I don’t see how that makes sense, unless you’re also a woman. And even then, I really like ben shapiro’s approach of ‘it’s not the governments business to decide who gets to marry who’.
Republicans don’t by default have anything against gays.
Because hey, every time they do everything against gays there’s an excuse! There’s been loads and loads of excuses over the years, but hey, they really don’t have anything against gays!
I was on their side when the debates around it reached their peak, but I don’t misunderstand homosexuality as unnatural or gays as mentally ill. In my mind it was about semantics, but I’ve since realized how that could be perceived as homophobic.
Unless you were advocating for a legally equivalent alternative to marriage just with a different name for people who do not fit your incredibly narrow requirements for marriage, how exactly can you claim you weren’t trying to discriminate against people?
I’m sure it’s just a complete coincidence then that republicans fought against marriage equality and adoption for same sex couples.
Because they see ‘marriage’ as a christian description of matrimony between man and woman
And they are wrong because this is America, not a Christian theocracy.
I’m not a Christian. I’m Jewish and an atheist. My wife is also an atheist. We’re married. By your excuse for Republicans, we aren’t.
I don’t see how that makes sense, unless you’re also a woman. And even then, I really like ben shapiro’s approach of ‘it’s not the governments business to decide who gets to marry who’.
Because we did not get married based on any Christian tradition.
Neither does anyone else.
Marriage is a civil ceremony and America is a secular nation.
Ah, so you can exclude gays. And that means:
Because hey, every time they do everything against gays there’s an excuse! There’s been loads and loads of excuses over the years, but hey, they really don’t have anything against gays!
Jeez, done critical thinking would be good.
And I see modern “Christians” as deplorable but that doesn’t mean I get to strip them of all their rights.
Yeah, so connect the dots bud
I was on their side when the debates around it reached their peak, but I don’t misunderstand homosexuality as unnatural or gays as mentally ill. In my mind it was about semantics, but I’ve since realized how that could be perceived as homophobic.
Character growth, good. For the future telling people they don’t get to have legal rights because of your book is discrimination and the problem.
Unless you were advocating for a legally equivalent alternative to marriage just with a different name for people who do not fit your incredibly narrow requirements for marriage, how exactly can you claim you weren’t trying to discriminate against people?