Marriage Equality in a Nutshell

[OL FU]

Really nice speech and exactly the way it should be handled.

[JohnStOnge]

Really nice speech and exactly the way it should be handled.

I think the way it should be handled at this point is to say that it's time for government to get out of the business of marriage. It's gotten to that point because people disagree on what a marriage should be. So just say that we eliminate the concept of civil marriage and leave it up to religous groups to define marriage as they please; marriages consisting of more than two individuals included.

When I really think about it I don't think people should need a license from the State to say they're married anyway. I mean really.

[kalm]

Really nice speech and exactly the way it should be handled.

I think the way it should be handled at this point is to say that it's time for government to get out of the business of marriage. It's gotten to that point because people disagree on what a marriage should be. So just say that we eliminate the concept of civil marriage and leave it up to religous groups to define marriage as they please; marriages consisting of more than two individuals included.

When I really think about it I don't think people should need a license from the State to say they're married anyway. I mean really.

This.

Or it's time for churches to get out of the business of government.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Really nice speech and exactly the way it should be handled.

I think the way it should be handled at this point is to say that it's time for government to get out of the business of marriage. It's gotten to that point because people disagree on what a marriage should be. So just say that we eliminate the concept of civil marriage and leave it up to religous groups to define marriage as they please; marriages consisting of more than two individuals included.

When I really think about it I don't think people should need a license from the State to say they're married anyway. I mean really.

If you want to disentangle rights and benefits from marriage... then that would be fine... but as it is there are at LEAST 515 benefits that married people have that single people do not in this country.

Civil unions for all as sanctioned by the government - and "marriages" would be purely private within the confines of religious institutions and protected under the 1st Amendment... I'd personally be fine with that in the abstract.

The problem I have with it at this point is this -

It would seem to me to be only a re-trenchment by the forces of inequality in this country whom I think are beginning to awaken to the fact that they are on the losing side of history and are now groping around for a way to "reduce the damage"... or, put another way - anything to deny gay people from the ability to use the word "married"... which just seems petty.

[JohnStOnge]

It would seem to me to be only a re-trenchment by the forces of inequality in this country whom I think are beginning to awaken to the fact that they are on the losing side of history and are now groping around for a way to "reduce the damage"... or, put another way - anything to deny gay people from the ability to use the word "married"... which just seems petty.

It's not about equality or lack thereof. The idea of allowing for Civil Unions provides a route by which, as a practial matter, homosexual couples could acquire the material benefits provided for married couples. But the homosexual community wasn't/isn't satisfied with that. And the reason is that they are interested in changing the way people perceive them. They want homosexually to be perceived as equivalent to heterosexuality.

I look at it as kind of an extension of the "self esteem" movement. Here we have a group afflicted by misdirected sexual orientation and they want to be told there is nothing wrong with them. More than that, they want everyone to believe there's nothing wrong with them. That's why being labeled as "married" is important. It's part of the whole "homosexuality is normal" indoctorination campaign.

Otherwise, if you're going to call opposing the idea of "marriage" among homosexuals "the forces of inequality," then anybody who favors limiting marriage in any way to any sort of arrangement is a member of those forces. If you define marriage at all you limit it and potentially exclude some arrangement some people might like to have recognized as "marriage."

Finally: Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal or equivalent. Heterosexually is the normal sexual orientation for our species. Homosexuality is a disfunctional state. The fact that we're even having this discussion; much less actually implementing marriage between homosexuals, is a sad commentary on just how delusional the radical egalitarianism that's taken hold is making us.

[kalm]

It would seem to me to be only a re-trenchment by the forces of inequality in this country whom I think are beginning to awaken to the fact that they are on the losing side of history and are now groping around for a way to "reduce the damage"... or, put another way - anything to deny gay people from the ability to use the word "married"... which just seems petty.

It's not about equality or lack thereof. The idea of allowing for Civil Unions provides a route by which, as a practial matter, homosexual couples could acquire the material benefits provided for married couples. But the homosexual community wasn't/isn't satisfied with that. And the reason is that they are interested in changing the way people perceive them. They want homosexually to be perceived as equivalent to heterosexuality.

I look at it as kind of an extension of the "self esteem" movement. Here we have a group afflicted by misdirected sexual orientation and they want to be told there is nothing wrong with them. More than that, they want everyone to believe there's nothing wrong with them. That's why being labeled as "married" is important. It's part of the whole "homosexuality is normal" indoctorination campaign.

