Thread: BREAKING: CURRENT EVENT A Majority of Americans DO NOT support gay marriage. WAPO

Originally Posted by paco

Don't go stealing Skystryker's thunder now, Colombine! He said that gays "as a whole" wouldn't accept such a thing happening, and I want to hear why. If gays want the marriage thing so badly, then they're going to have to accept everything that goes along with it.

.

You gays and gaykissers HAVEN'T thought this all through, or conveniently choose to ignore it, or else you would have a better answer for me than "well straights are doing it too!" If it really didn't bother SS that there are scores of straight con men and women just waiting to pounce on the gay marriage thing, then he never would have brought it up in the first place.

They wouldn't approve as a whole because there would be no beneficial reasons. It would cause more harm than not.

Originally Posted by Bow To The Robots

It just shows how they project their lack of objectivity. To their thinking, the only person capable of advocating for equal treatment under the law for homosexuals would be a homosexual. It's not their fault--we lack objectivity as a species.

I see it slightly differently. The absence of a single valid reason to be against equality in marriage mandates an irrational defense. Thinking only gays advocate for equality stems from the inability to justify the bigotry. You can lack objectivity but still give a sound argument on any number of issues. In their minds, the proof they are correct is any dissenter must be either an admitted or closet gay.

Originally Posted by SkyStryker

Blacks could marry as long as they followed the same requirements to marry only blacks.

White could marry as long as they followed the same requirements to marry only whites.

So once again, by your logic, there was no discrimination when interracial marriage was illegal.

Once again, they had the SAME RULES FOR EVERYONE when they said people had to marry people of the same race.

exactly....

Setting social icons for our absorbent youngsters to aspire to is the real issue at hand here. Anyone here study Ancient Greece? It didn't go from traditional heterosexual couplings to man on boy sex overnight. It was a gradual progression of pushing the envelope on gay sex first, then on younger and younger partners until sex with 8 year old boys was normal for older men. I know, we're different right? We're a "different" breed of homo sapiens, right? Then why is it in California, young boys are being taught to accept a sexual predator of minor boys as their "hero"?

The incremental usurping of our icons has begun. If we don't check it now, it will get away with us. Monkey see, monkey do is still in full force and effect. A few thousand years makes no difference in our hardwiring and absorbent young minds..

Originally Posted by SkyStryker

They wouldn't approve as a whole because there would be no beneficial reasons. It would cause more harm than not.

Translation: Because gays would discriminate against straights engaging in same-sex marriages just as much as straights discriminate against gays engaging in same-sex marriages.

.

It's okay, Skystryker, you can say it! Heck, I'll even agree with you. This is why marriage is better off left alone. You homos can have your civil unions. Just establish yourselves a civil union license, or move to a same-sex marriage state, and be done with it already.

Either allow gay and lesbian couples to marry or give them a tax break because they are denied like privileges. You can't ask someone to contribute paying an equal share of taxes without equal benefit.

Originally Posted by paco

Translation: Because gays would discriminate against straights engaging in same-sex marriages just as much as straights discriminate against gays engaging in same-sex marriages.

.

It's okay, Skystryker, you can say it! Heck, I'll even agree with you. This is why marriage is better off left alone. You homos can have your civil unions. Just establish yourselves a civil union license, or move to a same-sex marriage state, and be done with it already.

That was a horrible translation. Or is that your definition of translation "straw man?"

I don't think gays would oppose it out of fear of people abusing the system. They wold oppose it because there would be no legitimate reason to lobby it.

Originally Posted by webrockk

Another issue to be considered in the "gay" debate, and it speaks directly to the massive and interminable problems associated with institutionalizing inequity on the federal level.

Since the likelihood of Big Fed extricating itself from the marriage buisiness is infinitesimal, once central planners force all states to recognize gay marriage...and that will ultimately happen, IMO....

the inherent qualities of "victimhood", "class warfare", and "identity politics".....exploitation of the "victim/oppressor" dichotomy...

suggests the next "gay" debate will surround the activist GLBT crowd lobbying for "legal minority status"....which carries "seperate and unequal" benefits such as minority contract set asides, small business tax incentives, forced student and mortgage loan considerations, etc...

You or I may not be around to see it, but don't doubt me on this.

The theory behind affirmative action is it being ment to correct the wrongs of the past, where racial minorities had unequal opportunities.... race being unique because it is passed on with a 100% positive rate from one generation to the next, leading to multiple generations of discriminations where the poor child of the poor child of the poor child of the poor child of the poor child is left with disparity in opportunity and disparity in a family culture that promotes opportunity.

Homosexuality is not passed on from generation to generation, at least not in any sense like Race is. As such there's less case for establishing financial benefits as a minority. There may be a case for some anti discriminatory measures, but affirmative action is not likely

Originally Posted by JeffLV

The theory behind affirmative action is it being ment to correct the wrongs of the past, where racial minorities had unequal opportunities.... race being unique because it is passed on with a 100% positive rate from one generation to the next, leading to multiple generations of discriminations where the poor child of the poor child of the poor child of the poor child of the poor child is left with disparity in opportunity and disparity in a family culture that promotes opportunity.

Homosexuality is not passed on from generation to generation, at least not in any sense like Race is. As such there's less case for establishing financial benefits as a minority. There may be a case for some anti discriminatory measures, but affirmative action is not likely

If I'm to believe the local lefties, white females benefit from AA policies more than any other minority...

(If true, I have suspicions why, and they're directly related to minority set asides, small business tax incentives, etc....
ask, and if I'm in the mood, I'll expand on it)

Originally Posted by Silhouette

Setting social icons for our absorbent youngsters to aspire to is the real issue at hand here. Anyone here study Ancient Greece? It didn't go from traditional heterosexual couplings to man on boy sex overnight. It was a gradual progression of pushing the envelope on gay sex first, then on younger and younger partners until sex with 8 year old boys was normal for older men. I know, we're different right? We're a "different" breed of homo sapiens, right? Then why is it in California, young boys are being taught to accept a sexual predator of minor boys as their "hero"?

The incremental usurping of our icons has begun. If we don't check it now, it will get away with us. Monkey see, monkey do is still in full force and effect. A few thousand years makes no difference in our hardwiring and absorbent young minds..

The age of of marrying girls was the same of boys in ancient greece, has nothing to do with homosexuality.