Be honest. "Gay rights" is code for more affirmative action.

[poet]

[

You cannot use a harmless activity as justification for legalizing a harmful one. Gay marriage is harmless. Pedophilia is not.

The priest scandal proved most gay men are child molesters.

No, the priest scandal proved that the Catholic Church's celibacy rule needs to end.

Obviously, vows of celibacy are a farce.

 

[g5000]

I hold no disdain for equality, but I have respect for tradition and the meaning of words. I AM in the 21st century, poet. The dictionary definition of "marriage" is still the legal and spiritual union of one adult man and one adult woman.
You would like to scrap that definition. Perhaps you would like to change it to a union of 2 or more mammals with no restrictions on species, age, sex or the number of participants. Not me. Words have meanings sir. THAT doesn't make me a bigot

You couldn't possibly have respect for equality, which is the whole point. Obviously, the definition in the dictionary is "outdated", and it will be modified. Society, not I, is rapidly "scrapping" that definition. And typically, you want to stretch the definition to include animals, polygamy, and pedophilia. No one is suggesting that. But that doesn't stop you, does it? Yes....it most certainly makes you a bigot.

Ernie does not need any defense as he is quite capable but let me give you my experience this as I am in the deep south:
1. Homophobes which is Ernie is not.
2. Against gay marriage which Ernie is and I believe him to be wrong but that does not make Ernie a bigot.

If someone was opposed to my receiving the same privileges which others enjoy, all things being equal with the exception of a quality of mine which they do not like, I would say it is inarguable that person is a bigot toward that particular quality.

 

[FA_Q2]

Just like letting black men marry white women was legislating morality.

Well yes except that you have it backwards.

PREVENTING white and black people from marring (just like preventing gays) is legislating morality – and legislating morality is inherently incorrect because morality is not a universal government truth.

I was making a point for Darkwind.

I know. There is NO WAY that I actually thought you believed what was typed – I have read too many of your posts

I just thought I would add that the entire line of reasoning was backwards. If you really wanted to go down the ‘morality’ road the right would be fucked on that line of logic. The only acceptable line to attack gay marriage is on the societal harm angle and that has failed to produce any real proof.

 

[Ernie S.]

You couldn't possibly have respect for equality, which is the whole point. Obviously, the definition in the dictionary is "outdated", and it will be modified. Society, not I, is rapidly "scrapping" that definition. And typically, you want to stretch the definition to include animals, polygamy, and pedophilia. No one is suggesting that. But that doesn't stop you, does it? Yes....it most certainly makes you a bigot.

Who the **** are YOU to doubt my respect for anything, except maybe you?

Hey if we're going to redefine marriage, why stop with gays. Why NOT multiple spouses, children, sheep? Where does it stop. We need constants in life.

I vote we make Pi 3.25 It will be a lot more convenient.

Because most sane and "normal" human beings wouldn't "go there", thinking that polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality is synonymous with same sex marriages. It stops at consensual human beings, not related and of legal age. The world is changing, and you can't stop it...your only option is to accept and adapt. Sorry.

Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".

Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.

 

[Ernie S.]

You couldn't possibly have respect for equality, which is the whole point. Obviously, the definition in the dictionary is "outdated", and it will be modified. Society, not I, is rapidly "scrapping" that definition. And typically, you want to stretch the definition to include animals, polygamy, and pedophilia. No one is suggesting that. But that doesn't stop you, does it? Yes....it most certainly makes you a bigot.

Who the **** are YOU to doubt my respect for anything, except maybe you?

Hey if we're going to redefine marriage, why stop with gays. Why NOT multiple spouses, children, sheep? Where does it stop. We need constants in life.

I vote we make Pi 3.25 It will be a lot more convenient.

Classic slippery slope fallacy.

You cannot use a harmless activity as justification for legalizing a harmful one. Gay marriage is harmless. Pedophilia is not.

Why is it that bigots invariably try to equate homosexuality with bestiality and/or incest and/or pedophilia, EVERY TIME!?

What about polygamy and bestiality? Every time you relax the standards, the improbable gets less unlikely.

Why is it that someone who stands on principle becomes a bigot in the eyes of Progressives?

 

[FA_Q2]

Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".

Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.

