywhere in life if you demand everyone else change for you, instead, demand change from yourself.
tl;dr:
stop complaining about stuff, tread your own path, do your own thing, dont rely on things getting done for you, and most of all, if you dont like it, you can always make something better yourself
if ive made some grammatical errors or gone off on a convoluted rant, please dont be a jerk about it, its six third in the morning here, and i should have been asleep hours ago.