This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - Edit 2
Before modification by Dannymac at 08/08/2010 10:48:35 PM
Look who's talking! You don't see that granting a special privilege and a novelty institution is a dagnerous precedent, much less compelling others to render artificial respect and legal obligations to said institution, just because you perceive an iniquity where none exists. Because of the aberrant behavior and choices of homosexuals exclude them by their own choice from certain social constructs and lifestyles, they demand that a pointless institution be created and legally empowered, even forced down the throats of those who do not share their beliefs. This is not a case of inequality or discrimination - the status quo applies equally to both sides. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the exact same rights of marriage. Neither may marry a person of the same sex and either may marry any eligible person of the opposite sex. The personal choices of homosexuals to abstain from such arrangements does not entitle them to special privileges, anymore than the refusal of Catholics to eat meat on Fridays entitles them to legally compell restaurants to serve meatless dishes.
So your argument is that since a gay man can marry a woman as much as a straight guy, there is no inequality involved? That alone is gender discrimination by definition.
If it makes you feel any better, in the states where gay marriage is currently legal, you would be able to marry another man, as well, presuming you found one to agree to it. You see? Still all fair!
In what manner do they scare me, and why don't you demonstrate some evidence of that? You are the one making illogical, unreasoned and unsupported arguments. You draw parallels where none exist and compare completely unrelated institutions and practices. You are excoriating people for making a decision that affects their lives and communities because it is at odds with your aesthetic sensibilities.
Homosexuality clearly frightens you. If it did not, you would not care whether gays married or not. As it does not affect you directly, it would not bother you in the least. But it does, doesn't it? Proven.
The only relation between marriage of gays and marriage of Christians that I made was that of a minority group being targeted by a majority using hysterical arguments as justification. You have gotten by now that I am not ACTUALLY advocating banning of Christian marriage, right?
You are the one trying to do damage, by insisting that people make changes they will have to live with and do not want to, according to your ideals, while showing absolutely no evidence of having considered the ramifications beyond an artificial abstract notion of false equality.
In what way will you have to "live with" the changes I am discussing? There are many gays married to each other. How are they affecting you? At all?
I am not showing evidence of having considered ramifications because there frankly aren't any, besides one: Homosexuals will be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage to each other. No one is asking you to be happy about homosexual marriage, or even approve of it. You can be as disapproving as you want, so long as you respect the personal rights of the people involved.
You are a shallow, thoughtless and selfish demagogue, regardless of ideology.
Yeah, I am the shallow, thoughtless, and selfish demagogue. The one who is advocating for the equality of a group he does not belong to, man is that selfish.
I COULD be like you, advocating continued oppression of a group I don't belong to, angrily protecting an unequal status quo. Man, I wish I could be selfless like that.