billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 19, 2011 9:57:50 GMT -5
... Gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. Allowing them the right to marry someone of the same sex is giving them additional rights.... Same sex marriage does not grant just "gays" the right to marry someone of the same sex, it grants all the right to marry someone of the same sex. The fact that few, if any, straights will take advantage of that right does not mean that they will not have it.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,647
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 19, 2011 10:02:47 GMT -5
... Gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. Allowing them the right to marry someone of the same sex is giving them additional rights.... Same sex marriage does not grant just "gays" the right to marry someone of the same sex, it grants all the right to marry someone of the same sex. The fact that few, if any, straights will take advantage of that right does not mean that they will not have it. exactly, it's not giving additional rights to some. it's giving equal rights to all. I have a very hard time understanding why this concept is so difficult for some people to grasp.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 5:35:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2011 10:03:30 GMT -5
Regarding the separation of Church and State, remember that the prohibition of homosexual marriage existed before the rise of Christianity as well as in nations that are non Christian or indeed secular in nature.
As for as things prohibited long, long ago I would disagree that they are valid or apply in any way. If we were to go back to those times it seems to me that in the early days they tossed Christians into area's with lions. Just because something is old doesn't means that it is good or applies in any way to modern times.
Regarding the state, I don't think that most in even the Tea Party really cares who someone sleeps with (assuming legal age and ability to consent) but gay marriage is all about forcing the state and the rest of the nation to support and endorse a homosexual's coupling and this goes too far.
The state doesn't really support or endorse any marriage. They do however recognize it for legal purposes. Those legal purposes have a lot of rights tied in with them which should be conveyed to the person you pick to live your life with. Medical & estate are 2 of the ones that come to mind right off the top of my head. Now I can certainly understand it (& would agree with it) if a church didn't want to marry gays. That is their choice (just as it's the choice of the gay couple not to be married there). But the government is under the mandate that all people are created equal & I believe that you should not be told who you can & can't marry.
I was raised as a Souther Baptist & gays aren't exactly loved by that religion (or weren't when I was a kid). But I don't feel that this is a religious question nor a moral question. This is a legal question & nothing more.
As for the religious right I get the feeling that they believe that if being gay were a right, huge amounts of people would suddenly become gay. I think that's what they are scared of. Well I don't know about anybody else but guys don't appeal to me & they won't ever appeal to me. Seeing 2 guys kiss turns my stomach & always will. But that doesn't mean that I believe that they should be deprived of a right that everyone else has. I also believe that gays are a reflection of society & that there are probably about the same percentage of conservative & liberal gays as is the makeup of society. As long as the Republican & Tea Party has this stance of being against them, they are losing those votes. Making it worse is that the Democratic party is gaining those votes. That's just dumb politics to push away a voting block for no reason other than a religious one (which shouldn't be involved in politics in the first place.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 19, 2011 10:30:32 GMT -5
Right now gays have the same rights as every other American...so if they are fighting for additional rights then those are above and beyond what anyone else receives. they are fighting for the right to have a legally recognized commitment to their partner. last I checked, that right was already available to heterosexuals. am I missing something? How 'bout the fact that hetro's do not have a "right" to get married. Don't believe me, try marrying your brother. Try having two or three spouses. There are laws even for hetro's. Should gays be allowed to marry? Sure, why not? It's none of my business, or the governments.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2011 10:35:13 GMT -5
Right now gays have the same rights as every other American...so if they are fighting for additional rights then those are above and beyond what anyone else receives. they are fighting for the right to have a legally recognized commitment to their partner. last I checked, that right was already available to heterosexuals. am I missing something? And they have that same right to marry someone of the opposite sex and have it legaly recognized. Although I don't believe having the state recognize a marriage is a right...other than creating an additonal revenue stream, I'm not sure why the states butted their noses in there in the first place. A marriage "license." LOL...what a scam!
