Yeah, I've been in touch with Roy McDonald (our state senator) a couple of times. Supposedly he was on the fence, but he's clearly opted for the move that he feels gets better political cover. I guess we need to make it clear to him that he was wrong.
I'm just terribly frustrated with the people who believe that, because their religion forbids it, that it should be legally forbidden.
Why is it that people seem to think that particular argument is okay in this particular instance, but would see through it in other circumstances? Just go back to the old substitution game, and you'll see just how moronic the argument is. "My God believes a guy and a guy shouldn't get married." Change that to "My God believes a black man and a white woman shouldn't get married" or "My God believes a Hindu and a Buddhist shouldn't get married", and it becomes *really* obvious just how bad their argument really is, just how blatantly anti-civil rights it is. But simply because it involves somebody's naughty bits, it makes them toss logic out the window.
Comments 12
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Why is it that people seem to think that particular argument is okay in this particular instance, but would see through it in other circumstances? Just go back to the old substitution game, and you'll see just how moronic the argument is. "My God believes a guy and a guy shouldn't get married." Change that to "My God believes a black man and a white woman shouldn't get married" or "My God believes a Hindu and a Buddhist shouldn't get married", and it becomes *really* obvious just how bad their argument really is, just how blatantly anti-civil rights it is. But simply because it involves somebody's naughty bits, it makes them toss logic out the window.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment