Miss California?

[Rubystars]

So any random group of people who are fond of each other is a family now? Things have really changed, haven't they?

[the_std]

If they call themselves a family and act to protect, love, nourish and support each other without harming anyone, what's wrong with that?

[Rubystars]

All that means is that they have a different definition than I do for family. To me a member of my family is someone either blood related to me, or someone related to me through marriage to blood relatives. If I were to get married then of course my husband and I would form a new family.

I don't think of anything outside of this as being "family", but other people are of course free to make up their own definitions even if I don't agree with them.

I'm not saying that it's bad or anything, just that I don't agree with it.

[the_std]

The same argument should be applied to gays making new families. If they're doing what families do, which is make each other happier, safer and more secure, even if you don't agree with it, why say it's a bad thing?

[Rubystars]

Groups of friends that love and care for each other are good. I just don't agree that those groups of friends form a family. They could be a "family" in a sense of being really close to one another, but that's not the same thing as an actual family. To me family is something you don't choose (except for your husband or wife, of course).

[the_std]

But there was just proof that family goes well beyond your definition of family. I'm asking why tell someone they can't do something just because they don't fit into your criteria of something that actually has no effect on your life?

[Rubystars]

I'm not telling people they can't do anything. I might just define what they're doing differently than they do. I used to laugh when I worked at Wal-mart and people would refer to the Wal-mart family. (where's the puke smiley?) but some people really felt strongly, that this was the case. I didn't tell them they couldn't believe that if they wanted to.

[BroomJockey]

I'm not telling people they can't do anything. I might just define what they're doing differently than they do.

I know I said I was going to stay out of this from now on, but I just REALLY had to address this point. You're not telling people they can't do anything. But if you had your way, you would be. You would be telling people that they can't marry for love. You would make your definition such that they were unable to do something, aka "get married." That's... yeah, that's telling people they can't do something.

[Rubystars]

BroomJockey, as I've said repeatedly, I'm against legal recognition for gay marriage.

[Fenrus]

BroomJockey, as I've said repeatedly, I'm against legal recognition for gay marriage.

Which is doing exactly what you're saying you're not doing, denying rights to certain individuals based on what they do in the bedroom, and persecuting such individuals, which according to the Supreme Court with Lawrence Vs. Texas, is unconstitutional.

You keep saying you're "all for letting them have equal rights" as long as they "marry the opposite sex" which, honestly, causes hardship, divorce, and suicide. It's happened many times.

I tried to stay out of this, but I'm completely appalled at your beliefs. Is it truely okay to take away basic rights because you don't think it's "normal"? Isn't "normal" relative, and changes from person to person? You talk about society as a whole not liking it, but when close to 11% of society identifies as LGBT, your arguement becomes invalid.

If it doesn't affect you in the slightest, as you A) Are not homosexual, B) Do not have to administer the marriage liscences, and C) Do not have to perform the ritual, why are you against it so badly?

You say you don't want your tax money to be used for this? Since WHEN is a wedding, reception, or courtship paid for by the taxpayers? Plus, marriage liscences are SOLD by the county clerks. Meaning if this is allowed, your county generates a higher revenue, meaning lowering taxes, or a boost in tax-money paid services, such as EMS, Fire, and Police Departments.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's quite simple, actually.

Ruby doesn't believe that gays should be allowed to marry. Therefore, Ruby is against gay marriage.

The fallacy is in the doctrine of pursuing legislation based on your own beliefs without consideration for others.

It doesn't matter if you believe gay marriage is good, bad, or whatever. This is a country of equal rights. If gays cannot marry the people they love, there is inequality ergo persecution.

Go ahead and hold that belief if you want, but please stop pretending that you're anything other than a prejudiced pro-persecution of minority and anti-rights A******E.

The mature thing to do would be to admit that your beliefs create inequality, and cease pursuit of thoroughly un-American legislation.

P.S. Gay marriage does not in the least effect your right to practice your religion. Hold ceremonies, don't hold ceremonies, no one cares. This is about allowing or disallowing a civil contract, which, regardless or origin, has nothing to do with any religion.

[Rubystars]

It doesn't matter if you believe gay marriage is good, bad, or whatever. This is a country of equal rights. If gays cannot marry the people they love, there is inequality ergo persecution.

"I don't agree with you" does not equal persecution.

The mature thing to do would be to

Not post things like:

Go ahead and hold that belief if you want, but please stop pretending that you're anything other than a prejudiced pro-persecution of minority and anti-rights A******E.

[Fenrus]

"I don't agree with you" does not equal persecution.

Refusing rights due to the fact that you don't agree DOES.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Supporting legislation against gay marriage and/or the prevention of legislation allowing gay marriage is the pursuit of persecution. Which is born out of prejudice against them.

So if you can explain how it's immature to post logic-based opinion on this site, that would be fascinating.

[Rubystars]

The Christians in the country also feel as if we've been wronged because we feel as if we're being forced to acknowledge something immoral as something legitimate in an official manner.