(no subject)
Mar. 3rd, 2004 06:52 pmIf one more politician says reasonable people can disagree on the issue of gay marriage, I'm going to scream, because I don't believe reasonable people can -- you can think it's a sin or an abomination or whatever, but if you don't see why it can and should be legal under the constitution (because not everyone shares your beliefs, so your church can do what it wants and so can mine) and philosophy of this nation, I personally think you're a bigot and a fool.
Just, so you know.
Agreeing to disagree is often a positive, mature way to handle things in this life. It's also often dishonest and a copout.
Just, so you know.
Agreeing to disagree is often a positive, mature way to handle things in this life. It's also often dishonest and a copout.
Interesting
Date: 2004-03-03 04:16 pm (UTC)I followed up by pointing out that he believed that the government shouldn't tell people what to think and believe, that the market should decide things, and that everyone should be entitled to live their own lives and do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't harm anyone else. In addition, I said that he believed we were all basically equal, and that no one had the right to impose their religious views - no matter how strongly felt - on people who didn't share them. Given that was the case, wasn't his own beliefs and positions leading to gay marriage? What was stopping it? He didn't have an answer.
This gay marriage issue is like school integration in 1953. The only people who are opposed to it are the people on the wrong side of history.
Re: Interesting
Date: 2004-03-03 04:18 pm (UTC)Re: Interesting
Date: 2004-03-03 04:35 pm (UTC)