[analogue SPRINKLES]

I guess this really comes as no suprise as a poll about a year ago showed "Americans most mistrusted minority" is in this order:

1) Atheists
2) Gays
3 Terrorists

Cuz you know.. Vogueing is worse than blowing up thousands of civilians of course.



No now it seems those darn gays loving one another and wanting equal rights is more a concern than the planet undergoing some major negative environmental changes.

Americans Care More About Gay Marriage Than Global Warming (TreeHugger)

[Atheist]

Yikes, as a gay atheist, I may as well be considered and enemy combatant. Guantanamo, here I come.

Seriously, I've come to the conclusion that it's human nature to have a class of people to which one can direct hatred. For the most part, humans are rather miserable people and need to place the blame of their misery somewhere.

It's been over 2 years now since I've been in the U.S. The longer I'm away, the less inclined I am to return.

[Dakarʒ]

Karl Rove is a genius.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Karl Rove is a genius.

Sad...but accurate.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Karl Rove is a genius.

Jesus Christ, you nailed it!

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I'm just glad to find out that gays are worse than taxes! I mean I thought everybody hated taxes?!

Oh and da immagents also.

[Dakarʒ]

importance/care ≠ worse/hate

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Seriously, I've come to the conclusion that it's human nature to have a class of people to which one can direct hatred. For the most part, humans are rather miserable people and need to place the blame of their misery somewhere.

Which is precisely why I direct all of my hatred towards Umpa Lumpas.

[Faust]

This is just completely laughable. No words to properly describe it really. What screwed up priorities. Sad.

[0157988944]

Jesus Christ. I just don't understand why we have to back to the 60s regarding Gay Marriage. They are people. They love. They marry. Simple? Apparently not.

The Environment is a WAY more important issue, but were wasting our time trying to convince some closeted "traditional values" congressmen that gays should be allowed to marry.

For the most part, humans are rather miserable people and need to place the blame of their misery somewhere.

QFT

[design219]

Well, at least it distracts us from that war thingy.

[design219]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

closeted "traditional values" congressmen

We need a new term for these guys, maybe a twist on the word urinal, or a play on airport bathroom stall.

[0157988944]

haha... maybe "non-Purinal"

[design219]

Hey, that's not bad.

[Chuckit]

Note that these aren't necessarily all people who are against gay marriage — the results could just as easily mean, "Well, I won't vote for some fascist who opposes gay marriage, but it's OK if he has a stronger environmental policy than I necessarily prefer." (I doubt the majority of respondents held that view, but the poll doesn't distinguish between stances on the issue, just how much you care about the issue itself.)

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Karl Rove is a genius.

He did not propel this issue into the mainstream nor was he the champion of forcing the public to fall on one side of it or another.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge were the main party who caused this topic to be addressed in 2003 which is when this "national referendum" on gay marriage really began.

Prior to that it wasn't a very widely discussed issue. Neither Bush nor Kerry wanted it to make a stance on it until the MA SC and the Goodridges made them.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Note that these aren't necessarily all people who are against gay marriage — the results could just as easily mean, "Well, I won't vote for some fascist who opposes gay marriage, but it's OK if he has a stronger environmental policy than I necessarily prefer." (I doubt the majority of respondents held that view, but the poll doesn't distinguish between stances on the issue, just how much you care about the issue itself.)

Yes, people are reading this the wrong way. The way you are describing it is exactly how it should be interpreted.

[Doofy]

I concur with Chuck and Erik.

SWG -> panties -> bunch.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I concur with Chuck and Erik.

SWG -> panties -> bunch.

For the last time stop fantasizing about me in panties!
That may be your thing but not mine.

[Def_ears]

The whole global warming thing is a scam anyways. And homosexuality is against the laws of nature. Nature always wins.

[Graviton]

If it were against the laws of nature it would be impossible. Or are you claiming that gays are somehow supernatural.

If there are any gays in the house, can you levitate and/or shoot lasers from your eyes?

[Def_ears]

They can't reproduce, thank god. No they can't shoot lasers out of their eyes, but they can do some pretty disgusting things with their body parts. It is a disgusting lifestyle, and why should it be promoted, and taught in schools? You want your son going around sucking d***s? I didn't think so.

