Now, I am not the kind of guy that is brought to tears very easily. That said, this following youtube vid brought tears to my eyes. We're both very happy for the people in the video.
Considering the fact that the christian bigots were able to rally 60% of the Cali voters to vote for the gay marriage ban referendum, I'm pretty sure they'll be able to summon up the force of bigotry again in november. I'm just happy for the moment and I'm pretty sure the people in the vid are also just happy for the moment.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
1. Gay people already have every single right that I have under the law. They can get married, just like me, to any member of the opposite sex.
Black people already had every single right that white people had under the law. They could get married, just like any white person, to any member of their own race.
2. There is no need to change the law or make a special one to accommodate gays. Just take the word "marriage" out of it.
There is no need to change the law or make a special one to accomodate interracial couples. Just take the word "marriage" out of it.
3. Unlike black people, gay people choose to be gay. So now they are the ones feeling left out for the choices they made. There is no scientific reason I know of to explain how a gay person's biology makes them gay.
Jesus christ, hoot. Are you senile? Remember that long conversation we had about how a research group was able to "cure" animal homosexuals via hormonal and chemical treatments? I asked you then if to you this was an indication of homosexuality being more than just choice and you admitted that you agreed that it was an indication that it had something to do with biology. Now, you're either a liar or just senile. Which is it?
4. Bigotry is a term thrown by people who are bigots in their own right. Gay bigotry is another word for in-your-face, same-sex french kissing on the ferry while you're commuting home from work at night. Bigotry by gays is done all the time to offend people for their out-of-the-closet pleasure.
Why should they be in the closet in the first place?
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
But they were slaves. They had a bigger problem to deal with, and it wasn't one of their choosing.
Uh... I wasn't referring to the time before the Emancipation Proclamation.
Not sure I do. Well, if therapeutic measures become available then the gays can get straightened out if they want to. It will be a clearer matter of choice for them. So why do our laws need to flex with their whims and free choices? Maybe we need to enact other laws guaranteeing other peoples' free choices, too, like the freedom to raise dogs for food. Some cultures allow it.
Again, are you senile? We also had a long discussion about this in which you also admitted after I pointed out that if a "cure" could be found for homosexuality then being straight is also a choice.
Possibly senile. I'm old, you know. But I don't recall that discussion. Furthermore, why couldn't biology have something to do with choice? Which is it? I think it's probably biology, and it think it probably can be fixed. And if it can, then it's choice.
Yup, I'd say you're senile. This is the only explanation to why you forgot a whole conversation and went back to your old misconceptions.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
So is that a good thing? I've been married three times and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
I just find it interesting that the very people who are biggets opposers to gay marriage are also the very people that have gone through many marriages and divorces. Rush Limbaugh, for example, I think have lost count on how many marriages and divorces he's been through. All the while the gay couple I know who have been together for 15 years can't even get recognized by the law.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
So, unless the point of iano's question is to suggest that we should take kids away from homosexual couples, the question he needs to address if he really cares about kids is why he disagrees with the AAP.
I have an even simpler question for iano and his ilk. Would he rather let kids grow up in orphanages or would he rather them being put in loving families, even if these families are homosexual couples?
I recently made a big career change. I've finally found something that I am truly happy with. Very soon, we will resume our application to adopt. It is unthinkable to my wife and I that if we were a gay couple we'd have to fight iano and his ilk just for the right to adopt homeless children. It's his ilk that made Texas ban gay couples there to adopt.
Superior christian values my ass.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Rahvin, if you haven't noticed, Hoot Mon is using what is known as the infinite regression tactic against you guys. It's pretty much demanding you to prove every tiny little detail that supports your position, and then demand you to prove every tiny detail that supports the details that support your position and so on and so forth. He could go on like this forever, you know.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Then please take my simple test for bigots: If you have four children, and if you have no prejudice against homosexuality, then you will hope that two of your children become gay. If you hoped otherwise then you're a bigot.
Again, is your senility this bad? When I have kids, I hope that they will be healthy and happy. I hope that I will be as best a parent as I could be. I don't hope one way or the other if they'll be gay or straight. I don't hope one way or the other if they'll be a lawyer or doctor or mechanic or a cashier at walmart. I'll certainly encourage them to take higher education. But regardless, they'll be my children.