Otherwise, if you're going to call opposing the idea of "marriage" among homosexuals "the forces of inequality," then anybody who favors limiting marriage in any way to any sort of arrangement is a member of those forces. If you define marriage at all you limit it and potentially exclude some arrangement some people might like to have recognized as "marriage."

Finally: Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal or equivalent. Heterosexually is the normal sexual orientation for our species. Homosexuality is a disfunctional state. The fact that we're even having this discussion; much less actually implementing marriage between homosexuals, is a sad commentary on just how delusional the radical egalitarianism that's taken hold is making us.

I don't think left handed people should be allowed to marry.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

It would seem to me to be only a re-trenchment by the forces of inequality in this country whom I think are beginning to awaken to the fact that they are on the losing side of history and are now groping around for a way to "reduce the damage"... or, put another way - anything to deny gay people from the ability to use the word "married"... which just seems petty.

It's not about equality or lack thereof. The idea of allowing for Civil Unions provides a route by which, as a practial matter, homosexual couples could acquire the material benefits provided for married couples. But the homosexual community wasn't/isn't satisfied with that. And the reason is that they are interested in changing the way people perceive them. They want homosexually to be perceived as equivalent to heterosexuality.

I look at it as kind of an extension of the "self esteem" movement. Here we have a group afflicted by misdirected sexual orientation and they want to be told there is nothing wrong with them. More than that, they want everyone to believe there's nothing wrong with them. That's why being labeled as "married" is important. It's part of the whole "homosexuality is normal" indoctorination campaign.

Otherwise, if you're going to call opposing the idea of "marriage" among homosexuals "the forces of inequality," then anybody who favors limiting marriage in any way to any sort of arrangement is a member of those forces. If you define marriage at all you limit it and potentially exclude some arrangement some people might like to have recognized as "marriage."

Finally: Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal or equivalent. Heterosexually is the normal sexual orientation for our species. Homosexuality is a disfunctional state. The fact that we're even having this discussion; much less actually implementing marriage between homosexuals, is a sad commentary on just how delusional the radical egalitarianism that's taken hold is making us.

got it. you're a bigot. we're done here. you can couch it in flowery language all you'd like, but you're just wrapping fancy words around "God hates fags"...

you want to know why the gay community isn't "satisfied" with the half-measures and condescension you offer? it's pretty much summed up in your little screed. you think you're somehow better. you think your orientation makes you somehow superior, and it's not even the arrogance of your own presumption that is so nauseating... it's your lame attempts to couch your fear and bigotry in language that you think will make you sound "intellectual"... dude, you're trying to do for gay bashing what David Duke tried to do for the Klan.

[Vidav]

It's not about equality or lack thereof. The idea of allowing for Civil Unions provides a route by which, as a practial matter, homosexual couples could acquire the material benefits provided for married couples. But the homosexual community wasn't/isn't satisfied with that. And the reason is that they are interested in changing the way people perceive them. They want homosexually to be perceived as equivalent to heterosexuality.

I look at it as kind of an extension of the "self esteem" movement. Here we have a group afflicted by misdirected sexual orientation and they want to be told there is nothing wrong with them. More than that, they want everyone to believe there's nothing wrong with them. That's why being labeled as "married" is important. It's part of the whole "homosexuality is normal" indoctorination campaign.

Otherwise, if you're going to call opposing the idea of "marriage" among homosexuals "the forces of inequality," then anybody who favors limiting marriage in any way to any sort of arrangement is a member of those forces. If you define marriage at all you limit it and potentially exclude some arrangement some people might like to have recognized as "marriage."

Finally: Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal or equivalent. Heterosexually is the normal sexual orientation for our species. Homosexuality is a disfunctional state. The fact that we're even having this discussion; much less actually implementing marriage between homosexuals, is a sad commentary on just how delusional the radical egalitarianism that's taken hold is making us.

I don't think left handed people should be allowed to marry.

Well that is a given. Those "people" make me sick.

[ASUMountaineer]

who cares. done with this board! I hope I never see you people again in my life. GOOD RIDDANCE!!!

I really believe you this time!

[D1B]

I don't think left handed people should be allowed to marry.

Well that is a given. Those "people" make me sick.

I don't think deaf people should be able to marry. If it's caused by genetics, then they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

[Longhorn]

+1 for TwinTown's last post.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think left handed people should be allowed to marry.

