Anonymous wrote:The question is, if you want to discriminate against gays, what is your rational basis for doing so?
1, not enough of a compelling argument to change such an established institution. we can find other ways to give gays the rights they think they are being denied.
2, dangerous to change the definition of marriage. what is the compelling reason to not then alloy polygamy? what is the compelling reason to not allow people to marry children under certain ages?
3, more research needs to be done on the causes and effects of homosexuality. just 25 years ago we thought it was a mental illness. no reason to rush.
Can you please read the whole thread? All of this bullshit has been addressed already.
The question is, if you want to discriminate against gays, what is your rational basis for doing so?
1, not enough of a compelling argument to change such an established institution. we can find other ways to give gays the rights they think they are being denied.
2, dangerous to change the definition of marriage. what is the compelling reason to not then alloy polygamy? what is the compelling reason to not allow people to marry children under certain ages?
3, more research needs to be done on the causes and effects of homosexuality. just 25 years ago we thought it was a mental illness. no reason to rush.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:we discriminate against people all the time in all sorts of ways. Dumb people get discriminated against. Heavy people. Short people. Mentally ill, the physically ill. Doesn't mean you bend over backwards to accommodate everyone.
Yes, but there has to be a rational basis for that discrimination. "Yuck!" is not a rational basis.
230 years is a long time. I don't think the need to change is so compelling. you can correct the issues through contract rights.
Whether or not you think gays want it badly enough is irrelevant. The question is, if you want to discriminate against gays, what is your rational basis for doing so?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would discourage people from spending their vacation dollars in MD too. It is a one party state. Very undemocratic.
That's hilarious. And untrue.
Anonymous wrote:Sweet -more room for on the beach and less traffic
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:we discriminate against people all the time in all sorts of ways. Dumb people get discriminated against. Heavy people. Short people. Mentally ill, the physically ill. Doesn't mean you bend over backwards to accommodate everyone.
Yes, but there has to be a rational basis for that discrimination. "Yuck!" is not a rational basis.
230 years is a long time. I don't think the need to change is so compelling. you can correct the issues through contract rights.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:we discriminate against people all the time in all sorts of ways. Dumb people get discriminated against. Heavy people. Short people. Mentally ill, the physically ill. Doesn't mean you bend over backwards to accommodate everyone.
Yes, but there has to be a rational basis for that discrimination. "Yuck!" is not a rational basis.
Anonymous wrote:we discriminate against people all the time in all sorts of ways. Dumb people get discriminated against. Heavy people. Short people. Mentally ill, the physically ill. Doesn't mean you bend over backwards to accommodate everyone.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How many of you actually read past the headlines?
They voted on the definition of the word marriage-between a man and a women. The entire gay marriage thing is not about the word marriage it is about not being afforded the same benefits as a marriad couple.
+1
"Marriage" = Man + woman
"Civil union" = man + man, or woman + woman.
I believe civil unions should be legal in all 50 states, but I do not consider that to be "marriage." I believe in the Christian definition of marriage.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does the person who thinks homosexuality is a disorder also argue against equal rights for other genetic disorders?
I don't think this is a an equal rights issue, and that is a bad analogy. we are simply defining marriage to its current and established definition
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How many of you actually read past the headlines?
They voted on the definition of the word marriage-between a man and a women. The entire gay marriage thing is not about the word marriage it is about not being afforded the same benefits as a marriad couple.
+1
"Marriage" = Man + woman
"Civil union" = man + man, or woman + woman.
I believe civil unions should be legal in all 50 states, but I do not consider that to be "marriage." I believe in the Christian definition of marriage.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would have voted against the marriage between same sex people but I support their rights.
No, you don't.
yes I do, I believe in marriage between a man and a women, you have no idea what I believe are you dictating what a person should believe in? I have no problem with a gay couple having the rights of me but you can;t tell me what I would do or believe in-You sound like you have a problem with people who are not affraid to stand up for what they belive.
Let me guess, you are against peopel owning guns ?
sorry for the typos darm phone