[Keyser Söze]

(05-10-2012 10:49 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Keyser Soze, you're a total moron and you're the one trolling by clogging this thread with a massive post. Link to the original text if you must, include the essentials in your quote.

Now I have to skip your stupid post, and I like to read the essentials.

What makes your first post really dumb is that you in seriousness link to a Hollywood show as if Hollywood ever was an authorative source on anything, especially with a man with the opinions of Martin Sheen.

As for precluding certain groups from certain rights. What argument is there that everyone should have exactly the same rights on all matters?

Most of the time, people in here complain that we have become a society of people demanding rights. Rights to entitlements, to what is not theirs. Privileges they have not earned.

I cannot see why gays feel the need to get married. Why do they care? So they can have a party and wear white stuff? What is that seperates marriage from cohabitation that makes them feel so inadequate? I smell major inferiority complexes.

Unless it's to destroy the institution of marriage. Marriage is a contractual relationship designed to beget children, with duties and responsibilities and a solemn vow to forever remain true. Marriage as an institution is on the way out anyways, but gays are not interested in saving marriage by insisting on the important of duty and responsibility, unconditional love and loyalty that a wife's main job should be to take care of her children and keep her fat ass hot and fuck the shit out of her husband when he brings home the bacon. Instead they are bitching about rights.

In 1995, civil unions (secular marriage) were legalized in DK. The government has now made it legal to marry gays in Churches. Priests who refuse may do so (many will carry it out though... Danish christianity is a joke). For now. I do not doubt for a second the next step will be requirement that a priest who wants to keep his job may not refuse to wed a gay couple, seeing how these people will stop at nothing.

Gay movement activists are of the same brand as feminists and only care about destroying the nuclear family and traditional Western society. Fair enough. But if you're like 90 percent of the other guys on here, you can't bitch about the demise of the West and at the same time think supporting this stuff is a good idea.

For the same reason that straight people usually decide to get married: they fall in love.
I highly suggest you talk to a gay person in a committed relationship.
I used to be fairly prejudiced against gays. I would never say so in public, but in my mind I judged them and thought it was disgusting.
That changed when I had a colleague several years back who is gay. He lived with his boyfriend, they had been together a couple of years, and they loved each other (phone calls, vacations, etc) It sounds weird, but I never really understood it until then. When you are a gay man you are wired in a way that you can fall in love with another man, in the same way my brain is wired so that I fall in love with women.

Gays should be able to marry, I should be able to have a forest of pot growing in my backyard, etc etc.

Don't tread on me. I am an old school Yankee, and I believe in freedom. As long as your exercise of your freedom doesn't harm me, then it is none of my business what you do.

[speakeasy]

(05-10-2012 07:51 AM)Keyser Söze Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 02:32 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/pre...riage.html

I'm not taking any pro/con position on his statement. I have my nuanced views gays and gay marriage, but that's not the point here.

When politicians make statements like this above, everything is carefully calculated and scripted. I wonder if he is doing this to shore up his flaccid core liberal support base going into the election? You might think that going into a tight race, he would avoid the gay marriage issue as it's extremely polarizing. I'm guessing his strategists figured that the support he would garner would out-weigh those he'd alienate. It may also mean that he feels so confident going into this election against Romney that he isn't worried about it. Thoughts?

Just what exactly is that supposed to mean?

This is not a gray issue. It's black and white. Stay the fuck out of other people's business and worry about your own life.

If you think the power of the state should be used to create a special class of rights for one particular group of citizens and then to deny equal protection under the law to another, you are a bad person.

If you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, you are both a bad person and rather ignorant, see the video below.

Is Keysor a woman? Because he comes across as rather hysterical.

No, it is not a black and white issue. There are people that are not gay bashers or hostiles to gays, yet at the same time don't believe in redefining marriage away from what has always been it's biological and social function...to unite a man to a woman for the purpose of creating a family unit. This does not make one a homophobe or bigot. If you cannot see that, then you've swallowed so much bullshit that you don't up from down.

[Keyser Söze]

I'm actually kind of surprised by some of the responses. None of my educated, international friends think twice about any of this. It just isn't an issue, just go pursue your own happiness instead of trying to limit or control what other people do.

So I'm being accused of being a woman or something just because I support equal rights?

What does it matter to me if two people I have never met and will never meet get married, even if they are the same sex?

