• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Michele Bachman says Gays can marry!

Tarheeler

Tarheeler

Argumentative Curmudgeon
Premium Member
Trey of Diamonds said:
As long as its to someone of the opposite sex of course. :facepalm:
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is where the whole argument about "special rights" always gets me.

Many people opposed to same-sex marriage will say that it creates a special right, because only homosexuals want to marry people of the same sex.

But that same logic means that heterosexual marriage is a special right, because only heterosexuals want to marry people of the opposite sex.
 
Draka

Draka

Wonder Woman
Tarheeler said:
Yeah, this is where the whole argument about "special rights" always gets me.

Many people opposed to same-sex marriage will say that it creates a special right, because only homosexuals want to marry people of the same sex.

But that same logic means that heterosexual marriage is a special right, because only heterosexuals want to marry people of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

:clap Exactly. But try getting that crowd to realize and accept that. :rolleyes:
 
Penumbra

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Saying that heterosexuals and homosexuals are given equal treatment and equal rights since they both have the opportunity to marry members of the opposite sex is basically equivalent to saying something like, "You have freedom of religion; you're all equally allowed to be Christians if you want to (but not other religions)" or "You're all equally allowed to be Muslim. Granting people the right to be Christian would be preferential treatment. Everyone is under the same laws."

But nobody would call that religious freedom. So this isn't freedom either.

or:
"You're all allowed to have dogs as pets. But not cats. The law of the land says people can have dogs; allowing cats would be preferential treatment."

"You're all equally allowed to read certain books, but not other books. There's no preferential treatment; everyone can read the Communist Manifesto but not The Wealth of Nations. That's the law of the land."

The audience in that clip is more annoying than Bachmann even; clapping every time she says a sentence.
 
I

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
It is absurd to me that there can be enough constituents out there that give enough support to these crazy people, that they are potential candidates for any public office, let alone the office of president of the united states.

I understand the fact that in any population there will be elements that gravitate towards certain extreme positions, but seriously, is the proportion of people who support such an positions large enough to maintain a presidential candidate? That to me points to something being imbalanced about the society that it produces such strong support for a fringe candidate. (Yes, I place Ron Paul - who I agree with on a lot of issues and would support were I an American - in this fringe category too)
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
More stupid fun with Republicans.

By the way the war in Iraq ended this week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top