Adam and Steve can now get married in NY...

[RobinFinderson]

you really think the two are equatable? Gays current have the exact same rights re: marriage that I do in every state in the country, no?

My evil half hopes that the daughters of everyone who makes this argument end up marrying gay men who are struggling to be straight.

[Uncle Ted]

As usual, that crazy libertarian from Texas has the right answer...

[YOUTUBE]se0NqJFMAlg[/YOUTUBE]

[Moliere]

I dont understand why it is such a bad argument. explain it to me. And How is it different than consensual, non underage polygamy?

Gay men are attracted to men, not women. Sure they could marry a woman and get the same rights, but they don't share the same attraction to women that you and I have for women (I'm assuming you are straight).

What you are basically saying is that a gay man, to have the same rights, would have to go against his biological feelings and marry someone to whom he's not attracted. How would you feel if the only way to get certain rights were for you to marry a man? It's sick right since you aren't attracted to men. The thought of kissing/loving a man in the same way I kiss/love my wife disgusts me, yet that is what you are saying when you make the argument that gay men have the same rights as you do.

[Non Sequitur]

I dont understand why it is such a bad argument. explain it to me.

It's a stupid argument because it's like saying that if they passed a law that made it illegal to practice Mormonism that you wouldn't be discriminated against since you had the same rights as everybody else.

[Maximus]

It's a stupid argument because it's like saying that if they passed a law that made it illegal to practice Mormonism that you wouldn't be discriminated against since you had the same rights as everybody else.

well except free practice of religion is guaranteed by the constitution, while having marriage being defined as someone marrying whomever they want is not.

[Non Sequitur]

well except free practice of religion is guaranteed by the constitution, while having marriage being defined as someone marrying whomever they want is not.

I wasn't making a constitutional argument. I was simply pointing out why your argument was a bad argument.

[Moliere]

It's a stupid argument because it's like saying that if they passed a law that made it illegal to practice Mormonism that you wouldn't be discriminated against since you had the same rights as everybody else.

It's even worse than the example you give since being Mormon is a choice and being gay is not.

[TripletDaddy]

One huge benefit of the continual march forward for gay rights is that it becomes less and less necessary to explain the obvious to folks like Maximus.

I'm sure there were holdouts against the Civil Rights movement, too. People that vehemently wanted separate but equal and couldn't or wouldn't see why things couldn't stay that way. Some folks never get it or refuse to get it or whatever. But everyone else marches on with or without them.

Within the next 10 years, another core element of this anti gay right movement will begin to crumble....the fear mongering/we just don't know what will happen/my kids are being indoctrinated at school/society will crumble argument. One day people in Mass and NY and Vermont are going to wake up and wonder what all the doom and gloom was about. Life and society didn't wind up coming to a grinding halt.

[ERCougar]

As usual, that crazy libertarian from Texas has the right answer...

[YOUTUBE]se0NqJFMAlg[/YOUTUBE]

The audio won't work here at work, but I'm guessing that his answer stayed consistent with "let them do whatever they want and call it whatever they want"?

Whether you agree with him or not, you have to at least respect that the guy seems dedicated to principle over power. That's really admirable.

[Maximus]

One huge benefit of the continual march forward for gay rights is that it becomes less and less necessary to explain the obvious to folks like Maximus.

I'm sure there were holdouts against the Civil Rights movement, too. People that vehemently wanted separate but equal and couldn't or wouldn't see why things couldn't stay that way. Some folks never get it or refuse to get it or whatever. But everyone else marches on with or without them.

Within the next 10 years, another core element of this anti gay right movement will begin to crumble....the fear mongering/we just don't know what will happen/my kids are being indoctrinated at school/society will crumble argument. One day people in Mass and NY and Vermont are going to wake up and wonder what all the doom and gloom was about. Life and society didn't wind up coming to a grinding halt.

the discussion sure becomes more and more enlightening and civil when you start labeling the people opposed to you as comparable to racists.

[TripletDaddy]

the discussion sure becomes more and more enlightening and civil when you start labeling the people opposed to you as comparable to racists.

I didn't mention racism at all. I dont even think it is at issue although there is some great hypocrisy in being offended by labels that you find unfair or offensive.

The point of my post is that there is less need of discussion today than there was yesterday. And tomorrow even less. Because the real truth is slowly but continually coming to the surface. How many slavery discussions have you had lately? Or debates about a woman's right to vote? What I'm saying is that gay marriage will eventually occupy the same amount of space on the conversational shelf. Yet there will still be some that fail to get it. Others understood and adapted without being compelled or having to be told that it was ok to change your mind.

[Maximus]

I didn't mention racism at all. I dont even think it is at issue although there is some great hypocrisy in being offended by labels that you find unfair or offensive.

The point of my post is that there is less need of discussion today than there was yesterday. And tomorrow even less. Because the real truth is slowly but continually coming to the surface. How many slavery discussions have you had lately? Or debates about a woman's right to vote? What I'm saying is that gay marriage will eventually occupy the same amount of space on the conversational shelf. Yet there will still be some that fail to get it. Others understood and adapted without being compelled or having to be told that it was ok to change your mind.

well let me ask you something...do you think the church will come out to say homosexuality is not a sin? Do you think homosexual relations are a sin?

[TripletDaddy]

well let me ask you something...do you think the church will come out to say homosexuality is not a sin? Do you think homosexual relations are a sin?

Have no idea, but I don't view it as relevant to the discussion of gay people being able to marry. The Church labels as sin many activities that are legal. Conversely, the Church has labeled as righteous activities that were illegal at the time.

[CardiacCoug]

well let me ask you something...do you think the church will come out to say homosexuality is not a sin? Do you think homosexual relations are a sin?

Let gay people get married and there will probably be less gay sex.

Win win.

The thing that just kills me about this is that the anti-gay marriage crowd thinks they are somehow deterring homosexuality or decreasing the amount of homosexual sex by being against gay marriage. Totally irrational.

[CardiacCoug]

The other thing that I think is fascinating about this issue is the way something can be viewed by religious people as a decline in morality but will ultimately be viewed and judged historically as an advancement in morality.