|
|
|
|
|
|
by tomelders
4451 days ago
|
|
|
I'll answer your first two points one go; So what? If their concept is diminished by someone else's interpretation of marriage, then that's their problem, no one else's. Do christians think jews have no right to worship? Do methodists believe anglicans have no right to worship? Of course not. They all worship the same god, and they all seem to have no problem allowing the other group to have their own definition of what worshiping god means without it diminishing what they believe worshiping god means. So why does one persons definition of marriage take precedence over someone else's? I don't know what you're attempting to say with your third point, but then I don't think you've properly thought anything through, as evidenced by your childish gambit of "You can't call me a homophobe because I said you can't". If you think it's ok to deny same sex couples the opportunity to marry, then you're a homophobe. Regardless of wether you argument against it is in support of some other persons beliefs. |
|
|
Democracy.
> I don't think you've properly thought anything through, as evidenced by your childish gambit of "You can't call me a homophobe because I said you can't".
Do you genuinely think I said that, or an equivalent, are you trolling, or are you just so angry you want to lash out at someone, like Heilmann mentioned in the article?
I cannot imagine how anyone would call someone in favour of gay marriage a homophobe simply because they can see the other side of the argument. So no, I don't really feel much need to 'defend myself', anybody attacking me from that point of view would obviously not be thinking rationally.
I think you're so angry you didn't even realise I share your stand on the matter.