(no subject)

[rm]

If 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.

Comments

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, what is it that they are claiming to "agree to disagree" on? (I'm back in the USA, but not really paying attention.)

As far as I can see, there are five views: a) it's morally wrong and illegal and must be banned, b) it's morally wrong and illegal and must be banned but made illegal, c) it's morally wrong and illegal and must be not-banned and made legal (yeah, you don't find too many of these, but mebbe some hardcore libertarian types), d) it's morally right and currently legal because laws banning it are unconstitutional, e) it's morally right and currently illegal and people should be working to change the laws not practicing "civil disobedience" (in quotes because what's going on doesn't quite fit my notion of that phrase - people are actually working to be under a legal aegis, as opposed to outside of it, as in most such cases.)

One could reasonably argue about whether d) or e) is the case, at least if one is a lawyer. Presumably those who think it's morally wrong could reasonably argue about whether a), b), or c) is the case.