Statements about things like being left handed vs. right handed, blue eyed vs. brown eyed, etc., are commonly used during discussion like this. They are not good analogies. Being left handed vs. right handed is not associated with being consistent or inconsistent with a critical biological function. Sexually motivated behavior is associated with a critical biological function. To say a sex drive is not associated with the reproductive function is like saying the hunger drive is not associated with fueling the body through the consumption of food.

I think that the question of whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry is unique in the sense that the concept of marriage has also been associated with reproduction in our culture. It's true that a heterosexual marriage may not result in reproduction or even have the potential to. But I still think the institution has been associated with the idea of reproduction in our society.

On one hand I don't think having our society adopt homosexual marriage is going to be the end of the world. On the other hand I think the fact that our society is adopting it is a symptom of how ridiculous our egalitarianism has gotten.

[kalm]

I don't think left handed people should be allowed to marry.

Statements about things like being left handed vs. right handed, blue eyed vs. brown eyed, etc., are commonly used during discussion like this. They are not good analogies. Being left handed vs. right handed is not associated with being consistent or inconsistent with a critical biological function. Sexually motivated behavior is associated with a critical biological function. To say a sex drive is not associated with the reproductive function is like saying the hunger drive is not associated with fueling the body through the consumption of food.

I think that the question of whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry is unique in the sense that the concept of marriage has also been associated with reproduction in our culture. It's true that a heterosexual marriage may not result in reproduction or even have the potential to. But I still think the institution has been associated with the idea of reproduction in our society.

On one hand I don't think having our society adopt homosexual marriage is going to be the end of the world. On the other hand I think the fact that our society is adopting it is a symptom of how ridiculous our egalitarianism has gotten.

Is masturbation a critical biological function? I jerk off with my left hand from time to time although it's mostly the right which is my dominant.

Left handed homosexuals really shouldn't be allowed to marry.

[Grizalltheway]

It's not about equality or lack thereof. The idea of allowing for Civil Unions provides a route by which, as a practial matter, homosexual couples could acquire the material benefits provided for married couples. But the homosexual community wasn't/isn't satisfied with that. And the reason is that they are interested in changing the way people perceive them. They want homosexually to be perceived as equivalent to heterosexuality.

I look at it as kind of an extension of the "self esteem" movement. Here we have a group afflicted by misdirected sexual orientation and they want to be told there is nothing wrong with them. More than that, they want everyone to believe there's nothing wrong with them. That's why being labeled as "married" is important. It's part of the whole "homosexuality is normal" indoctorination campaign.

Otherwise, if you're going to call opposing the idea of "marriage" among homosexuals "the forces of inequality," then anybody who favors limiting marriage in any way to any sort of arrangement is a member of those forces. If you define marriage at all you limit it and potentially exclude some arrangement some people might like to have recognized as "marriage."

Finally: Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal or equivalent. Heterosexually is the normal sexual orientation for our species. Homosexuality is a disfunctional state. The fact that we're even having this discussion; much less actually implementing marriage between homosexuals, is a sad commentary on just how delusional the radical egalitarianism that's taken hold is making us.

got it. you're a bigot. we're done here. you can couch it in flowery language all you'd like, but you're just wrapping fancy words around "God hates fags"...

you want to know why the gay community isn't "satisfied" with the half-measures and condescension you offer? it's pretty much summed up in your little screed. you think you're somehow better. you think your orientation makes you somehow superior, and it's not even the arrogance of your own presumption that is so nauseating... it's your lame attempts to couch your fear and bigotry in language that you think will make you sound "intellectual"... dude, you're trying to do for gay bashing what David Duke tried to do for the Klan.

[JohnStOnge]

you think your orientation makes you somehow superior, and it's not even the arrogance of your own presumption that is so nauseating... it's your lame attempts to couch your fear and bigotry in language that you think will make you sound "intellectual"... dude, you're trying to do for gay bashing what David Duke tried to do for the Klan.

I have a deaf son and I often compare my outlook with respect to deafness to my outlook on homosexuality. There is a movement in the world of deaf education involving the idea of Deaf Culture. One idea associated with that is that there is nothing "wrong" with being Deaf. Deafness is simply what one is. Deaf people are not "broken" so that they need to be "fixed." Being Deaf is analogous to being Black or being Female. I believe I've even heard it compared to being left handed.

But as far as I'm concerned something IS broken when someone is deaf. It IS better to have hearing than not to have it. Does that mean I'm "superior" to my son because I am hearing and he is deaf? I don't think so. In fact I think that if one went down the list of things that people might think would make one person superior to another he very well might be judged "superior" to me. He certianly has a lot better work ethic.

