One answer is connected to the liberal dual standard for sensitivity. Many religious people are very sensitive to the religious concept of marriage being the basis for human procreation (man-women-children).
That's their (the religion's) issue. Marriage is not a strictly religious event. Atheists get married. If, say, a Christian denomination does not want to perform the ACT of marrying two people of the same gender, there is no one forcing them to. They can simply go elsewhere and get married by either:
A) a church that will marry them, or
B) any minister from any religion that is qualified and willing outside of a church, or
C) skip religion all together and go to the courthouse.
... of course, this is under the hypothetical situation that same-sex couples are actually allowed to get married.
There is nothing on a marriage certificate that says that the two people are bound together by God, at least not here in the US. The whole "united by God" thing is something added and recognized only by religion and the religious, not by the state. Therefore, the religions should not have a say in who is able to get married, while still maintaining their right of choosing to perform or not perform the ceremony within their own religions and places of worship. But to say that marraige should be denied to all people that fall within a certain catagory of which is transparent across many religions and/or the lack of (such as people of a specific race, orientation, hair color, etc) is not only unfair, it's controlling.
I don't like coffee. But am I going around and telling everyone else that they can't drink coffee because
I don't like it? No. It's their life. Let them drink coffee if they want to. The same can be said for Chic-Fil-A and the recent scandal that came about regarding the CEO's comments against gay marraige and the fact that they have poured thousands of dollars into some very controversial and discriminating campaigns against gays. That guy has a right to say whatever he wants, and to do whatever he pleases with his money. That's his business. I don't necessarily agree with it... at all. Nor do I agree with the people that showed up on the "Support Chic-Fil-A Day". But I'm not telling people that they shouldn't eat there nor support them because of how
I feel. No, that would be ridiculous of me to do. They have the right to do whatever they want. They have a right to disagree with me and my orientation. But I also have the right to not support them or eat at their establishment.
[This is purely hypothetical. I really do love coffee.]
Yet their feelings are considered second rate in the mind of liberals and homosexuals. Nobody is fighting the idea of civil unions. The fight is centered on the insensitivity associated with hi-jacking a religious concept that dear to many. If you don't sympathize with the liberal chosen groups, the dual standard makes you the bad guy even when you the victim of a parasite.
Again, marriage is not just a religious concept. There's not much more to say about that. If that were the case and marraige WAS strictly religious, Atheists would be banned from getting married. And what say ye of gay Christians or Catholics that want to get married. Your argument suggests that there are only two contradictory and opposing sides to this issue: The Gays and The Religious, when in fact there are many gays who are religious. Where do they fall into this grandiose equation of yours?
What would happen if we hijacked gay terms and gave them a definition that insults the gays? According to the dual standard this would be wrong, since one can't do that to a liberal protected group. This can only be done to non-protected groups according to the dual standard.
"Gay terms"? Amuse me and share with us what exactly are some "gay terms"?
I am for civil unions and believe the homosexuals needs to form their own traditions. This would demonstrate their sensitivity for others and can also lead to all the legal goals they seek. What they lose is the right to the dual standard.
This is quite an absurd argument. You are stating that homosexuals need to "DEMONSTRATE" their sensitivity to others (assuming you mean the religious), when in fact it is usually the heterosexual religious crowd that would have gays put in
concentration camps. Find me one source that shows where a homosexual has called for the extermination of heterosexuals. Get real or get lost, pal. You're losing this argument already.
I would guess this dual standard is needed by the democratic party to maintain social division. If the homosexuals want to be know for building a bridge then it is time to stop being a liberal parasite and be a self reliant host. I would have more respect since this is the high road.
Again, you're over-generalizing.
1) I've witnessed quite a few gay conservatives, all be them the minority in their own right.
2) As someone stated earlier in this thread (forgive me for not backtracking and finding out who), when conservatives start fighting for equal rights for gays as the "liberals" have, then you can start pandering this nonsense. Gays will take the side of whoever fights for them.