Except you are refusing to realize that the ‘aberrant' group in question is doing nothing illegal unlike molestation and bestiality which are both illegal acts. If you want to extend this to polygamy, fine – it does not matter. There would be nothing wrong with that but I doubt it will go that far because many of those rights become convoluted when attempting to involve more than one spouse. The point is that none of the ‘slippery slope’ results lead to any harm whatsoever. There is nothing ‘bad’ about a polygamous relationship and the other arguments are moot as the acts are outright illegal.

 

[Ernie S.]

I have no problem with civil unions whatsoever. My problem is with the constant redefinition of words.
Take "racism" for example. A racist used to be a guy in a white robe and a pointy hat that considered one race superior to another. Today, the left is seeking to change that to anyone who disagrees with the President.

The truth of the matter is "why" you disagree with the President. Is it for policy and politics or, is it because he is "black"? As much as you'd like to deny it, I believe the latter is true.

hey Poet.....can anyone in this Country disagree with the President without it being racial?.....i was in a thread where i was disagreeing with the President,and explained why i disagreed,called him President Obama,treated him respectably and i was still told it was because he is black.....and i do realize there are those who are against him because he is black.....but you can tell them by how they address his name....is he supposed to be allowed to do whatever he wants because he is black without anyone questioning him?.....

Only blacks can criticize blacks, you dumb cracker!

 

[Gadawg73]

You couldn't possibly have respect for equality, which is the whole point. Obviously, the definition in the dictionary is "outdated", and it will be modified. Society, not I, is rapidly "scrapping" that definition. And typically, you want to stretch the definition to include animals, polygamy, and pedophilia. No one is suggesting that. But that doesn't stop you, does it? Yes....it most certainly makes you a bigot.

Ernie does not need any defense as he is quite capable but let me give you my experience this as I am in the deep south:
1. Homophobes which is Ernie is not.
2. Against gay marriage which Ernie is and I believe him to be wrong but that does not make Ernie a bigot.

If someone was opposed to my receiving the same privileges which others enjoy, all things being equal with the exception of a quality of mine which they do not like, I would say it is inarguable that person is a bigot toward that particular quality.

All things are never equal and a lot of ifs in the equation does not make someone a bigot.
A bigot is someone that treats others with hate and is prejudiced against someone else.
Just like racism the word bigotry is thrown around like shot gun pellets.

 

[g5000]

Who the **** are YOU to doubt my respect for anything, except maybe you?

Hey if we're going to redefine marriage, why stop with gays. Why NOT multiple spouses, children, sheep? Where does it stop. We need constants in life.

I vote we make Pi 3.25 It will be a lot more convenient.

Classic slippery slope fallacy.

You cannot use a harmless activity as justification for legalizing a harmful one. Gay marriage is harmless. Pedophilia is not.

Why is it that bigots invariably try to equate homosexuality with bestiality and/or incest and/or pedophilia, EVERY TIME!?

What about polygamy and bestiality? Every time you relax the standards, the improbable gets less unlikely.

Why is it that someone who stands on principle becomes a bigot in the eyes of Progressives?

Don't assume I am a Progressive. I am not.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between harmful and harmless?

 

[rightwinger]

Who the **** are YOU to doubt my respect for anything, except maybe you?

Hey if we're going to redefine marriage, why stop with gays. Why NOT multiple spouses, children, sheep? Where does it stop. We need constants in life.

I vote we make Pi 3.25 It will be a lot more convenient.

Because most sane and "normal" human beings wouldn't "go there", thinking that polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality is synonymous with same sex marriages. It stops at consensual human beings, not related and of legal age. The world is changing, and you can't stop it...your only option is to accept and adapt. Sorry.

Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".

Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.

Many people still don't accept interracial marriages either. You don't have to personally accept....but in legal matters, you do

 

[Gadawg73]

Obama was opposed to gay marriage and how many Democrats voted for him and would have never claim he was a bigot.
Oh, wait a minute, a Democrat is never a bigot for opposing gay marriage but any Republican that does is a right wing religious kook bigot.

 

[poet]

Who the **** are YOU to doubt my respect for anything, except maybe you?

Hey if we're going to redefine marriage, why stop with gays. Why NOT multiple spouses, children, sheep? Where does it stop. We need constants in life.

I vote we make Pi 3.25 It will be a lot more convenient.

Because most sane and "normal" human beings wouldn't "go there", thinking that polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality is synonymous with same sex marriages. It stops at consensual human beings, not related and of legal age. The world is changing, and you can't stop it...your only option is to accept and adapt. Sorry.

Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".

Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.