[Def_ears]

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Def_ears 

Nature always wins.

Homosexuals usually do not reproduce, yet they don't die out. Nature wins, apparently they are natural. Nature wouldn't waste 5-10 % of the population, now would it?

[0157988944]

Originally Posted by Def_ears 

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Clever...

First of all. There is no global warming. It is Global Climate Change. Secondly, the globe does warm and cool naturally, but it is going haywire lately. Thirdly, Whether or not man "Started" it, it is not disputed that we can help eliminate pollutants and other contributors.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Def_ears 

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Actually that says that the minority do not support man made warming theory.

[0157988944]

Originally Posted by Def_ears 

They can't reproduce, thank god. No they can't shoot lasers out of their eyes, but they can do some pretty disgusting things with their body parts. It is a disgusting lifestyle, and why should it be promoted, and taught in schools? You want your son going around sucking d***s? I didn't think so.

Straights CAN reproduce. Oh my god. No they can't shoot lasers out of their eyes, but they can do some pretty disgusting things with their body parts. It is a disgusting lifestyle, and why should it be promoted, and taught in schools? You want your daughter / wife going around sucking d***s? I didn't think so.

[Def_ears]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Straights CAN reproduce. Oh my god. No they can't shoot lasers out of their eyes, but they can do some pretty disgusting things with their body parts. It is a disgusting lifestyle, and why should it be promoted, and taught in schools? You want your daughter / wife going around sucking d***s? I didn't think so.

Whats your point? Go suck a dick

[0157988944]

My point is you are probably a 10 year old insecure dude. Your daddy probably beat the homophobia into you.

Just my opinion.

[Demonhood]

cool off, both of you.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Homosexuals usually do not reproduce, yet they don't die out. Nature wins, apparently they are natural. Nature wouldn't waste 5-10 % of the population, now would it?

Ha. Burn.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

No now it seems those darn gays loving one another and wanting equal rights is more a concern than the planet undergoing some major negative environmental changes.

I son't know what this "equal rights" stuff is all about. I see homosexual folks at banks, restaurants, gas stations, bars, amusement parks, Best Buy, on TV, in movies, at work, at school, and playing on playgrounds with their adopted children. Laws in many states give homosexual partners similar or the same benefits as married folks.

What more do homosexuals need to feel "equal"? The redefining of an age-old word for the union between a man and a woman?

I still maintain my challenge to homosexuals to come up with their own fabulous word for a union of 2 persons of the same gender? Now that would be groundbreaking. I don't know why nobody has seized the oppotunity.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I still maintain my challenge to homosexuals to come up with their own fabulous word for a union of 2 persons of the same gender? Now that would be groundbreaking. I don't know why nobody has seized the oppotunity.

I think they are happy with "Civil Unions" or you want a new shmansy word?

[- - e r i k - -]

I don't get this sentimental attachment to the word marriage, either way.

Why this resistance to embracing and extending?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I son't know what this "equal rights" stuff is all about. I see homosexual folks at banks, restaurants, gas stations, bars, amusement parks, Best Buy, on TV, in movies, at work, at school, and playing on playgrounds with their adopted children. Laws in many states give homosexual partners similar or the same benefits as married folks.

Wow, so in a limited number of places, they have separate but almost equal rights as the majority? I don't see how anybody could find that suboptimal.

Incidentally, a coworker of mine just got refused the privilege of adopting her nieces because she's in a homosexual relationship. Not having that **** happen would be a nice start.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

What more do homosexuals need to feel "equal"? The redefining of an age-old word for the union between a man and a woman?

There is nothing inherent in the word "marriage" that requires a man and a woman any more than it requires two Catholics. When I say "gay marriage," you know what I mean. It isn't a contradiction of terms like "square circle." Just because it's traditionally done that way among your people doesn't mean the word can't just as well apply to gay unions. Heck, 150 years ago, the term "washing machine" applied to a totally different device than it does now. But because the device we use now does basically the same thing, people thought the term worked just as well.

