The all new, totally accepted, bigotry thread - "Blame a Christian"

That's the thing, no one's being treated differently. In Kentucky, no one can marry someone of the same gender, if Kentucky were to legalize SSM, everyone could marry someone of the same gender.
Are you saying that a person doesn't have the right to marry someone of their own gender just because they're straight? :huh:
 
Homosexuals are not a group in the same way a race is.
Could you qualify that statement? And maybe even mention how that pertains to the question of equal rights?
 
Christians are not a group in the same way that race is. Is it acceptable to practice discrimination against them?
 
That's the thing, no one's being treated differently. In Kentucky, no one can marry someone of the same gender, if Kentucky were to legalize SSM, everyone could marry someone of the same gender.
"If Kentucky were to outlaw interracial marriage, it would be totally fair, because nobody would be allowed to marry someone of another race!"

:rolleyes:
 
What is a race then?

We are all the same race, but because people want to focus on what makes them different, race was invented. But I think you all know what I'm talking about when I say "race".

people are born into a "race", and while some people naturally have homosexual inclinations, I doubt that they are the majority of those who identify as "gay". Race is what you are, gay sex is a behavior. There really is no "black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Arab, Native American behavior".
 
Race and sexual orientation are both based on naturally possessed qualities, but both do have a great deal of culturally ascribed behavior associated with them as well.
 
people are born into a "race", and while some people naturally have homosexual inclinations, I doubt that they are the majority of those who identify as "gay". Race is what you are, gay sex is a behavior. There really is no "black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Arab, Native American behavior".
How do you reconcile that with the fact that a great many people explicitly identify as being gay, bisexual, etc., regarding it a key constituent of their self-identity rather than just a practice in which they engage? Do you think that they are simply mistaken? If so, would you make a similar claim in regards to ethnic, religious, subcultural, etc. identities?
 
How do you reconcile that with the fact that a great many people explicitly identify as being gay, bisexual, etc., regarding it a key constituent of their self-identity rather than just a practice in which they engage? Do you think that they are simply mistaken? If so, would you make a similar claim in regards to ethnic, religious, subcultural, etc. identities?

Do you have the right to criticize my religion without being a bigot? Sure, depending on how you do it.

Do you have the right to criticize that I'm white without being a bigot? No, I have no choice whatsoever.
 
That the choice to engage in same-sex activities IS a choice.

I wouldn't even compare it to religion. Its fundamentally different, and freedom of religion so much more important.
 
So the freedom to praise someone who has committed genocide is more important than consumating a relationship of love?
 
people are born into a "race", and while some people naturally have homosexual inclinations, I doubt that they are the majority of those who identify as "gay". Race is what you are, gay sex is a behavior. There really is no "black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Arab, Native American behavior".

Yeah, but what determines what "race" you are "born" into? How does that differ from people who identify themselves as being homosexual, and what differences between these two distinctions enable you to say one group deserves equal treatment and the other does not?
 
Homosexuals are not a group in the same way a race is.

Of course they are. Homosexuals are 10% of the population. In the US blacks are ~16%. Native Americans under 2%.

You are denying a group a set of rights that you yourself have.
 
What makes marrriage a right?

You're forcing a fundamentally statist definition on marriage, rather than using the natural one. So I ask you...

If you are going to use marriage to define a social contract as recognized by the state, why use a religious word?
 
I don't think "marriage" is an exclusively religious or civil word. It's been around a lot longer than there's been any clear dichotomy between the two.
 
What is "natural" marriage? Why is it a "religious word", as random pointed out? It is middle-English.

Why are heterosexual couples given the right to marry while others aren't? Why are some Christians being so intolerant about it in this day and age? If the majority think that homosexuals should be able to be married, what right do you have to claim they cannot?
 
Of course they are. Homosexuals are 10% of the population. In the US blacks are ~16%. Native Americans under 2%.

You are denying a group a set of rights that you yourself have.
Not 10%... that's a gross exaggeration.
That being said... I frankly don't care if people who love each other get the right to be married. What does it really cost?

The most poignant thing I saw was a gay dude with a sign that said...
"If you won't let me marry my boyfriend, I'll marry your daughter".

I know which I would prefer... let loving people marry for crying out loud.
 
Back
Top Bottom