Tell me this: It won't be very long before they discovery the biological roots of homosexuality. A gene maybe. Or maybe a queer chemical experience. And when they do make that discovery they will find a way to reverse homosexuality into heterosexuality. Some form of therapy will become available to correct that condition. Now, FliesOnly, when that happens are you still going to claim that choice is not a factor in being gay?
Now, you are playing semantics. You know damn well that the choice you just described is a different kind of choice than being a homosexual or being a heterosexual. It's like left handed versus right handed. Is being left handed a choice? I'm pretty sure there are some people out there who decided to be left handed some time in their lives. If medical science is able to find a "cure" for left-handedness it still would not change the fact that most left-handed people never had a choice to begin with.
By the way, I am right handed. If they find a "cure" for right-handedness, I would never ever take the cure. I am perfectly happy with the way I am. Why in the world would I expect a left-handed person to want to be "cured"? In the same token, I'm straight and would not want to change into a homosexual anytime soon. I am perfectly happy the way I am. Why in the world would I expect a homosexual to want to change anymore than I want to change?
Hoot, bigotry comes in a lot of colors. I know it when I see it. You are a genuine (I wouldn't be surprised if you're also a certified) bigot.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
That fine day in biology has not yet arrived, but it will. And when it does your argument goes out into the trash.
Again, how senile are you? You and I spent about 3 pages in another thread talking about this issue. I thought I made it clear to you then that even if homosexuality is completely a choice it would still not negate their rights to pursue happiness. I thought I made it clear to you then that biological or not has nothing to do with the issue.
Well, that's a matter of opinion. Should I call you a bigot just for disagreeing with me? Where's your moral authority? Cruising up the Hershey Highway.*
Every person on the face of the planet belongs to some kind of minority group. The fact that I am a male automatically puts me in a minority group (there are more women around!). My moral authority is the fact that in order to ensure my safety and your safety and the safety of every decent human being in our society we need to protect EVERY minority group as long as what defines them as a minority doesn't infringe the rights of other people.
You still have not provided a real reason why gay marriage would affect or harm anyone else beside the gay couple except for "it grosses me out to see 2 men kissing in public..."
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
I find a great deal of hypocrisy in those who cry "Bigot!" over the gay-marriage issue. If I were a black person I would be offended by those who attached the word "bigot" to people who oppose gay marriage; it trivializes the plight of blacks who know much better the true meaning of the term.
This is bullshit. I know a gay couple who tried to get an apartment in Chicago. This was back in the late 80s. They talked to the woman (she was black mind you) who represented the housing agency. They told her that they wanted a single bedroom apartment. She got up and said right into their faces "we don't serve your kind here, please leave". This was coming out of the mouth of someone that not too long ago heard the same words from another group of people.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Look, I've already said in this thread that there is a simple solution to the problem; it's real and it's doable. Just take "marriage" out of the law.
And this is exactly why we think you're a bigot. Almost noone will support taking marriage out of the law. This is an impractical goal. This is an impossible goal. And because YOU KNOW it is an impractical and impossible goal, you support it so in the end nothing gets done.
Just imagine during the height of the segregation period someone suggests that we get rid of public transportation, public bathrooms, public drinking fountains, etc. completely and thus everyone is finally treated equally. That's an impossible goal. That's a bullshit goal. And in the end nothing is achieved and segretation is still in place.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Hold on there, rahvin. You're forgetting that those forces are perceived by others as acting in different directions. Who's pushing whom? There is a preponderance of married people in America today who feel that allowing gays to get married would somehow compromise the meaning of their own marriages. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong; it only matter as opinions in peoples' minds. There is no moral authority on this issue that everyone will respect. Don't dismiss these Heartland people. I see no good reason why their opinions on this matter shouldn't count as much as yours. If you say they shouldn't then you're a bigot, bigot.
As I have said many many times now, not all opinions are equal. Rahvin's opinion in this case is more valid than the opinions of your precious heartland people. Why? Because he's been able to support his opinion whereas these heartland people haven't been able to support their opinion. We still haven't heard a single response explaining why gay marriage would ruin straight marriage.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
™ Version 4.2