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2011 10:38:00 GMT -5
Right now gays have the same rights as every other American...so if they are fighting for additional rights then those are above and beyond what anyone else receives. I don't get it. Most people can get married anytime they want to, to just about anyone they want to. Gays can't. yet you say they have the same rights? Fifty years ago did blacks have exactly the same rights as everybody else if they wanted to marry a white in just about any southern state? That is just about the same thing (it is the same deprivation of basic rights) so please justify that to me. Gays can marry anytime and to anyone they want to right now...the crux of the matter is they feel they should have the right to force everyone to accept it. That's a right above and beyond anyone else...
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,647
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 19, 2011 10:41:38 GMT -5
Right now gays have the same rights as every other American...so if they are fighting for additional rights then those are above and beyond what anyone else receives. I don't get it. Most people can get married anytime they want to, to just about anyone they want to. Gays can't. yet you say they have the same rights? Fifty years ago did blacks have exactly the same rights as everybody else if they wanted to marry a white in just about any southern state? That is just about the same thing (it is the same deprivation of basic rights) so please justify that to me. Gays can marry anytime and to anyone they want to right now...the crux of the matter is they feel they should have the right to force everyone to accept it. That's a right above and beyond anyone else... not everywhere, they can't. and as far as it being a right to "force everyone to accept it" being over and above everyone else, I'm forced to accept that some people think it's not at all bigoted to restrict their fellow Americans from receiving the same recognition and benefits to having a state-sanctioned commitment. it must be my lucky day - I got something above and beyond someone else.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2011 10:41:55 GMT -5
The state doesn't really support or endorse any marriage. They do however recognize it for legal purposes. Those legal purposes have a lot of rights tied in with them which should be conveyed to the person you pick to live your life with. Medical & estate are 2 of the ones that come to mind right off the top of my head. Now I can certainly understand it (& would agree with it) if a church didn't want to marry gays. That is their choice (just as it's the choice of the gay couple not to be married there). But the government is under the mandate that all people are created equal & I believe that you should not be told who you can & can't marry. Then IMO they are fighting the wrong battle...having those rights (whatever they may be) separated from marriage and then getting the states out of the marriage business so its just between the two people involved would be the more logical approach.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2011 10:43:54 GMT -5
Gays can marry anytime and to anyone they want to right now...the crux of the matter is they feel they should have the right to force everyone to accept it. That's a right above and beyond anyone else... not everywhere, they can't. and as far as it being a right to "force everyone to accept it" being over and above everyone else, I'm forced to accept that some people think it's not at all bigoted to restrict their fellow Americans from receiving the same recognition and benefits to having a state-sanctioned commitment. it must be my lucky day - I got something above and beyond someone else. Sure they can...I believe you are confusing marriage with a state recognized marriage (or union). Those are two different things.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,647
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 19, 2011 10:44:39 GMT -5
The state doesn't really support or endorse any marriage. They do however recognize it for legal purposes. Those legal purposes have a lot of rights tied in with them which should be conveyed to the person you pick to live your life with. Medical & estate are 2 of the ones that come to mind right off the top of my head. Now I can certainly understand it (& would agree with it) if a church didn't want to marry gays. That is their choice (just as it's the choice of the gay couple not to be married there). But the government is under the mandate that all people are created equal & I believe that you should not be told who you can & can't marry. Then IMO they are fighting the wrong battle...having those rights (whatever they may be) separated from marriage and then getting the states out of the marriage business so its just between the two people involved would be the more logical approach. that would be totally OK with me. until that happens, though, this is separate but (NOT) equal. it needs to change.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,647
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 19, 2011 10:46:22 GMT -5
Sure they can...I believe you are confusing marriage with a state recognized marriage (or union). Those are two different things. I am referring to the legally recognized commitment of two consenting, non-related adults - commonly known as marriage. it is neither my concern nor problem that religious institutions use the same term for their own commitments.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 5:35:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2011 10:47:34 GMT -5
Gays can marry anytime and to anyone they want to right now...the crux of the matter is they feel they should have the right to force everyone to accept it.
