tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post6842238960158758694..comments2023-10-26T07:19:41.446-05:00Comments on Science Avenger: Why Conservative Arguments on Gay Marriage Fall on Deaf Ears: Kevin McCullough DemonstratesScienceAvengerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-41768555201133873372008-06-25T20:07:00.000-05:002008-06-25T20:07:00.000-05:00"But why should we overlook the rights of those wh...<I><B>"But why should we overlook the rights of those who do not want their religious views trampled upon?"</B></I><BR/><BR/>Because there is no such right. You can believe whatever you like, but you can't make other people behave that way too based on religion. That's the whole problem we are having with the radical Muslims. They think if they declare something forbidden based on ther religious views, that the rest of us have to stop doing it. It doesn't work that way, not in a country with a first amendment like ours.<BR/><BR/>I think you are on the right track though. Given our religiously diverse society, the answer is probably for government to recognize only civil unions, and leave all the marriage talk to individuals and their churches.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-29328482875092330642008-06-25T12:00:00.000-05:002008-06-25T12:00:00.000-05:00Many people who tend to lean conservative, such as...Many people who tend to lean conservative, such as myself, have no issues with gay people. I know that being gay isn't simply a choice. I'm also entirely anti-religious. <BR/><BR/>But I'm against gay "marriage" only in the sense that (look at the quotes) "marriage", is based on religion. In The United States of America, we protect citizens' right to religion. If someone's religion states that "marriage" is strictly between a man and a woman, then that's how it should be.<BR/><BR/>Now time to tell you about why I quoted "marriage" so much. Obviously, gay people want to be able to express their love for one another and reap the financial benefits of "marriage". Why not? I have no problem with that. But why should we overlook the rights of those who do not want their religious views trampled upon?<BR/><BR/>Gay people should be able to be joined like "marriage", reap the benefits of "marriage", but without having the religious ceremony (obviously a priest would probably not agree to it). They could have their own ceremony, and be joined by a government official like you currently can. <BR/><BR/>Bottom line: The people who are anti-gay marriage because they think being gay is wrong are ridiculous. But there are other reasons to be against gay marriage besides hatred or prejudice. Even though I don't believe in religion and in fact, dislike it all together, doesn't mean religious people's rights need to be overlooked any more than gay people's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-50571888266011890062008-06-02T18:56:00.000-05:002008-06-02T18:56:00.000-05:00"It is the desire, the urge, the attraction to oth..."It is the desire, the urge, the attraction to others of the same sex, that makes one homosexual, just like it is the attraction to those of the opposite sex that makes one heterosexual."<BR/><BR/>What if it's a one time urge (or a summer's worth), like some teenagers have, possibly because of the "forbidden fruit" aspect of it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com