A few points:
1. Alot of the tax dollars we shell out pay for over 1,000 federal rights and privileges which come exclusively with a marriage lisence. So, why shouldn't we have the right to aquire the benefits we are paying for?
You do have that right; you just need to comply with the regulations just like the rest of us.
2. MOST people in the gay community would settle for civil unions IF they came with all of the rights and benefits which come with a marriage lisence and IF civil unions were universally recognized. As far as the government is concerned, a civil union becomes void when you leave the State it was issued in.
Point?
3. The anti-gay marriage crowd really dug itself into a hole in 2004 when it completely banned civil unions and domestic parternships in 8 States (Colorodo, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin). Now we have no choice but to go for the prize i.e. marriage lisences.
Or stop.
4. The utter hypocracy of it all is astounding. The heterosexual community wouldn't look even remotely as rosey if it was put under the microscrope to the degree that the homosexual community is. The anti-gay marriage crowd stands up on a soap box and declares that our pride parades are obscene and therefore should be banned but that soap box is kicked right out from under them come Mardi Gras as heterosexual women expose their breasts in exchange for a bunch of plastic beads from drooling heterosexual men engorging beer.
I've said the same thing:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-s...hose-opposed-homosexuality-33.html#post486644 (
post 321)
The anti-gay marriage crowd claims that heterosexuals posses superior "family values" despite the fact that stories of heterosexual parents locking their children up in cages like animals and heterosexual parents kicking their heels in swinger clubs while their offspring are being carted off into the night by strangers are all over the news.
This is an Unrepresentative Sample....no, it's an Unsubstantiated claim....if you would kindly provide a link or 2, then it would graduate to an Unrepresentative Sample.
The anti-gay marriage crowd claims that the sanctity of marriage makes heterosexuals exclusively entitled to marriage despite the fact that 50% of heterosexual married couples can't maintain their marriages and that MANY heterosexuals go through the nearest Las Vegas drive-through chapel for a 55 hour quickie marriage presided over by an Elvis impersonator.
"
Sanctity" is a religious value, not a heterosexual value.
The heterosexual Atheist is not going to acknowledge a religious value like "
sanctity" and argue that GM violates that "
sanctity".
That 50% divorce rate is a national #. That means that your 50% includes Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc, etc, etc.
You are blaming the divorce of an Atheist couple on Christianity. wtf?
***
"Sanctity" isn't a heterosexual-homosexual thing, it a joining of the genders thing. Just as homosexuals can reproduce, so can they marry. Just as a homosexual must reproduce with the opposite gender, so must they marry the opposite gender.
Funny thing is, when, and I mean when and not if, gay marriage is legalized, the next set of folks claiming that they're entitled to marital benefits will be able to add the existence of GM to your list when arguing against "sanctity".
Divorce, drive through weddings, child abuse...these are all examples of what is against the Abrahamic concept of marriage you oppose. Your argument is akin to saying that American individuals are wrong for opposing theft because, as a population, we commit theft.
The anti-gay marriage crowd claims that Christianty gives you the right to descriminate....
Regarding marriage, no claim of discrimination can be made because no right to marry a person of the same gender can be found to exist, let alone found to be violated.
Case in point.
....and frown upon us....
Frown upon
sin, yes.
despite the fact that the Christian church committed the worst crime imaginable when it protected pedophiles and swept their crimes under the rug for decades
There is a difference between Christianity and the Catholic Church.
Your argument here is akin to holding a law abiding American citizen responsible for any wrongs committed by the Government.
and despite the fact that one of the prime tennents of Christianity is that you should not pass judgement on others.
Objecting to a secular public policy is not = to personally judging an individual.
I can object to theft while not judging a thief.
I can say "
you should not commit theft" and not judge you.
I can say "
theft is against the law" and not judge you.
Matthew 7:2 states ""For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." and James 4:11-12 states "Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?"
Well, now that you have established the bible as a source of authority in your argument (
you know what's coming):
Matthew 5:17;
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Leviticus 18:22;
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Acts 2:21;
And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
So, basically, being gay won't be held against the repentitive person by God, but being repentitive excludes the pursuit of gay marriage, because to repent means to acknowledge that your feelings, even if uncontrollable, are outside a righteous life and that you will do your best not to act on them.
To support GM is to not repent, to not call on the name of God, and God will hold not repenting against you.
****
I know it's easy to grandstand and make Sweeping Generalizations, but do try to refrain, because your examples of "
hypocrisy" are only examples of other things which are against Christian values.
You will need to show where in the bible divorce is supported (which is there) and then show how 50% of *
Christians* (
because the American population includes more than Christians, so your 50% divorce rate needs to be adjusted accordingly) divorce for reasons other than any permissions to divorce which are in the bible.