Bullshit! Gays can NOT marry in most places in the country. Get real, that's what they are fighting for. Your saying that a falsehood is true doesn't make it true.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jul 19, 2011 11:07:39 GMT -5
Gays can marry anytime and to anyone they want to right now...the crux of the matter is they feel they should have the right to force everyone to accept it.Bullshit! Gays can NOT marry in most places in the country. Get real, that's what they are fighting for. Your saying that a falsehood is true doesn't make it true. Actually, he is correct in a way, it is just that as of right now if you exempt certain states Homosexual couples can not receive a marriage license, they can have commitment cerimonies, church recognized cerimonies, they just do not have the legal protection that a marriage certificate carries.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2011 11:07:41 GMT -5
Sure they can...I believe you are confusing marriage with a state recognized marriage (or union). Those are two different things. I am referring to the legally recognized commitment of two consenting, non-related adults - commonly known as marriage. it is neither my concern nor problem that religious institutions use the same term for their own commitments. See, changing the definition of marriage on a whim and then using it to make your argument as if it were the definition all along is a bit devious The states took the term marriage and used it for a revenue source and further control of the populace...now changing the definition of the term to fit the desires of a small population is treading in dangerous territory. I don't think we want to go in the direction of changing definitions of things to fit the wants of various groups. Change the term: yes Change the definition: no
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,647
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 19, 2011 11:08:57 GMT -5
where did I ever imply anything other than what you just quoted?
do not put words in my mouth.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2011 11:10:08 GMT -5
Gays can marry anytime and to anyone they want to right now...the crux of the matter is they feel they should have the right to force everyone to accept it.Bullshit! Gays can NOT marry in most places in the country. Get real, that's what they are fighting for. Your saying that a falsehood is true doesn't make it true. See, you are still confused...what is stopping two people from making vows to each other? You are still referring to the state recognition of it...anyone can marry at anytime - which does not necessarily mean it is recognized by the state as a "legal" marriage (which, again, is all a part of that whole marriage "license" scam).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 5:35:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2011 11:24:08 GMT -5
See, you are still confused...what is stopping two people from making vows to each other? You are still referring to the state recognition of it...anyone can marry at anytime - which does not necessarily mean it is recognized by the state as a "legal" marriage (which, again, is all a part of that whole marriage "license" scam).
Ok, I'll spell it out. Tittle: Is fighting gay rights a tea party value?
The Tea Party is a political party. They (last I heard) are not trying to get the "church" to do anything. They are however trying to influence "government". Guess that everyone can add that up & figure that this thread is about government laws & is related to government action.
As for those against gays getting married. History: Of course it's in the bible that you shouldn't get married. Two gays (no matter what sex) will never make the church stronger because they will not reproduce little church goers. In other words being gay could hurt the church so they are against it. Big Surprise. Just like:
Pork is considered unclean by Jews. Back then it very possibly was "unclean" (they didn't know what bacteria was back then) & a lot of people died from eating pork. They died, didn't keep "supporting" the church so don't eat pork. Again big surprise. The bible saying to do what's best for the church, wow!
Let's fact it. The real reason that people are against gays is because of their religious feelings. You can lie about it & talk around it but that's the truth. Telling me what they did 500 years ago is just a way of not saying that "I religion is against it & so am I". By talking all around that statement we never get to the real issue & this can go on for every. Once we get to that point then the thread is over because no argument is going to change someone's religion. That's the bottom line.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2011 12:21:33 GMT -5
See, you are still confused...what is stopping two people from making vows to each other? You are still referring to the state recognition of it...anyone can marry at anytime - which does not necessarily mean it is recognized by the state as a "legal" marriage (which, again, is all a part of that whole marriage "license" scam). Ok, I'll spell it out. Tittle: Is fighting gay rights a tea party value?The Tea Party is a political party. They (last I heard) are not trying to get the "church" to do anything. They are however trying to influence "government". Guess that everyone can add that up & figure that this thread is about government laws & is related to government action. No they are not an official party (they just have "party" in their name because of the "Boston Tea Party." The Boston Tea Party was not a political party, but an event - the play off that name does not make them an official political party). That's like saying the AARP is a political party... And gays are the ones trying to change