This is my last post on the subject. I do not seek, nor do I expect 'middle ground'. You've gotta be joking. Given the rancorous nature of your participation in this and other threads, I consider your accusation of 'personal attacks' to the quintessence of 'intellectual dishonesty'. Spare me the sanctimony. Back in the good ol' days, they called a certain collection of Constitutional amendments the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Restrictions. It was a document of inclusiveness, not exclusiveness. I suggest that you weigh your statement above against the tenor of Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Now, before you return to your 'rights vs. social institutions' rant - please allow me to quote the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Furthermore, if I may borrow from Chief Justice Earl Warren (1967): "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." I offer these quotes without further commentary - they stand on their own merits. You, on the the other hand, are free to twist them as necessary to bolster the dogma to which you subscribe.
I was once ok with gay marriage. I live in one of the buildings in this picture. Lotta gays round here. No problem with them. I used to get hit on a lot- as a precocious 12 year old I knew my priest was gay-and I always just took it as a compliment. The Chicago Republican Party was VERY gay-A gay Chairman even-and I had a Republican election judge who worked the poll as a cross dresser! A higher percentage of gays than Jews voted for McCain two weeks ago. The issue of incest blows the gay marriage argument out of the water. Suddenly it's no longer about any two consenting adults seeking Equal Protection but about another media/elite lobbied political class. Pandering to the nth degree. The acceptance of equal rights for gays or anyone pertaining to housing and employment is universal. Gender orientation after all has little to do with job performance. But marriage is all about sexual standards. The tax code is written, social security and pension benefits delivered under a premise that most marriages produce children and that mothers conceded earnings potential to raise a family. We already have underfunded liabilities in the trillions i see little wisdom in deepening the hole with married same sex partners. Big picture I see all of this stuff as further evidence we're just another depraved, amoral, horse shit, declining empire. A fitting end would be Russia and the U.S. nuking themselves off the planet....
In the end it comes down to which rights are fundamental and protected from a vote of the people. As a side note what happens when two constitutional rights collide - such as your freedom of speech. Should you be able to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. In the end the question is do gays deserve the right to marry over the vote of the people - and if so why - and can you provide good rationale for the decision to over rule the vote of the people. Gay is a choice - it is not like being black or a being a women. Being jewish or muslim or christian or atheist is a choice but that right was specifically protected in our constitution. (Note even that right is not unfettered - Indians can't smoke peyote in their religious ceremonies.) Why does Gay marriage deserve to be protected the way a black person's right to marry a white person does. or vice versa. 2 men are not a specifically protected class and they are not minorities. So when you say two men can get married why not two men and a women? Any rationale you come up with is irrational. Therefore you must be left with the vote of the people not the desire of some judges. There is no good reason to allow gay marriage and then deny that same right to 2 women and a man. Banning Gay marriage is nothing more important than millions of other laws. Gays have no fundamental right to be married. Arguing they are being deprived of rights or being treated unequally, is disingenuous. They have a perfect vehicle for equality - civil unions. Gay marriage is just a tool being used by radicals to get their way of life some sort of imprimatur. If they want society to recognize their union as a marriage they should do so with a vote.
One reason I don't like gays is they hit on straights to see if they can get some action. I have been hit on many times and it makes me sick. They have no boundaries when it comes to this. Maybe some do, I don't know. I can hardly believe they seek the same rights as normal people. Why don't they realize they are making a perverted lifestyle choice?
Wow, given your strong reaction to being hit on, I'd have to say you are probably gay and afraid of coming out of the closet...
That's not fair. The source of my homophobia is being hit on at a young age and it scared me to death. Men are men and some of them are very aggressive and don't take no for an answer. We see it all the time with heterosexual males hitting on women, what makes you assume there are no gay males like that? They aren't all limp-wristed queens, to assume they are is a form of prejudice itself. Gays need to realize that a large source of homophobia is members of their own community being aggressive with straight males who want no part of their sex lifestyle. Exhibit A: Mark Foley treating the Congressional Page Office like his personal dating service.
The true agenda of the gays is to have use of the word "Marriage" With civil unions they would receive all the same rights but they want more. At this point in time the State should drop the word "Marriage". Leave that word only for the church. The true agenda is to make gay lifestyle an alternate but equal lifestyle. They want to promote this message to school children. They want to make 2 daddies / mommies as normal as red, white and blue. Is this alternative equal? What is considered deviant behavior?Some in psychology believe once you get 2 standard deviations from the norm you get into deviant behavior. That means a population under 5%. It is no accident the gays fight hard to claim a population over 5% ,they say close to 10%. Most non-gays put it close to 2%.
You nailed it. EXACTLY, and that's what they should never be granted, the acceptance of society at large. Gayness is a perversion and until we have scientific proof (genetic marker or biologically grounded proof ). It should be tolerated and nothing more.
So you are comparing yourself to a woman who was hit on at an early age by a man, and developed a fear of men? Is that really your story? Are you really afraid gay guys are going to rape you? How often do you read a newspaper article about a normal guy getting raped by a gang or some big strong homosexual? Doesn't wash, I still think you are afraid of your own gay shadow lurking in the closet...