As the Supreme Court figured out more than 50 years ago in the case of race, there is no such thing as separate but equal. The whole concept is a hoax used to disguise discrimination. I don't really care about the terminology, but I know that the people who go out of their way to resist calling it "marriage" aren't just worried that they'll have to buy a new edition of the dictionary.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I son't know what this "equal rights" stuff is all about. I see homosexual folks at banks, restaurants, gas stations, bars, amusement parks, Best Buy, on TV, in movies, at work, at school, and playing on playgrounds with their adopted children. Laws in many states give homosexual partners similar or the same benefits as married folks.

What more do homosexuals need to feel "equal"? The redefining of an age-old word for the union between a man and a woman?

I still maintain my challenge to homosexuals to come up with their own fabulous word for a union of 2 persons of the same gender? Now that would be groundbreaking. I don't know why nobody has seized the oppotunity.

Because it's not about the word. It's about forcing people to give up their moral beliefs and force them to accept things that aren't equal as equals despite the logical dishonesty such an effort creates.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because it's not about the word. It's about forcing people to give up their moral beliefs

Incorrect. You're allowed to believe being gay is wrong just like Jews believe saying "God" is wrong, but also like the Jews, you are expected to allow others the freedom to hold different views. How would you like it if somebody tried to force Wiccan/Satanic/Hindu rituals on you out of some misguided sense of morality?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

and force them to accept things that aren't equal as equals despite the logical dishonesty such an effort creates.

I will be floored if you can actually create a logical argument proving that straight marriage is all of one type and gay marriage is of another and these two things are substantially unequal.

[shinji]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Because it's not about the word. It's about forcing people to give up their moral beliefs and force them to accept things that aren't equal as equals despite the logical dishonesty such an effort creates.

We don't all have to have the same moral beliefs. It's not about giving up your values, it's about respecting other people's.

Two people who love each other want to get married and they're the same gender. How is that a big deal, moreso than any of the other very important issues on that list?

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I will be floored if you can actually create a logical argument proving that straight marriage is all of one type and gay marriage is of another and these two things are substantially unequal.

You can't have accidental children in a gay marriage?

Our economic system depends on constant growth, so if you're denying your ability to have as many children as possible, you're hurting our economy. Why do you hate America?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Incorrect. You're allowed to believe being gay is wrong just like Jews believe saying "God" is wrong, but also like the Jews, you are expected to allow others the freedom to hold different views.

I never said that "being gay was wrong" or that holding such a view had anything to do with the matter at hand.

How would you like it if somebody tried to force Wiccan/Satanic/Hindu rituals on you out of some misguided sense of morality?

I'd equally see the intellectual dishonesty in the government offering affirmative actions in regards to animal sacrifices for Satanists, then Christians forcing reading the Bible to be called "animal sacrifice" just so that they may receive the same benefits without providing the same benefits in returjn.

I will be floored if you can actually create a logical argument proving that straight marriage is all of one type and gay marriage is of another and these two things are substantially unequal.

I don't know how you can logically argue that they are substantially equal. What generally happens when people get married? Oh yeah...they reproduce. For the vast majority, this happens. Of course, you can always find exceptions (to which there are exceptions for EVERYTHING). Whether the people in question choose to, or think that they are capable of it or not. That's 100% not the case with same sex unions. To suggest that the creation of new life and new members of society isn't an element which creates a substantial inequality (given that it's the general rule, not the exception) between the two types of unions is simple intellectual dishonesty.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shinji 

We don't all have to have the same moral beliefs. It's not about giving up your values, it's about respecting other people's.

Two people who love each other want to get married and they're the same gender. How is that a big deal, moreso than any of the other very important issues on that list?

How is that a big deal? It's because it defeats the entire purpose of the recognition of marriage, which is to encourage people who wish to cohabitate long-term with a member of the opposite sex to stay together given the odds that such a relationship will result in offspring. You're suggesting we should change it to something that ENTIRELY focuses on the government providing affirmative action for emotions. I see no compelling interest for the government to get involved with our love-lives.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't know how you can logically argue that they are substantially equal. What generally happens when people get married? Oh yeah...they reproduce. For the vast majority, this happens.

And those for whom it doesn't, would you say they are in the same category as gays and shouldn't be allowed to marry? I know a straight couple where the wife is completely barren, but they've adopted seven children and brought them up wonderfully. Are you really saying these people shouldn't have been allowed to marry? Why not?