Also, let's cut the "pro gay marriage" crap. How about we can just say you are for bigotry or against it?

[soup]

Considering the higher probability of getting AIDS for them, If I were a gay guy, I would have died out a long time before this. If gay guys don't cheat as much as women (they are men with logic), then maybe this will be good for them.

Anyway, all I care about is how this will affect me as a player-man.

I wonder if gay guys having some same in the marriage laws will actually benefit straight guys because gays won't tolerate being discriminated against as men.

I'd say that feminism has a had a lot more to do with making marriage a raw deal for men than gay marriage will.

Are the 'fem/bottom' gay guys all hypergamous like women are? There are a lot of gay guys who make a ton of money, and they don't have kids etc.

[EisenBarde]

Why the fuss over this issue in this forum? Marriage in America became irrelevant decades ago.

[speakeasy]

(05-10-2012 12:19 PM)Keyser Söze Wrote:  

How about we can just say you are for bigotry or against it?

Look cretin, you apparently flunked logic 101 class. Here is your remedial homework you jerk off:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[Keyser Söze]

(05-10-2012 12:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 07:51 AM)Keyser Söze Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 02:32 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/pre...riage.html

I'm not taking any pro/con position on his statement. I have my nuanced views gays and gay marriage, but that's not the point here.

When politicians make statements like this above, everything is carefully calculated and scripted. I wonder if he is doing this to shore up his flaccid core liberal support base going into the election? You might think that going into a tight race, he would avoid the gay marriage issue as it's extremely polarizing. I'm guessing his strategists figured that the support he would garner would out-weigh those he'd alienate. It may also mean that he feels so confident going into this election against Romney that he isn't worried about it. Thoughts?

Just what exactly is that supposed to mean?

This is not a gray issue. It's black and white. Stay the fuck out of other people's business and worry about your own life.

If you think the power of the state should be used to create a special class of rights for one particular group of citizens and then to deny equal protection under the law to another, you are a bad person.

If you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, you are both a bad person and rather ignorant, see the video below.

Is Keysor a woman? Because he comes across as rather hysterical.

No, it is not a black and white issue. There are people that are not gay bashers or hostiles to gays, yet at the same time don't believe in redefining marriage away from what has always been it's biological and social function...to unite a man to a woman for the purpose of creating a family unit. This does not make one a homophobe or bigot. If you cannot see that, then you've swallowed so much bullshit that you don't up from down.

That is a very interesting position.
What about infertile couples? What about couples who are childless by choice? What about the elderly? Should they be allowed to get married even though they can't or don't want to procreate?

Should there be criminal penalties for 55 hour sham marriages like Britney Spears, since they clearly go against "traditional" marrriage? How about adultery too? There are plenty of people in the southern USA who would vote for that.

[gringochileno]

(05-10-2012 12:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 07:51 AM)Keyser Söze Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 02:32 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/pre...riage.html

I'm not taking any pro/con position on his statement. I have my nuanced views gays and gay marriage, but that's not the point here.

When politicians make statements like this above, everything is carefully calculated and scripted. I wonder if he is doing this to shore up his flaccid core liberal support base going into the election? You might think that going into a tight race, he would avoid the gay marriage issue as it's extremely polarizing. I'm guessing his strategists figured that the support he would garner would out-weigh those he'd alienate. It may also mean that he feels so confident going into this election against Romney that he isn't worried about it. Thoughts?

Just what exactly is that supposed to mean?

This is not a gray issue. It's black and white. Stay the fuck out of other people's business and worry about your own life.

If you think the power of the state should be used to create a special class of rights for one particular group of citizens and then to deny equal protection under the law to another, you are a bad person.

If you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, you are both a bad person and rather ignorant, see the video below.

Is Keysor a woman? Because he comes across as rather hysterical.

No, it is not a black and white issue. There are people that are not gay bashers or hostiles to gays, yet at the same time don't believe in redefining marriage away from what has always been it's biological and social function...to unite a man to a woman for the purpose of creating a family unit. This does not make one a homophobe or bigot. If you cannot see that, then you've swallowed so much bullshit that you don't up from down.

Marriage's original social function was to ensure the intergenerational transfer of property. We've moved pretty far from the idea of marriage as a purely economic arrangement; in fact, if you study the history of marriage in various cultures, you'll realize that the institution has gone through numerous redefinitions over the years, many of them much more radical than extending it to same-sex couples. There really isn't any bright line being crossed here that hasn't already been crossed many times.