And I think of the issue of homosexuality in much the same way. The "homosexuality is normal" movement reminds me very much of the Deaf Culture movement. And I DO think that being heterosexual is better than being homosexual. But I don't think a given heterosexual person is automatically superior to a given homosexual person.

On bigotry: One definition of "bigot" is a person who is intolerantly devoted to their own opinion. In that sense maybe I am a bigot. I think I am tolerant of other opinions but at the same time anybody can see that I don't like radical egalitarianism. I don't know where the line for being a bigot would be crossed. At the same time, people being intolerant of my opinion on homosexuality are also bigots. And there is a very bigoted, repressive atmosphere surrounding the topic. Roland Martin just got suspended from CNN for tweeting something because GLADD interpreted his comments as anti homosexual.

There is a widespread, oppressive and...yes..,bigoted repression of my point of view with respect to homosexuality. One is not allowed to speak openly and honestly about it without fear of persecution to include things like losing one's job, being forced to attend "re-education" indoctorination sessions, etc.

[kalm]

you think your orientation makes you somehow superior, and it's not even the arrogance of your own presumption that is so nauseating... it's your lame attempts to couch your fear and bigotry in language that you think will make you sound "intellectual"... dude, you're trying to do for gay bashing what David Duke tried to do for the Klan.

I have a deaf son and I often compare my outlook with respect to deafness to my outlook on homosexuality. There is a movement in the world of deaf education involving the idea of Deaf Culture. One idea associated with that is that there is nothing "wrong" with being Deaf. Deafness is simply what one is. Deaf people are not "broken" so that they need to be "fixed." Being Deaf is analogous to being Black or being Female. I believe I've even heard it compared to being left handed.

But as far as I'm concerned something IS broken when someone is deaf. It IS better to have hearing than not to have it. Does that mean I'm "superior" to my son because I am hearing and he is deaf? I don't think so. In fact I think that if one went down the list of things that people might think would make one person superior to another he very well might be judged "superior" to me. He certianly has a lot better work ethic.

And I think of the issue of homosexuality in much the same way. The "homosexuality is normal" movement reminds me very much of the Deaf Culture movement. And I DO think that being heterosexual is better than being homosexual. But I don't think a given heterosexual person is automatically superior to a given homosexual person.

On bigotry: One definition of "bigot" is a person who is intolerantly devoted to their own opinion. In that sense maybe I am a bigot. I think I am tolerant of other opinions but at the same time anybody can see that I don't like radical egalitarianism. I don't know where the line for being a bigot would be crossed. At the same time, people being intolerant of my opinion on homosexuality are also bigots. And there is a very bigoted, repressive atmosphere surrounding the topic. Roland Martin just got suspended from CNN for tweeting something because GLADD interpreted his comments as anti homosexual.

There is a widespread, oppressive and...yes..,bigoted repression of my point of view with respect to homosexuality. One is not allowed to speak openly and honestly about it without fear of persecution to include things like losing one's job, being forced to attend "re-education" indoctorination sessions, etc.

Do you know where I can get more information on this radical egalitarian movement? Do they have a website?

[JohnStOnge]

Is masturbation a critical biological function?

LOL! I don't think so. But the question brings up something. I don't think the fact that sexually motivated behavior evolved because it promotes reproduction through genetic recombination means all expression of the drive has to have the potential to lead to reproduction. I don't think most animals think, "I am going to get my rocks off so I can reproduce." They just want to get their rocks off and, if they're male, they tend to be instinctively drawn to females. Then end result is that reproduction occurs. Like male dogs may hump each other or even your leg. But if a female dog in heat is around they're going to be drawn to her. And if you ever see a male dog who is not drawn to a female dog in heat you will be looking at a dog with something wrong with him.

[JohnStOnge]

Do you know where I can get more information on the is radical egalitarian movement? Do they have a we bite?

Do a Google on "radical egalitarianism" and you'll get a bunch of hits. Me, I don't think it's an organized, structured movement like a great conspiracy. Even though it's a longstanding concept and the term has been used for many years I think it's more of just kind of an evolution of tendency. I don't think most people who effectively facilitated the tendency were thinking, "I am pushing for radical egalitarianism." I think that kind of a natural social pressure to conform to it has developed.