And even if that couple should not have been allowed, they were, so if gays aren't allowed to marry, we can be fully sure that's not the reason.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

To suggest that the creation of new life and new members of society isn't an element which creates a substantial inequality (given that it's the general rule, not the exception) between the two types of unions is simple intellectual dishonesty.

But we don't make sure this rule is going to be followed in any other case. What's the harm in allowing another category of couple that can't reproduce to get married? It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that straights who can't have children should be allowed to get married, but gays shouldn't be allowed to get married for that reason. The difference is the homosexuality, not the ability to have children. QED.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You're suggesting we should change it to something that ENTIRELY focuses on the government providing affirmative action for emotions. I see no compelling interest for the government to get involved with our love-lives.

Then why aren't you campaigning against marriage rights for the infertile and elderly?

[Graviton]

What the? By that argument, sterile couples and heterosexual couples who just don't fancy having kids should not be allowed to marry either

I don't think any logical consistency is being shown here.

When I marry my girlfriend, I cant see how the gay couple down the road getting married will diminish my commitment to her one iota. I know a couple of girls who recently got married to each other (*cough*, I mean had a 'civil partnership'). Family life did not magically break down. Dogs and cats didn't start living together. Led Zeppelin still rule.

I just don't get what the problem is.

[shinji]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

How is that a big deal? It's because it defeats the entire purpose of the recognition of marriage, which is to encourage people who wish to cohabitate long-term with a member of the opposite sex to stay together given the odds that such a relationship will result in offspring.

If marriage were suddenly banned for everyone, people would still reproduce. You can reproduce outside of wedlock and it happens every day.

So you don't need government-sanctioned marriage in order to create new humans, if that is honestly what you think the only valid reason for getting married is. I think a valid reason for getting married is you love your future spouse and anything beyond that is up to the married couple. If a couple chooses to only get married and not have children, or can't for any reason, I'm fine with it and even if I weren't it's none of my business.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

You're suggesting we should change it to something that ENTIRELY focuses on the government providing affirmative action for emotions. I see no compelling interest for the government to get involved with our love-lives.

I'm suggesting the government provide equal rights to gay people and not discriminate on the basis of sexuality. You only don't want the government involved because you support the status quo.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And those for whom it doesn't......

...would be in the same camp as wealthy minorities who still receive the benefits of racial affirmative action; belonging to a specific class which could be generally seen to benefit from an affirmative action which doesn't require means testing.

Then why aren't you campaigning against marriage rights for the infertile and elderly?

For the same reason I'm not for means testing for other affirmative actions, as long as the subject in question fits the class that would generally benefit. In this case, it would be men and women who wish to engage in a long-term union.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shinji 

If marriage were suddenly banned for everyone, people would still reproduce. You can reproduce outside of wedlock and it happens every day.

It's in the interest of the government that when this reproduction occurs, the new members of the human race that are created have a stable home life. The way most of society views it, the most stable way is for their male and female blood related parents to care for them together until adulthood. None of that is required, but it's the goal we as a society set which we encourage via the "marriage" affirmative actions that the government bestows. There is no compelling interest to bestow affirmative action to arrangements which fall well below the goal or have no way to even attempt it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shinji 

I'm suggesting the government provide equal rights to gay people and not discriminate on the basis of sexuality. You only don't want the government involved because you support the status quo.

They aren't. They are discriminating based on their inability to meet the basic requirements that the "marriage" affimrative actions are mean to encourage. There is no moral or legal requirement to treat two unequal things as equals.

[selowitch]

The gay-hating, right-wing-talk-radio-listening, self-righteous idiots who make up the majority of the Republican electorate had better wake up to the fact that a) there are no valid arguments against civil gay marriage in the U.S.; and b) that universal, legal gay marriage here is entirely inevitable inside five years.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

The gay-hating, right-wing-talk-radio-listening, self-righteous idiots who make up the majority of the Republican electorate had better wake up to the fact that a) there are no valid arguments against civil gay marriage in the U.S.; and b) that universal, legal gay marriage here is entirely inevitable inside five years.

Your opinion and predjudiced stereotyping are noted.

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your opinion and predjudiced stereotyping are noted.

"Predjudiced," eh? I guess I forgot to add "illiterate" to the list.