Besides, even if that weren't the case, appealing to "how things have always been" is a really weak argument for keeping them that way. Unless you can give concrete, defensible reasons why allowing gay marriage would have overall negative consequences, I can't see how being opposed to it is based on anything more than a simple prejudice.

[kosko]

I don't care if Gays get married that ship sailed along time ago here in Canada. My issue is calling a horse a chicken. Gay marriage and strait marriage are two different things. Affording the same rights to a pro-creative mother and income earning husband can't be equally applied to two Suzies and two Pauls. They need to set up their own standards of rights which protect their differences.

Plus the issues of children 20yrs down the road when the hidden studies that show that the only benefit of same sex parents is income and that the rest of negative will shine a dark light on all of this. You can't tell me having two moms or two dads will not fuck things up for the child down the road.

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

those who do not endorse homosexual marriage are less 'evolved,' i.e. primitive, backwards, archaic, narrow-minded.

But that's pretty much the case. The anti-gay marriage crowd is entirely religious. And to deny a human being civil rights for a religious reason is primitive, backwards, archaic and narrow-minded. This reminds me of the old Bill Hicks quip, "You ever notice how people that don't believe in evolution look really unevolved?"

And let's not mince words, human beings are being denied civil rights afforded to heterosexuals. In terms of tax savings, hospital visitations and immigration status.

Religious beliefs should be private. If you don't believe in gay marriage - don't get married to someone of the same sex. It's that simple.

This also has nothing to do with morality. Sexual preference and morality are mutually exclusive except when one views the world through the lens of religious dogma.

And if anyone has redefined the institution of marriage it is Christians. Historically and throughout most of our evolution the main family unit has been one man and several women, not one man and one woman.

[gringochileno]

(05-10-2012 01:30 PM)kosko Wrote:  

You can't tell me having two moms or two dads will not fuck things up for the child down the road.

People say this a lot, as if it's a matter of personal opinion. In fact, whether or not children raised by gay parents have different outcomes from children of straight parents is one of the most well-researched questions in social science. The uniformity of the findings is striking: studies consistently find no evidence that having gay parents makes you turn out worse by a variety of different measures.

[speakeasy]

(05-10-2012 01:14 PM)Keyser Söze Wrote:  

That is a very interesting position.
What about infertile couples? What about couples who are childless by choice? What about the elderly? Should they be allowed to get married even though they can't or don't want to procreate?

So let me see, you deny that there is any significance to man pairing with women? It doesn't matter if one elects not to have kids. The fact is, that's what you were DESIGNED to do. And up until just a few decades ago, it was an extreme rarity that any couple even got married with no intention of procreating. Of course you do realize that society's that start to eschew procreation will simply vanish off the face of the earth as they will not reproduce at replacement level. This is what is currently happening across the West. So we could all be witness darwinism at work as we tinker with traditional male/female roles.

Quote:

Should there be criminal penalties for 55 hour sham marriages like Britney Spears, since they clearly go against "traditional" marrriage? How about adultery too? There are plenty of people in the southern USA who would vote for that.

And how the hell would you realistically stop Britney Spears from getting married? Pass a law that celebrities are not allowed to marry? So because some idiot like Britney Spears divorces we are supposed to completely redefine marriage? Think about the stupidity of what you're saying.

[speakeasy]

(05-10-2012 01:37 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

Quote:

those who do not endorse homosexual marriage are less 'evolved,' i.e. primitive, backwards, archaic, narrow-minded.

But that's pretty much the case. The anti-gay marriage crowd is entirely religious.

That's your biased view as someone who supports same-sex marriage. What pisses me off about the pro SSM crowd is that they seem to have little understanding of the arguments on the other side and revert to caricatures and mockery. If you want to see a serious anti-gay marriage essay that invokes no religions, no moralizing and comes from a perspective of pragmatism, I'd suggest you read this blog piece:

http://xenlogic.wordpress.com/2010/04/30...conundrum/

[teh_skeeze]

If people are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, why not outlaw divorce?

I hope they make gay marriage legal in New Jersey. I will marry my best friend for the benefits and then I can tell lizards I can't get married because legally I can't have two spouses.

