Why is fighting gay marriage such a big issue for many of you?

And just how is it off topic? Those who push gay marriage say it's a matter of allowing those who love each other to get married. And by not allowing that, they are discriminated against. Using your own argument, barring multiple people who love each other from getting married would be just as discriminatory. Why should only two people be allowed to get married?

 

See, you ignore the rest of the post. Off topic because you were asked why you fight gay marriage so hard. If you are claiming that it is a "slippery slope", that is a stupid argument.

 

I've never said I was against it. As a matter of fact, if the people of a given state want to vote for allowing it, that's there choice. I am against it being being mandated by government, over the wishes of the people. But the question remains, if the criteria for allowing people to get married is "love", why should the number of people be restricted to only two?

 

Good news. The public is in favor of it. Guess that ends it for you. The Federal Government provides tax breaks and benefits to married couples. that should be extended to gay people.

Some people are "slow" to change so we had to make interracial marriages legal on a national level. Civil rights, the same. Roe v Wade, same thing. Gender discrimination, same thing. Lots of things have been "forced" on the dummies, the bigots, the racists and those with prejudices.

The question does not remain except in your head. Right now we are talking about giving gays the same rights as straight people. If you want to push for straight people to marry muliple people, go for it. I will not support you on that.

 

Actually, it's not. Marriage is defined by the states. The Federal government has little or no say in the matter. However, you also ignore the question, if you want marriage to be defined as being between people who love each other, how can you limit that number?

- - - Updated - - -

Then by your own argument, you are discriminating against those people.

 

My parents life wasn't impacted when the blacks couldn't drink out of the same fountain as the blacks. But why even think about other people, that isn't what we are supposed to do in a Country with a motto "United We Stand"

 

Well, that's stupid. I have no desire to discuss things with someone who's busy constructing strawman, transferring other people's arguments into a separate discussion.

That's insane. You have no idea what the "hidden agenda" is, but you know there must be one, so you want to oppress people because of some insane paranoia. And what about the republicans that are on board with gay marriage? Are they double agents? lol.

So, Unifier, why are you still in this thread? You already admitted it doesn't affect you. You couldn't even come up with a response to my post.

 

First off, I don't know how you go from gay marriage to polygamy anymore than you go from interracial marriage to polygamy. Second, I really don't care if 50 people want to get married, but that would cause an issue for insurance benefits and other such things that would have to be worked out in a fair manner. Otherwise, I really don't care.

And I'm talking about a federal allowance of gay marriage, which you are clearly opposed to. Why should the majority get to oppress a minority?

 

1. Thanks for this thread, AKR. It's too bad that so much of the response has been the usual "I don't like the gays" crap and avoidance.

2. I have concluded that I am tired of being disrespected on the mere basis of my orientation. So my ignore list is growing. I'm simply not going to waste my time with such people any more. It's not that I can't tolerate disagreement - I can. But I won't tolerate the kind of bigoted filth that some people think qualifies as mere disagreement anymore. Responding to it just encourages them, so I'm done.

3. We constantly hear that it's all emotionalism with those of us supporting marriage equality, while it's the other side that seems to have an emotional attachment to the word marriage. The CIVIL recognition of a marital UNION is just that - a civil union that we call marriage. There is absolutely no good reason to call something marriage for one group of people, and force another group to use different terminology for their unions when the legal effects are identical. No reason, just emotionalism. Of course as implemented, civil unions don't provide equality because they exist in only a few states, aren't portable from state to state, and don't enjoy federal recognition. Which of course the people claiming to support them know; they pretend to support equality to make themselves look better, all the while knowing that the real reason they insist on a separation between themselves and same-sex couples is because they consider their heterosexuality to be a trait that makes them superior to homosexuals. They don't want to associate with us, not even in the form of having to share the word marriage with us.

I am so getting a new signature hereafter.

 

How do you know about this 'agenda' if it's hidden? Been taking clairvoyancy classes?

 

For the same reason men stood with women on suffrage in Britain. It's something called 'fairness'. You may have heard of it.

 

Good post. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against gay marriage which doesn't involve Christianity or some faux moral outrage. So, all we're left with is stupidity, bigotry and ignorance from our resident homophobes. Not an attractive trio of attributes...

 

And Buddhists?

 

The only flawed logic going around is that stupid bill, and no the president dont post. He gets in front of cameras and spouts off about the 90%.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither is wanting to have sex with the same sex.

 

Actually, I did not ignore your question. I said that the states have defined marriage between 2 people. I said that right should also include everybody who loves someone. That state certainly discriminates against multiple marriages whether straight or gay. If you want to fight for multiple marriages, go right ahead but I will not support you in that endeavor.

The Federal Government does provide state-authorized married couples with tax breaks and benefits. All I said was that the Federal Government should extend it to all married couples.

But, yes, nationally the Federal Government has overruled states' actions to insure individual rights.

How am I discriminating against polygamists. The states decide and I am not willing to support you in your effort to allow polygamy. Of course, your issue has nothing to do with fighting against gay marriage.

 

Perriquine, I understand your frustration but I am concerned that the "ignore list" will turn this forum structure into another case of each side only reading their own views. We have enough of that on cable. I know that I have been put on at least one poster's ignore list but that person is very uninformed . I believe that we should here the other side so that we will know what we are up against and, in rare instances (very rare), learn something. Please reconsider.

 

Sorry that i gave you facts and made you sputter the above.

 

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of this thread topic. That's all. You're no different than I am. Yet you have no problem condemning me from your high horse with no logical backing.

 

Seeing as you are wrong and the bill failed and will fail again, and again. It was not hardly worth the sputter.

 

Ah, so you understand the moral duty to stand up for what you believe is right even if it does not personally affect you. Welcome to the other side of the argument.

The fact that you cannot understand where we are coming from does not make our position any different from yours in that regard. In AKR's case, he sees our side as "bad" because he believes he is helping people. In his world, the only way to help anyone is to give them what they want. Thus anything else must be selfish. That can be the only explanation. He is unable to think outside of this paradigm. Which allows him the freedom to practice hypocrisy while feeling justified in it.

This right here is the telling piece:

He's aware that he's been called out for using a double standard here. And as much as he claims to value logic, he knows he's being logically inconsistent. Which damages his credibility. And this is why he's getting frustrated.

 

Because perhaps it's not discrimination.