This is what I don't get about the anti-gay crowd

I know. I have many.

 

Well, I believe that people who are out to deny other people their civil rights based on a religious ideology...



are REALLY REALLY REALLY stupid.

 

Ever notice how so many on the right seem totally fixated on homosexuality? Ever wonder why?

 

You are lying....but that should not surprise anyone. People who hate gays are almost always liars as well.

 

the liklihood of a gay person who loves kids to become a pedophile is great. .

 

mybe because Gays are fixated on changing the laws of marriage?

 

Well, I'm not gay myself, but I understand what you mean.

There are certain apologists for Islam here that seem to dodge the topic of how the Islamic World treats homosexuals. I don't think any rational person would argue that things like what your article mentions are humane.

However, I view the Islamic attitude toward gays as just a more blatant version of how certain Christians view them. Pastor Worley clearly wouldn't mind killing a few gays.

My personal take on it is that we need to promote tolerance of gays so that we don't end up leaning in the Iran direction concerning them.

 

The "rights" have been poorly defined. Marriage should be defined as the right of one adult to marry one other consenting adult.

Problem solved. It was just the constitution thing that was bothering you right? Fixed it.

 

That's funny, I don't recall the section of the Constitution that lays out marriage rights and excludes them from same-sex couples. I DO recall parts in that document and in the Declaration about equality, equal rights, and very importantly in this case, a freedom from religious doctrine, but I guess you didn't read those parts just like I didn't read the parts about marriage.

Just so I can combat my own ignorance, where in the Constitution does it say it's legal to extend rights to some but not others?

 

Um...that requires the will of the majority. The majority has been very clear on that score.

It's already fixed.

 

Non sequitur. It also never lays out marriage with goats either.

You'll have to point out for me what commentary on marriage in the Constitution to which you refer - because I don't see it. Because of that, gays can "marry" each other now. You're asking for Government approval of such an act - but Government isn't supposed to do that with which to begin.

Society can remove rights from individuals as it sees fit to protect itself. Such an act is undertaken with the approval of the majority, and voted to pass through their elected representatives.

At this point, the people - and by extension their Representatives - wish for gays not to be legally acknowledged as having 'married', even though nothing on this Earth stops two gays from believing in their hearts that they are.

I am in favor of removing all special tax treatment for marriages, and ensuring that gay 'couples' have the same privileges as anyone else, thus eliminating this issue as a point of contention. At that point, any further push by the gay community to 'legalize' gay marriage will simply be a transparent attempt to force society to accept something about their lifestyle that they do not each individually wish to accept, and their agenda will be laid bare.

 

Where does the will of the majority have any say in the rights of other citizens?? I must have missed that somewhere. Would you please point out the section where that is stated??

 

Of course, leveling the field by removing the rights from heterosexuals will never happen. So you can remain happily bigoted thinking you put out a solution and you are no longer part of the problem. Wrong on both counts.

 

I think you are conflating rights with privileges, though even rights can be removed if an individual's behaviour is not deemed acceptable to society. Felons, for instance, lose many 'rights' which the rest of society enjoys.

Nearly any law you can cite is an example of a restriction on the activities of citizens.

 

You disagree with me, and you're butt-hurt about it. I get it. I have lauded no notion of a removal of 'rights' from heterosexuals. I simply condone the notion of treating all people equally, as a single person has the same gripe about Government preferential treatment of married people as do gays.

But you disagree with me, and you're butt-hurt about it. I get it.

 

It wasn't a non-sequiter, it was a response to someone who claimed the Constitution gives a basis for discriminatory marriage laws. I simply asked that person to point out where the Constitution allows laws that give rights to one group of people while denying equal protection of the law to others.

My point was exactly that the Constitution DOES NOT mention marriage, and so using the Constitution to justify discriminatory marriage laws is not correct. Again, it was a response to someone else and you need to understand the context of my reply.

I would not object to removing discriminatory marriage benefits, thereby making everyone "equal". My objection with the current system is that it is exclusionary for no justifiable reason, other than subjective discomfort. I really have no interest in using the law to make anyone feel better about themselves, and I really don't think that has anything to do with the bulk of the push for same-sex marriage rights. To say that people campaigning for equal treatment under the law are just looking for the law to make them feel better about being different is sort of silly. Everyone is different, and any law that restricts someone based on a subjective discomfort with somebodies differences is wrong in my opinion, as long as that "difference" is not harmful to others, is not illegal behavior(for example, if they were campaigning for the right to use drugs that are illegal for others to use, I would not support that), and is not impinging on the freedoms of others. Same-sex marriage does none of those things.

People can still feel however they want to about homosexuality with or without non-discriminatory marriage laws. Legalizing it is not going to make those opposed to it, and to homosexuality in general, suddenly stop having those thoughts and opinions. It's simply going to equalize things in terms of the law, which is not supposed to be used as a tool to oppress anyone or to reflect the subjective discomfort people have with something WHEN that something is not illegal, not harmful, and not affecting the freedoms of others.

 

NO, I am talking about rights. Where does it say that the majority can restrict the rights of a group of citizens for no legal reason, except that they wish to???

FYI...Marriage is a right (see multiple Supreme Court rulings to that effect).

 

I don't get how homosexuals (blacks too for that matter) don't get that the side you align yourselves with doesn't care for you. You're a vote or seventy. You're expendable. Their other allies would even torture and hang you up by your neck on a tall crane for everyone to enjoy.

At least with Christians, you're tolerated and even seen as salvageable. In their opinion it's just wrong that you think you can run the show. So which group of people would you rather live (christians) or die (muslims) with. this is gonna be interesting.

 

go. marry. Do whatever. but leave the majorities laws alone (legal and moral and ethical laws). State after state says no. That's just it.

 

You are making an assumption that it is all about religion with people you deem ''anti-gay". It isn't. It is a combination of factors for a good many people.

 

This isn't a case of Christians and Muslims. Real Christians and Muslims are nobody you know or have ever read about. The ones that make the papers are the fanatics. They are BOTH out to kill (literally or figuaritivly) anyone who disagrees with them.

 

How about the ones who recently killed dozens of young men they suspected of being gay in Iraq? Stoned them to death for their 'emo' dress. Yeah, they're fanatics alright... but it's not like you see Southern Baptists doing the same thing.

Islamic countries routinely murder gays... it's a fact the gay community seems to want to ignore. Gotta wonder why.

 

The same way felons lose their rights because society says so.

You're hung up on the definition. You're trying to apply the definition of marriage in any way you see fit, and society has chosen to object.

 

Only because we don't let them.

 

How many times do we have to answer this before it sinks in? How does it impact YOU? It doesn't! You're not gay, are you? Okay then. Your question works both ways. If it doesn't affect you any more than it affects us, then why do you have such a strong opinion on it? And why do you want to deny us an opinion on that same issue just because we disagree with you? You're contradicting yourself. And it's pretty ironic considering the fact that your whole modus operandi here is "equal rights."

Look, I get it. Your approach is entirely emotional. You believe so strongly that your position is right that you want to shut the other side up, but logically this is not a valid argument. You are shooting yourself in the foot every time you try this angle.