[speakeasy]

(05-10-2012 01:27 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

Marriage's original social function was to ensure the intergenerational transfer of property.

How could that be given that few people in history have actually even owned any property? Most wealth and land has always been held by a very few. That never stopped the poor and landless from marrying.

Quote:

We've moved pretty far from the idea of marriage as a purely economic arrangement; in fact, if you study the history of marriage in various cultures, you'll realize that the institution has gone through numerous redefinitions over the years, many of them much more radical than extending it to same-sex couples. There really isn't any bright line being crossed here that hasn't already been crossed many times.

I don't think it's been redefined as much as you claim it has. It certainly has always been between men and women. That is one radical line that has NEVER been crossed. Even ancient Greeks who were arguably the most gay tolerant society in history didn't allow gay marriage. They viewed sex with men as being for pleasure but marriage was for procreation with a woman. I guess they were all bigots and homophobes too according to modern politically correct standards?

Frankly, given this forum's general hostility towards feminism, gender-bending, androgyny and tampering with male/female roles, I'm surprised so many in here are this rah-rah over homosexual marriage.

[Keyser Söze]

(05-10-2012 01:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

So let me see, you deny that there is any significance to man pairing with women? It doesn't matter if one elects not to have kids. The fact is, that's what you were DESIGNED to do. And up until just a few decades ago, it was an extreme rarity that any couple even got married with no intention of procreating. Of course you do realize that society's that start to eschew procreation will simply vanish off the face of the earth as they will not reproduce at replacement level. This is what is currently happening across the West. So we could all be witness darwinism at work as we tinker with traditional male/female roles.

Quote:

Should there be criminal penalties for 55 hour sham marriages like Britney Spears, since they clearly go against "traditional" marrriage? How about adultery too? There are plenty of people in the southern USA who would vote for that.

And how the hell would you realistically stop Britney Spears from getting married? Pass a law that celebrities are not allowed to marry? So because some idiot like Britney Spears divorces we are supposed to completely redefine marriage? Think about the stupidity of what you're saying.

Your choice of the word "DESIGNED" seems to imply that a supreme being created everyone and everything.
Fine, believe whatever you want.
But if this supreme being created the earth and designed men and women to be exclusive and natural for each other, then why do gay people exist?

[Keyser Söze]

(05-10-2012 01:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

[quote]Quote:

Should there be criminal penalties for 55 hour sham marriages like Britney Spears, since they clearly go against "traditional" marrriage? How about adultery too? There are plenty of people in the southern USA who would vote for that.

And how the hell would you realistically stop Britney Spears from getting married? Pass a law that celebrities are not allowed to marry? So because some idiot like Britney Spears divorces we are supposed to completely redefine marriage? Think about the stupidity of what you're saying.

I was speaking metaphorically, perhaps the point went over your head. Here is what I meant to say, in simple English:
You are very concerned about marriage. You want to keep it safe from homosexuals. There are also other things damaging marriage besides the homosexual menace. These include short marriages, divorces, infidelity, bigamy, swingers, etc etc. Are you also outraged at these attacks on the sacred institution of marriage? How are you going to combat them?

[teh_skeeze]

I've never heard of the Greek City-States giving benefits to married couples (not saying that they didn't). You have a problem when you start giving benefits to some, but others are denied the same benefits for whatever reason. In the case of gay marriage, nobody is losing out. The government isn't paying out of it's pocket like it does with single mothers on welfare.

In other words, either everyone can claim the benefits, or no one can. (I'm for the latter)

[j r]

(05-10-2012 12:27 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 12:19 PM)Keyser Söze Wrote:  

How about we can just say you are for bigotry or against it?

Look cretin, you apparently flunked logic 101 class. Here is your remedial homework you jerk off:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

It is kind of ironic that you just accused Keyser of being a woman, because he was coming across as hysterical and then you get real snippy here yourself.

It is also ironic that you bring up logical fallacies when your arguments are built of them.

Quote:

No, it is not a black and white issue. There are people that are not gay bashers or hostiles to gays, yet at the same time don't believe in redefining marriage away from what has always been it's biological and social function...to unite a man to a woman for the purpose of creating a family unit. This does not make one a homophobe or bigot. If you cannot see that, then you've swallowed so much bullshit that you don't up from down.

You are basically saying that marriage should not be redefined to include same sex couples, because marriage is about a man and a woman. That is a textbook example of begging the question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question

And then you say:

Quote:

The fact is, that's what you were DESIGNED to do.