However, there were people who definitely outlined plans for developing social pressure to accept homosexuality as normal. See http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strate ... auling.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

[D1B]

you think your orientation makes you somehow superior, and it's not even the arrogance of your own presumption that is so nauseating... it's your lame attempts to couch your fear and bigotry in language that you think will make you sound "intellectual"... dude, you're trying to do for gay bashing what David Duke tried to do for the Klan.

I have a deaf son and I often compare my outlook with respect to deafness to my outlook on homosexuality. There is a movement in the world of deaf education involving the idea of Deaf Culture. One idea associated with that is that there is nothing "wrong" with being Deaf. Deafness is simply what one is. Deaf people are not "broken" so that they need to be "fixed." Being Deaf is analogous to being Black or being Female. I believe I've even heard it compared to being left handed.

But as far as I'm concerned something IS broken when someone is deaf. It IS better to have hearing than not to have it. Does that mean I'm "superior" to my son because I am hearing and he is deaf? I don't think so. In fact I think that if one went down the list of things that people might think would make one person superior to another he very well might be judged "superior" to me. He certianly has a lot better work ethic.

And I think of the issue of homosexuality in much the same way. The "homosexuality is normal" movement reminds me very much of the Deaf Culture movement. And I DO think that being heterosexual is better than being homosexual. But I don't think a given heterosexual person is automatically superior to a given homosexual person.

On bigotry: One definition of "bigot" is a person who is intolerantly devoted to their own opinion. In that sense maybe I am a bigot. I think I am tolerant of other opinions but at the same time anybody can see that I don't like radical egalitarianism. I don't know where the line for being a bigot would be crossed. At the same time, people being intolerant of my opinion on homosexuality are also bigots. And there is a very bigoted, repressive atmosphere surrounding the topic. Roland Martin just got suspended from CNN for tweeting something because GLADD interpreted his comments as anti homosexual.

There is a widespread, oppressive and...yes..,bigoted repression of my point of view with respect to homosexuality. One is not allowed to speak openly and honestly about it without fear of persecution to include things like losing one's job, being forced to attend "re-education" indoctorination sessions, etc.

Some good points here.

I just see homosexuality as pretty normal. Aint it like 20% of the overall population? Thats a lot of gay people.

[travelinman67]

I think the way it should be handled at this point is to say that it's time for government to get out of the business of marriage. It's gotten to that point because people disagree on what a marriage should be. So just say that we eliminate the concept of civil marriage and leave it up to religous groups to define marriage as they please; marriages consisting of more than two individuals included.

When I really think about it I don't think people should need a license from the State to say they're married anyway. I mean really.

If you want to disentangle rights and benefits from marriage... then that would be fine... but as it is there are at LEAST 515 benefits that married people have that single people do not in this country.

Civil unions for all as sanctioned by the government - and "marriages" would be purely private within the confines of religious institutions and protected under the 1st Amendment... I'd personally be fine with that in the abstract.

It goes beyond benefits, as California long ago passed laws providing benefits to ALL including "civil union" partners, yet the notion of allowing same-sex "marriage" is the focus of the Prop 8 battle. The "stated" issue is that not allowing same-sex "marriage" denigrates same-sex couples treating them as "second-class" people. The ultimate goal, however, is to enchapter punitive laws targeting people/institutions who refuse to endorse and support same-sex marriage. The application of so-called "hate-laws" have verified this punitive agenda.

Right or wrong, every religious group has the moral and constitutional right to live by whatever ethos they elect so long as it doesn't interfere with others. Several proponents who participated in the Prop 8 initiative (including Pacific Legal Institute) did so not out of an anti-same-sex marriage religious agenda, but as an estoppel to prevent criminal persecution and "hate-law" enabled torts against churches or even businesses who voice opposition to same-sex marriage. This is the issue I've frequently debated with dback in the past. Distrusting or disapproving of another person for illogical reasons is not the basis for punitive action. It isn't a civil rights offense to dislike/distrust a person who has tattooes, red hair, loves someone of the same sex, wears a wife-beater in public, drives a 4x4, doesn't keep the lid on their garbage cans, shops in Wal-Mart, voted for Carter or supports the Bison.

[travelinman67]

I have a deaf son and I often compare my outlook with respect to deafness to my outlook on homosexuality. There is a movement in the world of deaf education involving the idea of Deaf Culture. One idea associated with that is that there is nothing "wrong" with being Deaf. Deafness is simply what one is. Deaf people are not "broken" so that they need to be "fixed." Being Deaf is analogous to being Black or being Female. I believe I've even heard it compared to being left handed.

