I was and am still disappointed in the amount of hatred directed toward the gay marriage issue. In one of the threads, someone asked if anyone was against gay marriage and why he hadn't heard of anyone that was.
What followed was a hate filled thread, in which several members spewed the same type of venomous bile that they accuse homophobics of.
Who in their right mind would step into that?
I am continually bewildered by the narrow mindedness and unwillinglyness to debate that the modern so called Liberal possesses.
So, I'm going to ask a question.
Because I don't want to spend all night defending the question on the boards and having drunken idiots swear at me, I'm going to ask it here.
Since this is my journal, there are rules.
First read the question, then the rules. Then, following the rules, please feel free to give me an opinion... direct others here others if you want... as long as you think they can follow the rules.
First, the question:
RE: Gay Marriages - Why not separate, but equal?
IF there was something that gave gay (and straight) couples the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS as marriage, but was called something else, why would it matter? Or would you be okay with that? What if we made marriage a fully religious event and had a legal event in respect to human and property rights?
Now the rules:
1. Be Respectful - This is my journal, not the open boards. If you are abusive, I will drop a dime on your ass.
2. Don't Assume - This assumes that marriage is a religious institution. There could be religions that marry gay people. But we'll assume most don't. However:
A - Don't assume you know what my opinion is on the issue. I haven't given you one. I've just asked a question.
B - Don't assume that separate but equal means anti-gay.
C - Or that everyone that is against gay marriage is anti-gay. One of the points of the question is that some practicing religious people may be fine with gay relationships, but view marriage as a Holy Institution.
D - Don't assume separate but equal would only apply to gays. Let's assume non-religious het couples could do it too.
3. Be Smart - Arguments involving Nazi's, and "because it's wrong" and other one sentence answers, don't carry much weight.
I think that's it! Carry on.
What followed was a hate filled thread, in which several members spewed the same type of venomous bile that they accuse homophobics of.
Who in their right mind would step into that?
I am continually bewildered by the narrow mindedness and unwillinglyness to debate that the modern so called Liberal possesses.
So, I'm going to ask a question.
Because I don't want to spend all night defending the question on the boards and having drunken idiots swear at me, I'm going to ask it here.
Since this is my journal, there are rules.
First read the question, then the rules. Then, following the rules, please feel free to give me an opinion... direct others here others if you want... as long as you think they can follow the rules.
First, the question:
RE: Gay Marriages - Why not separate, but equal?
IF there was something that gave gay (and straight) couples the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS as marriage, but was called something else, why would it matter? Or would you be okay with that? What if we made marriage a fully religious event and had a legal event in respect to human and property rights?
Now the rules:
1. Be Respectful - This is my journal, not the open boards. If you are abusive, I will drop a dime on your ass.
2. Don't Assume - This assumes that marriage is a religious institution. There could be religions that marry gay people. But we'll assume most don't. However:
A - Don't assume you know what my opinion is on the issue. I haven't given you one. I've just asked a question.
B - Don't assume that separate but equal means anti-gay.
C - Or that everyone that is against gay marriage is anti-gay. One of the points of the question is that some practicing religious people may be fine with gay relationships, but view marriage as a Holy Institution.
D - Don't assume separate but equal would only apply to gays. Let's assume non-religious het couples could do it too.
3. Be Smart - Arguments involving Nazi's, and "because it's wrong" and other one sentence answers, don't carry much weight.
I think that's it! Carry on.
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
I guess I don't understand the separate but equal thing - why all this rigmarole? Is this like "don't ask don't tell" about being gay in the military or "I'm against abortion, but I'm pro-choice."
i honestly think thats what it's all about because a fair amount of states have so called civil union benifits.
i am personally for gay marriage because two men or two women being married has zero effect on my life. zero.