|
Serious question for those against gay marriage. | by Snate | 2009-04-15 12:37:15 |
|
I think that most of these people | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-15 12:53:06 |
|
I'm not so sure on A and I hope you're wrong on C | by Snate | 2009-04-15 12:59:50 |
|
Why would they abstain from voting | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-15 13:02:24 |
|
because it doesn't affect them? (n/t) | by vdp | 2009-04-15 13:04:49 |
| Except that in their belief, |
by MatthewDBA |
2009-04-15 13:10:26 |
it does affect them, by making them at least partially responsible for a moral wrong (in their view). If they see someone about to do something evil (allow gay civil marriage, in this case), and do not take the opportunity to try and prevent it, then they feel partially responsible for the outcome.
Similarly, if I see someone's civil rights being violated, and fail to step in to prevent it where I can, then I'm in part responsible for that violation. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Congrats, Matt, you just broke my brain | by SnArL | 2009-04-15 13:37:31 |
|
When did civil marriage become a civil right? | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 13:42:00 |
|
The premise is | by DesertRat66 | 2009-04-15 13:46:17 |
|
The problem | by kanth | 2009-04-15 13:49:39 |
|
Until someone successfully argues a 14th Amendment | by DesertRat66 | 2009-04-15 13:56:43 |
|
So if the government announced all marriages were | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 13:53:41 |
|
Not the ones in the middle of divorcing | by voxwoman | 2009-04-15 14:02:28 |
|
Couldn't medical power of attorney do that? (n/t) | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 14:07:32 |
|
I've just been through this with my father | by voxwoman | 2009-04-15 14:12:43 |
|
Some states don't recognize marriage licenses | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 14:18:07 |
|
One would hope... | by DesertRat66 | 2009-04-15 14:07:05 |
|
cynical, but it's likely true | by sonja | 2009-04-15 15:28:18 |
|
What about the multitudes who don't take Jesus as | by voxwoman | 2009-04-15 13:39:58 |
|
Why stop at two? (n/t) | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 13:43:40 |
|
"I prefer three, but it's hard enough finding one" | by voxwoman | 2009-04-15 13:48:54 |
|
*sets up a strawman* | by SnArL | 2009-04-15 13:56:05 |
|
I see the issue as | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 14:05:50 |
|
So all couples wanting to get married have to be | by Bellator | 2009-04-15 14:07:30 |
|
Some states already require blood tests. | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 14:13:57 |
|
And sex has to do with marriage what, exactly? | by confused.brit | 2009-04-15 17:45:43 |
|
There are very good reasons for limiting | by Peace_man | 2009-04-15 14:12:11 |
|
But it hasn't gone unchanged for centuries. | by Arachnid | 2009-04-15 15:10:48 |
|
The number of people and what sex each person | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 15:15:34 |
|
"This is how we've always done it" | by Arachnid | 2009-04-15 15:19:56 |
|
Any social custom started for a reason. | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 15:23:50 |
|
And that's still not a good argument. | by Arachnid | 2009-04-15 15:29:49 |
|
I'm not saying I know the reason, merely that it | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 15:38:38 |
|
Saying that it "must exist" is a spurious | by voxwoman | 2009-04-15 15:41:29 |
|
Everything has a reason behind it. | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 15:50:13 |
|
If everyone took your precautionary principle to | by Arachnid | 2009-04-15 15:59:12 |
|
an anecdote from a relative | by voxwoman | 2009-04-15 16:08:52 |
|
Exactly. If the pan had been passed down with the | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 16:12:41 |
|
the problem is the *reasons* rarely get passed on. (n/t) | by morenna | 2009-04-15 17:01:20 |
|
Not necessarily. Change can be good. | by toysbfun | 2009-04-15 16:11:07 |
|
Actually, about whether Christians should take | by Peace_man | 2009-04-15 14:07:41 |
|
Matthew 28:19 flat out requires it. | by Adiplomat | 2009-04-15 18:56:45 |
