[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by PKRWUD :

Jim, you're becoming a conspiracy theorist, and you sound scared. For the life of me, though, I can't understand why. You have nothing to fear, you know perfectly well that you can't turn gay because your neighbor is. You surely also know that no matter who else gets married, anywhere on the face of this earth, it couldn't possibly affect the marriage you share with your wife. So what are you afraid of? Why are you so bent on denying others what you, and many other folks have? You've built this up into an 'us versus them' situation, where they're plotting against you, trying to twart your happiness with their hidden agenda. That's so ridiculous, I have trouble believing you'd imply it. No one is trying to take anything away from you. No one is trying to infringe upon your rights. And the only reason the polls and opinions are the way they are is because no one started including homosexuals in their teaching of tolerance until very recently.

You know Chris, I had almost forgotten how good you are are turning arguments inside out and getting your opponent on the defensive by erecting strawmen. I'm not 'scared' (that's a great tactic too use, though...bravo to you for coming up with it) nor do I fear 'turning gay' so let's drop the schoolyard nonsense, shall we, Chris? Please. It's me, not some high school kid you can pull this over on by inferring that their opposition to homosexual 'marriage' stems from a perceived threat to their masculinity. Lame, Chris, really lame but I suppose it's worked for you in the past so you had to give it a try, here. As I've stated, the emotional approach ("they just want to be haaaapppppy') is a waste of time. Pedophiles and poygamists just 'want to be happy', too. So what? Marriage is an ancient social structure intended to confer social approval on a man and a women committing themselves to each other with the expectation that they will bear and raise children and contribute to the greater good of society by doing so as they further the species. Homosexuals simply do not qualify for that designation and rightly so. Attempts to attack my motives and pretend that I'm a conspiracy-theory nut is beneath you, Chris. At least I thought it was. It's obvious that social and legal acceptance for a sexual devient behavior is at the heart of the 'gay marriage' movement. Once homosexual sex is considered legally equal to hetrosexual sex and their couplings are considered equal to hetrosexual marriage we have started down a path that will lead to true corruption of our society as we cannot throw away all social mores and expect to remain intact as a people. History shows this. Allowing sexually deviant behavior to be considered legally equal to heteosexual marriage and to base it on the faulty premise of 'non-discrimination' is absurd. It''s sad how intelligent people like you are so easily drawn into this and eager to defend it, while criticizing opponents with false accusations and a misguided attack on their motives. Poygamists want to have a dozen 'wives'. is it 'discrimination' to not allow it? I think not.

The only thing shallow there was the point you were trying to make. The odds are exactly the same that someone would do away with any age requirement for marriage whether gays can get married or not. Don't be ridiculous.

Really, Chris? Twenty years ago anyone claiming that two homosexuals should have the right to be legally married would have been laughed out of the room. Now, it's being vigoriously defended by folks who should know better, like you. NAMBLA is quite serious about the age of consent being lowered and will probably prevail in a few more decades, just as the homosexuals prevailed to get their sexual couplings called 'marriage' by the law. It just takes time, good PR and calling it 'discrimination' long enough and loud enough until a majority of mushy-headed but well-intentioned people buy into it.

Your arguments are your personal opinions, and just don't make any sense, Jim, which is not like you. You chose instead to ad-lib my post, which was written in plain and simple English. There were no hidden meanings, no ulterior motives, it was just exactly what it was. I tried no "routines", and had no "ploys". Calling your friend an "EX-homosexual" is too funny for words. It's not a light switch under your hair that you can flip at any time. I can't even imagine any circumstances that would make me want to be gay, but with your logic, anyone could, overnight. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Of course you don't Chris. If you did, it would destroy your whole argument, wouldn't it? Self-serving at best but I understand your position and how you have to defend it by your denial that homosexuality is anything less than innate, even if no proof is ever shown to back that up. I called your post as I saw it, just as you have mine. We're even on that point, we just disagree.

