I never said it should. Frankly, I'm undecided on it, but consider it a minor issue regardless. I disagree. I think you're mixing up things here. Just because someone doesn't agree with gays does not mean it's hate. And I don't need the government to help me protect me from myself. That's absolutely, positively not the role of government, IMO.
The term 'beliefs' appears to have gotten away from us. It has become somewhat ambiguous in this discourse. There are political beliefs and there are Religious beliefs. Obviously, people will and should favor whichever whichever representative most closely reflects the former. But I don't think that dogmatic teachings should influence that decision. Although it may oftentimes arrive an individual at a conclusion with which myself and many others are in congruence, I think that way of thinking is entirely too subjective when examining issues related to people's personal lives.
It's a relatively minor issue to me as well, but it's not to alot of people. Explain more about why & what you disagree with... Not protect you from yourself per se(sp?), but society from itself. If it weren't for the government's role there - black people would still be slaves, women would still be confined to the kitchen etc.
Where do we draw the line? If sexual preference needs protecting, what about protecting fat people? Ugly people? Short people? Where does it end? I don't have any problems with gays, but I don't believe they deserve special treatment under the law anymore than ugly people do. I sure wish they would protect me and my polygamist lifestyle. :grin:
Didn't mean to be so blunt, just didn't have time to write much more. I agree w/ TigerWins in that I don't see why sexual preference should be a protected class. Even in that vein, where does it cut off? If you like to be on top? If you're kinda kinky? If you're really kinky? Just doesn't make any sense. Changing cultures brought about both changes, the government merely changed to reflect the times. The move out of slavery was a cultural movement, not an edict by an all-mighty government. WWII and a cultural shift in the attention given to women beyond domestic skills brought the women out of the kitchen, not any protection from the government.
Protecting? I don't believe that any one specific group needs protecting. I think that all races/minorities/majorities/etc. should be protected equally. All that I am proposing is that they have the same legal rights as heterosexuals. I don't believe that we should be legally entitled to things that gays are not just because we were born being attracted to the opposite sex. It's just like I don't believe that white people should have special priveleges over minorities because we were born white.
Exactly. TigerWins was getting the wrong idea. I don't want to give them any special priveledges. I just believe they are entitled to everything a heterosexual is entitled to.
Would you support two same-sex heterosexuals marrying for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the legal rights married couples enjoy?
Do you support two opposite-sex heterosexuals marrying for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the legal rights married couples enjoy?