A perfect example of the Naturalistic Fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

If you want to convince people that gay marriage is a bad thing, how about coming up with some actual proof.

[speakeasy]

(05-10-2012 02:02 PM)Keyser Söze Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 01:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

So let me see, you deny that there is any significance to man pairing with women? It doesn't matter if one elects not to have kids. The fact is, that's what you were DESIGNED to do. And up until just a few decades ago, it was an extreme rarity that any couple even got married with no intention of procreating. Of course you do realize that society's that start to eschew procreation will simply vanish off the face of the earth as they will not reproduce at replacement level. This is what is currently happening across the West. So we could all be witness darwinism at work as we tinker with traditional male/female roles.

Quote:

Should there be criminal penalties for 55 hour sham marriages like Britney Spears, since they clearly go against "traditional" marrriage? How about adultery too? There are plenty of people in the southern USA who would vote for that.

And how the hell would you realistically stop Britney Spears from getting married? Pass a law that celebrities are not allowed to marry? So because some idiot like Britney Spears divorces we are supposed to completely redefine marriage? Think about the stupidity of what you're saying.

Your choice of the word "DESIGNED" seems to imply that a supreme being created everyone and everything.
Fine, believe whatever you want.
But if this supreme being created the earth and designed men and women to be exclusive and natural for each other, then why do gay people exist?

I'm agnostic/borderline atheist so that most certainly wasn't my implication. I have no idea if there is a God or not, but that doesn't preclude design. Just as I can say your eyes were designed by nature to allow you to see.

Gay people exist because for the same reason colorblind people exist, or dwarves, or albinos, or women with 2 vaginas(like in that other thread), or people that are born siamese twins, etc etc. It's essentially a genetic defect. Whatever genetic marker controls our sexual preference gets wrongly assigned in a small percentage or humans. Clearly homosexuality serves no more function than hermaphroditism. The difference however is that homosexuals unlike other groups of people have made their birth defect into a social class and present themselves as some sort of quasi-minority group with political demands. Think about it, why is it that if a person is born with both a dick and pussy, we can call that a genetic defect, but if a man is born without the ability to be attracted to women that is not a defect of birth?

At the heart of it, gay marriage is a way of the gay community forcing society to accept homosexuality as a social norm on par with heterosexuality. That's why even if you offered them "civil unions" with the same exact rights as marriage, they still reject that, because they want the word marriage itself. It's not about the rights to them, it's about the word. And when the word marriage can just as easily apply to two men as a man and a woman, then you can no longer make the claim that it's preferable for men to desire women without being the equivalent of a racist. You will then have a situation like you had in Massachusetts(where gay marriage is legal) a few years ago where a grade school teacher was reading homosexual love stories to children, and when parents fought it, the courts came down in favor of the teacher because that's now the law. There was another story about a school teacher than banned any Mother's Day celebration for her students because one of the kids had two gay dads. And the teacher didn't want to offend the kid of the gay parents. That's the kind of PC minefield we're going to have to navigate through on a daily basis.

[gringochileno]

(05-10-2012 01:59 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

How could that be given that few people in history have actually even owned any property? Most wealth and land has always been held by a very few. That never stopped the poor and landless from marrying.

That's an interesting question. I'm no expert on the history of marriage but I wonder just how prevalent it really was among the non-property-owning classes back when its primary function was as a business arrangement between two families. Whatever the answer to that question is, that's definitely how it got started.

Quote:

I don't think it's been redefined as much as you claim it has. It certainly has always been between men and women. That is one radical line that has NEVER been crossed. Even ancient Greeks who were arguably the most gay tolerant society in history didn't allow gay marriage. They viewed sex with men as being for pleasure but marriage was for procreation with a woman.

First of all, that's not true. But anyway, you're missing the point: whether or not gays have specifically been allowed to marry in the past, there are many other, more fundamental aspects of marriage that have undergone serious revisions over the years. Extending the present institution of marriage to same-sex couples without changing any of its characteristics is hardly more radical than stopping the treatment of women as chattel property, disallowing (then allowing, then disallowing again) polygamy, divorce, interracial marriage, etc.

Quote:

I guess they were all bigots and homophobes too according to modern politically correct standards?