But as far as I'm concerned something IS broken when someone is deaf. It IS better to have hearing than not to have it. Does that mean I'm "superior" to my son because I am hearing and he is deaf? I don't think so. In fact I think that if one went down the list of things that people might think would make one person superior to another he very well might be judged "superior" to me. He certianly has a lot better work ethic.

And I think of the issue of homosexuality in much the same way. The "homosexuality is normal" movement reminds me very much of the Deaf Culture movement. And I DO think that being heterosexual is better than being homosexual. But I don't think a given heterosexual person is automatically superior to a given homosexual person.

On bigotry: One definition of "bigot" is a person who is intolerantly devoted to their own opinion. In that sense maybe I am a bigot. I think I am tolerant of other opinions but at the same time anybody can see that I don't like radical egalitarianism. I don't know where the line for being a bigot would be crossed. At the same time, people being intolerant of my opinion on homosexuality are also bigots. And there is a very bigoted, repressive atmosphere surrounding the topic. Roland Martin just got suspended from CNN for tweeting something because GLADD interpreted his comments as anti homosexual.

There is a widespread, oppressive and...yes..,bigoted repression of my point of view with respect to homosexuality. One is not allowed to speak openly and honestly about it without fear of persecution to include things like losing one's job, being forced to attend "re-education" indoctorination sessions, etc.

I just see homosexuality as pretty normal. Aint it like 20% of the overall population?

...only in your Condo building.

[mainejeff]

In regard to views on homosexuality........when people like JSO die off.......they are being replaced by new fetuses at a much lower rate than they used to be 30 or 40 years ago. Probably like .3 to 1 rather than 1 to 1.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

It would seem to me to be only a re-trenchment by the forces of inequality in this country whom I think are beginning to awaken to the fact that they are on the losing side of history and are now groping around for a way to "reduce the damage"... or, put another way - anything to deny gay people from the ability to use the word "married"... which just seems petty.

It's not about equality or lack thereof. The idea of allowing for Civil Unions provides a route by which, as a practial matter, homosexual couples could acquire the material benefits provided for married couples. But the homosexual community wasn't/isn't satisfied with that. And the reason is that they are interested in changing the way people perceive them. They want homosexually to be perceived as equivalent to heterosexuality.

I look at it as kind of an extension of the "self esteem" movement. Here we have a group afflicted by misdirected sexual orientation and they want to be told there is nothing wrong with them. More than that, they want everyone to believe there's nothing wrong with them. That's why being labeled as "married" is important. It's part of the whole "homosexuality is normal" indoctorination campaign.

Otherwise, if you're going to call opposing the idea of "marriage" among homosexuals "the forces of inequality," then anybody who favors limiting marriage in any way to any sort of arrangement is a member of those forces. If you define marriage at all you limit it and potentially exclude some arrangement some people might like to have recognized as "marriage."

Finally: Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal or equivalent. Heterosexually is the normal sexual orientation for our species. Homosexuality is a disfunctional state. The fact that we're even having this discussion; much less actually implementing marriage between homosexuals, is a sad commentary on just how delusional the radical egalitarianism that's taken hold is making us.

And this is why I stay away from the Poli forum.

It IS about equality; you said it yourself. The problem isn't so much that homosexual couples aren't allowed to marry, the problem is the belief that people who have sexual preferences that differ from your own are inferior or defective. You give people labels of inferiority because you don't understand their choices and think that by treating them as equals would diminish or tarnish your preferences. TTBF said it best; you're a bigot.

In fact I think that if one went down the list of things that people might think would make one person superior to another he very well might be judged "superior" to me.

Well no shit; he's understanding of people who are different from him. He doesn't think more or less of them because of it. For example, I bet he doesn't think less of you because you're a bigot; it's just the way you are. Doesn't mean you should be excluded from the right to free speech just because you can't think rationally. Or that your son shouldn't have access to medical technology that would allow him to hear like "normal" people. Or that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry the people they're attracted to like "normal" people.

[CAA Flagship]

Meh. I say let them marry.
I don't understand the desire to have gay sex, much like I do not understand the desire to have sex with animals. I'm just tired of the bitching and moaning.
So, for the record, this is one Conk that is caving in. I now pronounce you husband and.....er.....husband.

[travelinman67]

Meh. I say let them marry.
I don't understand the desire to have gay sex, much like I do not understand the desire to have sex with animals...

Ahem...

Bigot!