Republicans don’t by default have anything against gays.
Because hey, every time they do everything against gays there’s an excuse! There’s been loads and loads of excuses over the years, but hey, they really don’t have anything against gays!
I don’t see how that makes sense, unless you’re also a woman. And even then, I really like ben shapiro’s approach of ‘it’s not the governments business to decide who gets to marry who’.
I was on their side when the debates around it reached their peak, but I don’t misunderstand homosexuality as unnatural or gays as mentally ill. In my mind it was about semantics, but I’ve since realized how that could be perceived as homophobic.
Unless you were advocating for a legally equivalent alternative to marriage just with a different name for people who do not fit your incredibly narrow requirements for marriage, how exactly can you claim you weren’t trying to discriminate against people?
Then they should demand that the state gets the fuck out of any marriage business. Unless they don’t believe in the separation of church and state, that is.
Republicans don’t by default have anything against gays. Some do, but it’s far from most.
I’m sure it’s just a complete coincidence then that republicans fought against marriage equality and adoption for same sex couples.
Because they see ‘marriage’ as a christian description of matrimony between man and woman
Ah, so you can exclude gays. And that means:
Because hey, every time they do everything against gays there’s an excuse! There’s been loads and loads of excuses over the years, but hey, they really don’t have anything against gays!
Jeez, done critical thinking would be good.
And they are wrong because this is America, not a Christian theocracy.
I’m not a Christian. I’m Jewish and an atheist. My wife is also an atheist. We’re married. By your excuse for Republicans, we aren’t.
I don’t see how that makes sense, unless you’re also a woman. And even then, I really like ben shapiro’s approach of ‘it’s not the governments business to decide who gets to marry who’.
Because we did not get married based on any Christian tradition.
Neither does anyone else.
Marriage is a civil ceremony and America is a secular nation.
I guess it depends on if it’s described as christian matrimony between man and woman
Speedrunning bigots’ excuses circa 2015.
Next you’ll propose separate-but-equal civil unions.
Yeah, so connect the dots bud
I was on their side when the debates around it reached their peak, but I don’t misunderstand homosexuality as unnatural or gays as mentally ill. In my mind it was about semantics, but I’ve since realized how that could be perceived as homophobic.
Unless you were advocating for a legally equivalent alternative to marriage just with a different name for people who do not fit your incredibly narrow requirements for marriage, how exactly can you claim you weren’t trying to discriminate against people?
That is the conclusion I eventually came to as well.
Character growth, good. For the future telling people they don’t get to have legal rights because of your book is discrimination and the problem.
And I see modern “Christians” as deplorable but that doesn’t mean I get to strip them of all their rights.
Then they should demand that the state gets the fuck out of any marriage business. Unless they don’t believe in the separation of church and state, that is.
That was ben shapiro’s opinion on the matter too
Does he usually express it whenever gay marriage doesn’t form part of the discussion?
I don’t listen to him enough to answer that
Spoiler alert: he doesn’t argue that in good faith. He has a problem with gay marriage.
Somehow, I doubt his voting reflects that
*Gestures broadly
Then they should stop voting for the people that do.
Haha, so they’re just complicit.
I’m sure you’re quick to chime in with “not all cops” too.