In the same sense that people who supported slavery in the early 1800s or Jim Crow laws in the early 20th Century were bigots. I'm not too keen on condemning people for following the morality of their day, but if the question is whether their society got it wrong, then I would answer yes. Most societies have.

Quote:

Frankly, given this forum's general hostility towards feminism, gender-bending, androgyny and tampering with male/female roles, I'm surprised so many in here are this rah-rah over homosexual marriage.

It's because there's no rational basis for denying gay people civil rights. Whether or not gay people can get married is not going to make the cunty, entitled American woman problem any better or worse. If you're not gay it probably won't affect you at all.

[speakeasy]

(05-10-2012 02:07 PM)Keyser Söze Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 01:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

[quote]Quote:

Should there be criminal penalties for 55 hour sham marriages like Britney Spears, since they clearly go against "traditional" marrriage? How about adultery too? There are plenty of people in the southern USA who would vote for that.

And how the hell would you realistically stop Britney Spears from getting married? Pass a law that celebrities are not allowed to marry? So because some idiot like Britney Spears divorces we are supposed to completely redefine marriage? Think about the stupidity of what you're saying.

I was speaking metaphorically, perhaps the point went over your head. Here is what I meant to say, in simple English:
You are very concerned about marriage. You want to keep it safe from homosexuals. There are also other things damaging marriage besides the homosexual menace. These include short marriages, divorces, infidelity, bigamy, swingers, etc etc. Are you also outraged at these attacks on the sacred institution of marriage? How are you going to combat them?

To me it's not about "protecting the sanctity of marriage". It's about gays trying to use marriage as a way of forcing society to accept homosexuality as a social norm and make one the equivalent of a racist if they state that it's preferable that men be with women.

[Keyser Söze]

(05-10-2012 02:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I'm agnostic/borderline atheist so that most certainly wasn't my implication. I have no idea if there is a God or not, but that doesn't preclude design. Just as I can say your eyes were designed by nature to allow you to see.

Gay people exist because for the same reason colorblind people exist, or dwarves, or albinos, or women with 2 vaginas(like in that other thread), or people that are born siamese twins, etc etc. It's essentially a genetic defect. Whatever genetic marker controls our sexual preference gets wrongly assigned in a small percentage or humans. Clearly homosexuality serves no more function than hermaphroditism. The difference however is that homosexuals unlike other groups of people have made their birth defect into a social class and present themselves as some sort of quasi-minority group with political demands. Think about it, why is it that if a person is born with both a dick and pussy, we can call that a genetic defect, but if a man is born without the ability to be attracted to women that is not a defect of birth?

At the heart of it, gay marriage is a way of the gay community forcing society to accept homosexuality as a social norm on par with heterosexuality. That's why even if you offered them "civil unions" with the same exact rights as marriage, they still reject that, because they want the word marriage itself. It's not about the rights to them, it's about the word. And when the word marriage can just as easily apply to two men as a man and a woman, then you can no longer make the claim that it's preferable for men to desire women without being the equivalent of a racist. You will then have a situation like you had in Massachusetts(where gay marriage is legal) a few years ago where a grade school teacher was reading homosexual love stories to children, and when parents fought it, the courts came down in favor of the teacher because that's now the law. There was another story about a school teacher than banned any Mother's Day celebration for her students because one of the kids had two gay dads. And the teacher didn't want to offend the kid of the gay parents. That's the kind of PC minefield we're going to have to navigate through on a daily basis.

That's a fairly astonishing level of bigotry and ignorance that you managed to put in just a few sentences.
I guess the only way true bigots like you or Dick Cheney change is by a very personal experience like having a gay child.

[speakeasy]

(05-10-2012 02:26 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

It's because there's no rational basis for denying gay people civil rights.

Technically, gay people are NOT denied civil rights. They have the same right as everyone else. To marry one person of the opposite sex.

That would be like Mormon's claiming their civil rights are being violated because they are not allowed polygamous marriages. No, the law applies to everyone equally.

[gringochileno]

(05-10-2012 02:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 02:26 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

It's because there's no rational basis for denying gay people civil rights.

Technically, gay people are NOT denied civil rights. They have the same right as everyone else. To marry one person of the opposite sex.

That would be like Mormon's claiming their civil rights are being violated because they are not allowed polygamous marriages. No, the law applies to everyone equally.

Please tell me you can see the blatant sophistry of that statement.