Here's another yes on 8. I can't believe what has been going on. What is it going to be like in 10+ years? What will our kids experience in life? When will somebody finally draw the line? When will we hear, "You can't discriminate me jut because I am married to a goat" I love people too, but I think there is a line and it has been crossed. How is discriminating against religious beliefs considered ok?...good post; it got me all fired up. -Dave
Seriously?! Half of these examples are straight up discrimination. A Christian doctor wouldn't give a lesbian patient in-vitro? Does that mean that Catholic Doctors should be allowed to deny all patients birth control because it violates their religious beliefs? Because that is what this is saying. What if no doctor would give an abortion to a rape victim because it violated their religious beliefs? Doctors have NO right to discriminate when providing medical treatments. They are not in the business of making medical decisions based on moral judgment. To imply otherwise is preposterous.
Hello, the entire reason this country was founded was religious freedom. However, that religious freedom does not trump basic human and civil rights. It does not give people a blanket excuse to pick and choose what they do based on their "moral or religious beliefs".
And by the way, to compare gay marriage to bestiality is beyond offensive and ignorant. Are you saying that gays are less than human? That marriage between them is as nonsensical as a relationship between a human and an animal?
For the record I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between two people who love each other and want to share their lives together. I don't think that Suzy and Sharon getting married is any more of an insult to the institution of marriage than Britney running off to Vegas and marrying her high school friend for one day. So if the government is going in the business of deciding who can and cannot get married I say we start with all the idiot straight people who abuse the privilege.
I would imagine that people who believe in a religion with VERY untraditional marriage rights (a man can be sealed to more than one woman) would be more open minded when it came to others rights to express their love through the institution of marriage.
There was no intention of comparing gays and lesbians to bestiality; just an example of allowing special privileges to groups that yell discrimination...an over-the-top example of allowing any group legal rights instead of being accused of governmental discrimination. There was more concern meant towards religious rights. No need to make apples out of oranges. -Dave P.S. Sorry Get Weird and others. I know this isn't a forum...just trying to clear up any misinterpretations of my wording.
If you're implying that society's foundation "in the home" is marriage, then you should recognize that our foundation has fluctuated wildly as the definition of marriage has regularly changed through the centuries.
Marriage, as we know it in modern western culture, has only been this way since the mid-19th century. Before that, it was dowry-based. Before that it was arranged. Before that it was often polygamist.
By suggesting that the definition of marriage should be limited to one man and one woman (as Prop 8 does), you're denying marriage the evolution that it has had always had throughout time.
The so-called sacred institution of marriage is neither sacred (when it's civil marriage--as in recognized by government), nor an institution.
9 comments:
Good for you Whitney and Bret.
Here's another yes on 8. I can't believe what has been going on. What is it going to be like in 10+ years? What will our kids experience in life? When will somebody finally draw the line? When will we hear, "You can't discriminate me jut because I am married to a goat" I love people too, but I think there is a line and it has been crossed. How is discriminating against religious beliefs considered ok?...good post; it got me all fired up.
-Dave
That is perfect Whitney..."we won't know what we've got till it's gone"
Yay for the hate mongering!
Seriously?! Half of these examples are straight up discrimination. A Christian doctor wouldn't give a lesbian patient in-vitro? Does that mean that Catholic Doctors should be allowed to deny all patients birth control because it violates their religious beliefs? Because that is what this is saying. What if no doctor would give an abortion to a rape victim because it violated their religious beliefs? Doctors have NO right to discriminate when providing medical treatments. They are not in the business of making medical decisions based on moral judgment. To imply otherwise is preposterous.
Hello, the entire reason this country was founded was religious freedom. However, that religious freedom does not trump basic human and civil rights. It does not give people a blanket excuse to pick and choose what they do based on their "moral or religious beliefs".
And by the way, to compare gay marriage to bestiality is beyond offensive and ignorant. Are you saying that gays are less than human? That marriage between them is as nonsensical as a relationship between a human and an animal?
For the record I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between two people who love each other and want to share their lives together. I don't think that Suzy and Sharon getting married is any more of an insult to the institution of marriage than Britney running off to Vegas and marrying her high school friend for one day. So if the government is going in the business of deciding who can and cannot get married I say we start with all the idiot straight people who abuse the privilege.
I would imagine that people who believe in a religion with VERY untraditional marriage rights (a man can be sealed to more than one woman) would be more open minded when it came to others rights to express their love through the institution of marriage.
P.S. Love you!
This isn't a forum. It's my opinion.
There was no intention of comparing gays and lesbians to bestiality; just an example of allowing special privileges to groups that yell discrimination...an over-the-top example of allowing any group legal rights instead of being accused of governmental discrimination. There was more concern meant towards religious rights. No need to make apples out of oranges.
-Dave
P.S. Sorry Get Weird and others. I know this isn't a forum...just trying to clear up any misinterpretations of my wording.
what i'm really curious about is the comment you deleted...why does blogger mention that you even deleted a comment, it's just cruel.
If you're implying that society's foundation "in the home" is marriage, then you should recognize that our foundation has fluctuated wildly as the definition of marriage has regularly changed through the centuries.
Marriage, as we know it in modern western culture, has only been this way since the mid-19th century. Before that, it was dowry-based. Before that it was arranged. Before that it was often polygamist.
By suggesting that the definition of marriage should be limited to one man and one woman (as Prop 8 does), you're denying marriage the evolution that it has had always had throughout time.
The so-called sacred institution of marriage is neither sacred (when it's civil marriage--as in recognized by government), nor an institution.
Post a Comment