[In a thread on Californian gay marriage]
And when it comes to homo's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?
-S
PS. And as said above in response to marriage has changed - NO IT HASN'T! [Happy smiley face]
25 comments
Marriage is not the business of the government to interfere in. Therefore, the government should ban all marriage.
Odd how banning something doesn't count as interference for some idiots.
"And when it comes to hetero's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?"
No. Nuff said. And watch your apostrophe's. I mean apostrophes.
fergus
When dealing with any issue in a free democratic society the rights of the individual are to be protected unless there can be shown a compelling reason society would incur a detriment.
In the instance of same-sex marriage the has never been shown a detriment to society. I have heard slippery slopes, and rants on the sanctity of marriage (whatever the hell that means).
So by that logic no marriages of any kind should be legal under the state, even straight ones because then they're sanctioning that "lifestyle".
Edit: Damn, too late again. Everyone else said it better too.
"And when it comes to homo's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle."
No, it is not the state sanctioning a lifstyle.
We are talking about a couple having the right to marry.
If one couple (I am talking about consenting adults here)has the right then all couples have the right.
Guaranteeing equal rights IS the business of government.
So, allowing for equal rights is a "state sanctioning a lifestyle", which isn't allowed for some reason? Well, looks like we have to retroactively remove all civil rights progress, because we cannot sanction the lifestyle of interracial couples, and working women.
And, marriage has changed: from a contract between families that amounted to trading off children, to its current state as a contract between two people that love each other.
Yet, you want the state to sanction your god when it is not their business.
Hypocricy makes any argument you come up with irrelevant.
PS. And as said above in response to marriage has changed - NO IT HASN'T! [Happy smiley face]
Cool... so it's still a Jewish-only cermony marking the transferance of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband?
religion is the lifestyle choice.
Priests are lifestyle coaches.
If you're born in a Xian nation that's what you usually stay. If Muslim, the same. Short answer: a religion isn't something intrinsic to a person (as being gay is).
So why tax exceptions for purely religious reasons (as opposed to charity activities)?
Hmmm... *gets out marker pen*
[In a thread on revoking universal atheism laws of the United States of Hypothetical]
And when it comes to allowing people to worship a God, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?
-S
If it was Subman1's way of life being repressed, I'm sure he'd want that reversed prontissimo.
Marriage is a legal, financial and social contract between two consenting adults. A government therefore has no right to interfere with it, only provide a legal framework within which it is regulated.
I'd love to see one of those "OH NOED GHEY MARRIHAGE!" fundies actually explain what makes marriage so special in a way that is not based on their Big Book of Bedtime Stories.
what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?
well, seems to work with marriage.
you stupid fucking cunt
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