Have you read any of the other replies to this post? Don't even blame me for someone else's church telling them that homosexuality is a sin. The author of this thread was alerted to the situation at a meeting at her church. And I'm sorry again, Jim, but that was no "attempt" at anything. I'd prefer you read what I wrote, rather than turning it into some twisted interpretation of it. There was nothing inbetween the lines. This conspiracy thing goes deep with you, it would seem.

Attempts to demean logical and rational opposition to a bad idea are not all generated by fear and hate, as you would have us believe. I resent the implication.

You said yourself that religion has nothing to do with this, which is refreshing to hear. Most of the arguments I've seen and heard against gay marriage revolves around someone's interpretation of their God, and what they felt was right and proper. I'm glad to see that you are past that, although that does shoot down most of the other peoples arguments in this thread. You also acknowledged that gay people are 'nice'. lol. I'm guessing that's your way of saying it's not their personalities, or their flamboyant behavior that keeps you objecting to them being allowed to marry. We both know that that would be blatant discrimination, though, so I'm not surprised. They have loud and obnoxious parades because they no longer feel they have to lie about their sexuality. They're proud of what they are. So are the Irish, every March 17th. So what? If you don't like it, don't go to see it. I do my best to avoid both.

I hold no animus toward homosexuals as people and care not what they choose to do in private. That should be obvious by now. That does not mean that I wish to change the law defining what marriage is to make them happy with me, either. It's a bad idea and emotional attempts to cast gays as 'victims' fall flat with me and many others.

I'm heterosexual, and I call it discrimination. And I'm not the only one.

You've bought into the 'gay discrimination' ploy quite fully, that's clear. Getting what you demand and calling it 'discrimination' if you don't works well, today, in our PC nation. I don't buy it.

You talk of a long history of marriages being between women and men, but you should also know that in many civilizations, older than ours, homosexuality was not only accepted, it was encouraged. The primary purpose for the union between men and women was for procreation, which brings us to another of your points. I don't recall ever reading where the ability to procreate was a requirement for a marriage license. If that's the case, there's a whole bunch of married couples out there who's license is null and void. And as far as the point of being natural, and of being anatomically compatible, I hate to say it, for many reasons, but gay couples have worked that out, too. There are many heterosexual couples that are no longer "naturally compatible", are they to be denied as well?

Another lame 'gay marriage' talking point. 97% of married couples have children. The few who do not are often aunts and uncles and sometimes surrogate parents to relatives - or even foster parents. The fact that marriage is universally assumed to mean hetrosexuals having children isn't undercut by the few hetrosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children. Nice try.

Once again, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't know how to make it any more clear; EVERYONE should be entitled to the same rights and restrictions

Any two legal adults, of sound mind, should have the same rights as any other adults of sound mind. And according to the US Supreme Court, in 1964, declared that the freedom to marry was a basic right of all Americans. The constitution protects everyone, not just the majority. When it comes to defining criminal offenses, the majority rules, but under no circumstances can the majority maintain a right while taking it away from the minority. If it's a right for you, it's a right for every other legal adult. At least that's the way it's supposed to be. That's what makes this country as great as it is; EVERYONE of equal status is entitled to the same rights.

Nice try at flag-waving in defense of gay 'marriage' Chis but you're still wrong. If 'marriage' as a word and an institution as well as a social foundation is to retain it's meaning, it has to have some borders. Hetrosexuality is a natural one. Don't even try to drag the black civil rights argument into this Chris, as not allowing 'negros' to marry whites was a shoddy segregationist tactic and has no relation to homosexuals, as homosexuality, unlike race, is not innate or immutable.

IMO, the bottom line here Jim is you personally object to it, for whatever personal reasons you have, but your personal feelings don't justify denying the right of marriage to a gay couple. Everything you may or may not hate and detest about a gay couple being together is going to continue to happen, even in your neighborhood, whether we like it or not. All that is being accomplished by trying to deny the right of marriage to those couples, is denying them equal (not special) rights.

Still beating the dead horse of attacking my motives, eh, Chris? Too bad. I had hoped for better. You've disappointed me here. Oh well, live and learn. Let's just say that we agree to disagree and let it go at that as this could go on forever. Feel free to have the last word here, as I know you will. I'm about finished with this for now.