I apologize. It's not a problem. I should have put a sin in my religion. And you don't seem to acknowledge that I wouldn't discriminate. I think you're being a hypocrite. You say you hate religion and you don't respect religious people because they're intolerant. Isn't that intolerant? You seem to be a little bit bigoted.
This thread is specifically talking about LGBT, I dont know where people got the family member- family member marriage thing from. All my posts are discussing and supporting LGBT.
The point comes in from where you say, "love is love." It drags people to the fact that siblings should be able to marry under that pretext.
Imagine being denied marriage for someone you want to grow old with, raise a family, and do all the things heterosexuals do. A normal life, loving who we want, loving and marrying who we'd like to marry in our own home state. Here. Family members can be attracted to each other. So Love is not love like you said here: Love is love. If I couldn't marry the man of my life, as a straight person, I'd be devastated, just like any other woman, same thing if I were to marry a woman.
I don't have anything against Muslims, gays, or anyone. But my point is that if Muslims can deny a customer that, why can't that pizzeria refuse to cater a gay wedding? Both are denied because of religion, so shouldn't they be both be treated the same? Yeah. Would I ever really demand a Muslim bakery to make a cake with Muhammad eating bacon? Of course not. If I did, would it be legally okay for them to deny that? Yes. Should it be okay for the pizzeria owners to deny the gay couple? Yeah. The couple can take their money somewhere else. And frankly, I bet that pizzeria would be happy to sell the pizza which would be served, but they just wouldn't set up and have their employees serve.
So does mine, how do you support your "love is love" statement if family members still can love each other?
I believe the 1st amendment and unalienable rights contradict themselves. Of course, both rights SHOULD be in action. But that is our problem in this situation. We won't change them because it wouldn't be right. But I'm just saying.
I see how this would contradict my morals. Although many consider being gay taboo, and I consider ****** taboo, I do not support family members loving each other. Yes, there s a limit where love is love stands, however my opinion still stands and at the end of the day it will still continue to be.
Freedom of religion. In certain religions, I'm sure it's a sin to be gay. Thus, allowing for LGBT to marry under legal edicts is violating their religion. Pursuit of happiness. Being able to marry the same sex and denying the couple's marriage, what makes them happy, as a result of the religion, is violating the unalienable rights we are born with.
In the end, one will be unhappy. You can not please everyone. But at least I can marry the same sex in another state and be comfortable being married there than here.
I'm not sure if allowing two guys named Neil and Bob to marry would hurt my right to practice my Christian faith freely, as long as they don't force a minister to do the ceremony.
But, that's just selfishly looking out for you and your goals if you stick with the love is love argument. That leaves the siblings that want to marry in the dust.
Everyone who has thrown out the family members argument has missed this point: inbreeding can lead to a vast array of genetic disorders. Over the centuries, people have observed this and it has become taboo to marry one's family. But there are no known adverse effects of same gender marriage. Why outlaw something that does not effect anyone negatively?
If a Christian pushed their agenda as hard as those that push the gay marriage agenda would that be ok?