Aberrant? You have your nerve. You insult me, and other gays in the forum, to our faces, in open forum, and I'm supposed to abide you???????? Who cares if you don't accept.

 

[Gadawg73]

Believe me sports fans I have seen my share of bigots and racists in my 58 years!

 

[bendog]

Who the **** are YOU to doubt my respect for anything, except maybe you?

Hey if we're going to redefine marriage, why stop with gays. Why NOT multiple spouses, children, sheep? Where does it stop. We need constants in life.

I vote we make Pi 3.25 It will be a lot more convenient.

Because most sane and "normal" human beings wouldn't "go there", thinking that polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality is synonymous with same sex marriages. It stops at consensual human beings, not related and of legal age. The world is changing, and you can't stop it...your only option is to accept and adapt. Sorry.

Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".

Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.

Gay marriage will open the floodgates for polygamny and fundy islam?

 

[Gadawg73]

Who the **** are YOU to doubt my respect for anything, except maybe you?

Hey if we're going to redefine marriage, why stop with gays. Why NOT multiple spouses, children, sheep? Where does it stop. We need constants in life.

I vote we make Pi 3.25 It will be a lot more convenient.

Because most sane and "normal" human beings wouldn't "go there", thinking that polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality is synonymous with same sex marriages. It stops at consensual human beings, not related and of legal age. The world is changing, and you can't stop it...your only option is to accept and adapt. Sorry.

Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".

Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.

Total Bull shit there Ernie.
They said the same thing with interracial marriage and women's right to vote.
40 years ago gays were treated like 2nd class citizens and that was the norm.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Because most sane and "normal" human beings wouldn't "go there", thinking that polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality is synonymous with same sex marriages. It stops at consensual human beings, not related and of legal age. The world is changing, and you can't stop it...your only option is to accept and adapt. Sorry.

Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".

Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.

Gay marriage will open the floodgates for polygamny and fundy islam?

The difference is there is no compelling government interest in limiting Civil Marriage based on gender, there is a compelling government interest to limiting Civil Marraige to two participants.

If by "fundy islam" you mean limiting Civil Marriage to age of consent, then yes there is a compelling government interest in preventing child rape.



>>>>

 

[High_Gravity]

Gay rights are icky.

 

[Ernie S.]

You couldn't possibly have respect for equality, which is the whole point. Obviously, the definition in the dictionary is "outdated", and it will be modified. Society, not I, is rapidly "scrapping" that definition. And typically, you want to stretch the definition to include animals, polygamy, and pedophilia. No one is suggesting that. But that doesn't stop you, does it? Yes....it most certainly makes you a bigot.

Ernie does not need any defense as he is quite capable but let me give you my experience this as I am in the deep south:
1. Homophobes which is Ernie is not.
2. Against gay marriage which Ernie is and I believe him to be wrong but that does not make Ernie a bigot.

If someone was opposed to my receiving the same privileges which others enjoy, all things being equal with the exception of a quality of mine which they do not like, I would say it is inarguable that person is a bigot toward that particular quality.

I am NOT opposed to your receiving the same privileges which others enjoy. I am opposed to you calling it marriage, popcorn or bandanna.
It is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of definitions.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Because most sane and "normal" human beings wouldn't "go there", thinking that polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality is synonymous with same sex marriages. It stops at consensual human beings, not related and of legal age. The world is changing, and you can't stop it...your only option is to accept and adapt. Sorry.

Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".

Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.

Total Bull shit there Ernie.
They said the same thing with interracial marriage and women's right to vote.
40 years ago gays were treated like 2nd class citizens and that was the norm.

40 years ago gays were not only treated as 2nd class citizens, they could be jailed.



>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Shit, all the waste of time about gay marriage.
From folk that have been total failures of marriage.
The definition of marriage in America is DIVORCE as more kids are raised from divorced parents in America than married ones.
Let them get married and be miserable like the rest of us.
Will not affect anyone in any way and not change a thing.
I have 2 relatives that are gay and want to get married and my tired old worn out 58 year old body will be there to celebrate it.
I am about as country as one can get. Told gay jokes in the locker room and bad ones at that, grew up when the Klan was still marching down here, played on the 1st integrated football team at my high school as a sophomore-watch Remember The Titans for what that was like and changed my way years ago when it finally hit me, gay folk FALL IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER.
To honor that love we should celebrate it as Christians and support it.
Oh hell, ain't if fuckin crazy? We in shootin wars and folks worry about gay folk.