Somewhere along the way the gays decided to claim their "civil rights" and demand equal access to straight culture. That's were I started to say: Hey, wait minute. First they don't want to be like the straights and then they do.
Even if we accept, for argument's sake, that your limited experience with gay culture (I use limited in the sense that everyone's experience is, by the fact that it's not the totality of all experience, limited) can stand for the whole of gay culture... how on earth is it hypocritical for people to change?
OK, maybe you're right. Maybe the gays have changed. Fine.
"The gays" have only changed if we accept that the viewpoint of the gay people you knew was the viewpoint of all gay people. Of course they weren't. And, anyway, it doesn't matter whether or not they've changed.
Fine. But I still don't know why I should change my mind and support the "marriage" between same sexes.
You should only change your mind if you wish to support equality.
Marriage is between opposite sexes. Let the fairies do it their own way.
Doubtless they will, as do most married couples. Some married people aren't even sexually monogomous, or so the legend goes.
Give them have whatever they want, but don't let them change the meaning of "marriage." Why? Because we don't need to if they have civil unions. That's my opinion, OK.
Yeah, I get that it's your opinion. So, basically, you want to give them whatever they want up until the word "marriage" is threatened? I understand that with civil unions you feel we won't have to change the meaning of marriage. But why is it your opinion that we need to preserve this word? What good does it do anyone to preserve the definition of a word?
(Lordie, Lordie, I tried to explain sincerely where I'm coming from and look at all the grief I got for it.)
I, for one, appreciate your sincerity. But I find where you're coming from rather appalling for reasons that others have already gone over.
Hmm. I don't see that something is being destroyed, only expanded upon.
Changing "Marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman." to "Marriage is sometimes between a man and a woman, two men, or two women". (for simplicity's sake I've left out the polygamous marriages out there in the real world)
Oh wait, I do see something being destroyed: exclusivity.
Boys, boys. In the Land of Milk and Honey, just south of Canuckistan, the MAJORITY of people agree with me.
You should start a club. You know you'll have plenty of members and you can charge dues, so you would make a lot of money.
Otherwise, who cares?
We are dealing with opinions here, not facts of civil equality.
Oh yeah, you should tell that to a friend of mine. He's gay, from England, has been in a relationship with his partner for 10 years. The partner was transferred to America. My friend doesn't have a job that will sponsor his visa. So, he can't stay in the country with his partner because no one is willing to recognize that these two are, for all intents and purposes, married. Just an opinion.
And your opinions are not going anywhere important soon, because your opinions are basically not biological.
Dan was right: Your cat's breath DOES smell like cat food. This is pure nonsense, Ralph.
That sounds like as good a reason for an anullment as any.
Have you given any thought as to why you feel you've got to protect the definition of the word "marriage"... or are you now completely shifting your argument to tell us why you think being gay is bio-illogical?