the definition of terms...I don't like that slippery slope and would prefer that either they fight to separate the legal parts of marriage or change the term for everyone to legal union. So people can get married and/or purchase their legal union license (so as to perpetuate the existing scam...we all know government will not give up on revenues and control). And if you think some gays will not use a gay marriage law to fight against anyone who refuses to acknowledge and accept their marriage, you haven't been paying attention to society for the past few decades. They will sue churches to make them have the ceremony, or sue anyone and everyone for for discrimination...and the government won't lift one damn finger to help with the mess they created. That's their M.O. Gays can marry...the governments may not recognize it. So change the term to something other than marriage, but don't mess around with changing definitions. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and men and women can marry...they then go get the legal union license and make it recognizable by government. Same with gays, they get a license (don't even need a ceremony at this point...it's not needed for the license scam anyway) and their union is recognizable for legal purposes. Heteros have their marriage, gays have their legal means...end of story.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,647
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 19, 2011 12:27:24 GMT -5
Gays can marry...the governments may not recognize it. So change the term to something other than marriage, but don't mess around with changing definitions. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and men and women can marry...they then go get the legal union license and make it recognizable by government. Same with gays, they get a license (don't even need a ceremony at this point...it's not needed for the license scam anyway) and their union is recognizable for legal purposes. Heteros have their marriage, gays have their legal means...end of story. again with the changing of definitions. I'm going to try this a different way. you can even click the link and check for yourself that I'm really not pulling your leg. from dictionary.com: mar·riage [mar-ij] –noun 1. a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. I've accentuated the pertinent section. you can keep telling yourself that those of us who believe in full equality are changing definitions, but we really aren't. like anything else, repetition of a lie doesn't turn it into a truth.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2011 12:40:38 GMT -5
Gays can marry...the governments may not recognize it. So change the term to something other than marriage, but don't mess around with changing definitions. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and men and women can marry...they then go get the legal union license and make it recognizable by government. Same with gays, they get a license (don't even need a ceremony at this point...it's not needed for the license scam anyway) and their union is recognizable for legal purposes. Heteros have their marriage, gays have their legal means...end of story. again with the changing of definitions. I'm going to try this a different way. you can even click the link and check for yourself that I'm really not pulling your leg. from dictionary.com: mar·riage [mar-ij] –noun 1. a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. I've accentuated the pertinent section. you can keep telling yourself that those of us who believe in full equality are changing definitions, but we really aren't. like anything else, repetition of a lie doesn't turn it into a truth. And again using an added line of definition and acting like it was always there proves nothing. Was that definition there 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Marriage was used long before the "legal" state-used definition and subsequent additions. It always referred to a man and a woman before progressives started pushing their agenda of change and control. My question to you: Why are you so adamant about pushing the definition change? What is wrong with just changing the term used for legal means? There's no conflict there - the people who want to keep the historical signifigance of marriage get to keep it, and those that want everyone to have the same state recognition will get it. Yet you keep arguing against that change...why?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,647
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 19, 2011 13:41:02 GMT -5
And again using an added line of definition and acting like it was always there proves nothing. Was that definition there 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Marriage was used long before the "legal" state-used definition and subsequent additions. It always referred to a man and a woman before progressives started pushing their agenda of change and control. My question to you: Why are you so adamant about pushing the definition change? What is wrong with just changing the term used for legal means? There's no conflict there - the people who want to keep the historical signifigance of marriage get to keep it, and those that want everyone to have the same state recognition will get it. Yet you keep arguing against that change...why? please show me where I've ever argued against changing the name of the legal institution of marriage for ALL couples. the only place I have ever argued against changing the name was where it was changed for only SOME of the couples.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2011 14:41:18 GMT -5
Electronics once referred to vacuum tubes. Change has taken place. Change has always taken place, and will continue to take place. Langugage, and its use, changes with the times.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2011 15:54:00 GMT -5
