(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

Interesting

[keith418.livejournal.com]

I had a conversation this weekend with two people I know who were upset about the gay marriage stuff going on in SF. They basically were opposed to the idea that the mayor was "breaking the law." A majority of people in the state had voted for a law restricting marriage to only men and women, and their wishes, in a democratic society, had to be followed by public servants. I pointed out that in 1971 a majority of people in Alabama would be opposed to inter-racial marriage. Should their feelings, I pointed out, mean that should be the law? He admitted this wasn't a good idea and conceded the point.

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.

[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.