Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt
Are you not imposing your beliefs on someone else, denying them rights for no other reason than you don't like them. What name would give that if it was the standard for any other lawful group of people of your choice?
Yes, yes I am. I am standing up for my beliefs and "imposing" them just as those in the pro gay marriage crows are standing up for their beliefs and "imposing" theirs. My main point is to expose the hypocrisy from the pro gay marriage crowed with their rhetoric and actions. My question was somewhat of a bait tactic, because the mayor of San Francisco has done everything I said the hypothetic anti-gay marriage politician did. the mayor of San Francisco preformed gay marriages on Valentines Day against the law of the land, those same sex marriages were annulled in court because they weren't legal. The mayer made this comment "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not." He is imposing his views upon others through civil disobedience and his comments.
The gay marriage debate is not about "you bigoted anti LBGT people want to deny them the
right to marry." The gay marriage debate is about defining marriage. Both groups want to
impose their definition of marriage upon everyone else, and in this situation voting is the best solution to enact some legal answer. Many want to spin rhetoric and cast the anti-gay marriage crowed as being "bigoted" or saying "how dare you, gay marriage affects you in no way." In my previous post I showed other views that many hold that affect them in no way, yet no one tells them it's wrong for them to hold them or vote for those beliefs. Outside of the spin and the bigotry, the issue is between two clashing definitions of marriage. One definition is "marriage is the union between one man and one woman." The other version is "marriage is a union between two people regardless of gender or trans-gender." Now, California voted to define marriage, and marriage was legally defined as a union between one man and one woman. This isn't about denying gays "rights," it's abut defining marriage. If marriage is between a man and a woman, then gays have no "right" to legally prop their relationship up as something equal to marriage. No one is outlawing homosexuality, and no one is forcing gay couples to separate. No harm is done to them, the only thing that affects them, is that their union is not marriage and will not be recognized as such. It is a grave and ironic hypocrisy for the pro-gay marriage crowed to
impose their definition of marriage upon everyone in a state when they claim that the other side of the issue is oppressive and imposing of their beliefs. They are blind to their hypocrisy because they rationalize it as "the other side is the ones who want to
deny rights, therefore
they are the imposing ones. My view is not imposing because I want to extend
rights by making gay unions equal to heterosexual marriage." They refuse to see that they are imposing
their definition of marriage, and that the issue revolves around how marriage is defined. It is not bigoted nor is it denying someone their rights to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It would be bigoted for me to force my belief upon countries like Canada where it is the law of the land and the majority approve of it.