Electronics once referred to vacuum tubes. Change has taken place. Change has always taken place, and will continue to take place. Langugage, and its use, changes with the times. I'm always willing to accept change, just as long as it isn't change for the sake of change. If that change will result in a better way of doing things, then I'm all for it. -James K. Van Fleet
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2011 16:38:02 GMT -5
I don't see this as change for the sake of change, jkapp. In fact, I don't even see it as change. Ever heard of being married to an idea? Is the idea male, or female? It doesn't matter, does it? Neither does it matter the gender of two individuals who wish to marry. If they wish to marry in a church, it's up to the individual church they choose whether or not the church will perform the ceremony. Other than that, I don't see a big problem.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 19, 2011 16:49:56 GMT -5
lol, he could be...BUT I always thought this sort of thing was pretty much opposite of their values,....but then again,I always said they were hijacked by political and special interest groups You nailed that on the head. Looks like they were jacked by the republican party and the tea party followers are a bunch of suckers following this joke Bachman. I was once in agreement with the teaparty until I noticed the high jacking that you mentioned. This just goes to show that all movements end up getting bought out by the rich. The golden rule still stands " The people with the gold(money) make the rules "
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 19, 2011 16:51:49 GMT -5
Change is inevitable, time doesn't change just for the sake of change
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 19, 2011 17:32:14 GMT -5
See, you are still confused...what is stopping two people from making vows to each other? You are still referring to the state recognition of it...anyone can marry at anytime - which does not necessarily mean it is recognized by the state as a "legal" marriage (which, again, is all a part of that whole marriage "license" scam). Ok, I'll spell it out. Tittle: Is fighting gay rights a tea party value?The Tea Party is a political party. They (last I heard) are not trying to get the "church" to do anything. They are however trying to influence "government". Guess that everyone can add that up & figure that this thread is about government laws & is related to government action. No they are not an official party (they just have "party" in their name because of the "Boston Tea Party." The Boston Tea Party was not a political party, ... Just to confuse things a little or a lot there is currently a political party calling itself: The Boston Tea Party (slogan: Time to party like it's 1773) www.bostontea.us/Platform of the Boston Tea Party The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose. www.bostontea.us/platform Think Libertarian on steroids!
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jul 19, 2011 17:49:23 GMT -5
Nonsense. You're trying to compare a harmless and consensual act (homosexuality) with a violent act. That's a disingenuous example. Let me know when people begin consenting to being murdered then get back to me.
And how many rights do we deny other people who have a genetic "illness?" Are people with genetic illnesses prevented from getting married? Or is this only applicable to gays?
You're right, it is. The real issue here is religion intruding into politics, as oldtex said. Gay or not, I don't want to be forced into following someone else's religion.
You, personally, do not have to endorse or support anything. However, you want your OPINION to become law, which I find to be the height of hubris.
LOL! Really, ameiko? And how many homosexual relationships have you been in to make that comparison?
I have some really shocking news to you, ameiko. You had best be seated before I hit you over the head with this irrefutable pearl of reality:
You see, gays are still going to be gay whether you allow them to marry or not. This means that prohibiting their marriage will not cause them to give up and suddenly decide to create a standard, traditional nuclear family. In the same way, allowing them to marry will not destroy the West (hyperbole as per usual). If you need to point fingers, point them at heterosexuals who aren't serious enough about their marriages. The gay community is far too small to have a relevant impact on the traditional family unit regardless of what they do, and it certainly isn't gays who are causing the ~56% divorce rate in this country.
The hyperbole and scapegoating flowing from the anti-gay folks are astoundingly false, not to mention illogical. Perhaps another salvo destroying the West is our apparent lack of critical thinking skills. That lack is demonstrated in exquisite detail whenever the anti-gay conservative crowd begins bellowing about the "gay agenda" and the destruction of Western civilization. It's quite silly.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Jul 19, 2011 18:09:29 GMT -5
The problem with gay rights is that their are straight rights that are not rights but legal constructs. Get rid of marriage, and quit giving preferential treatment to the married. (full disclosure, I am married). It is ridiculous that any individual get something for a moral choice they have made which has no affect on anyone, else.
|
|
humok
Established Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 9:33:39 GMT -5
Posts: 265
|
Post by humok on Jul 19, 2011 19:18:38 GMT -5
Abolish Gay rights? why should a gay person have any "special rights" above any other citizen should be the question.
|
|