Republicans really do hate gay people

[Ben Kenobi]

Okay. I think communism is stupid and I also see no connection between same-sex marriage and communism.

And I see no connection between the color of your skin and sexuality.

[Wiglaf]

http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2012/05/13/gay_marriage_and_the_definition_of_words/page/2

I have gay family members, and my oldest friend is gay. I love them all, wish nothing but happiness for them, but I oppose gay marriage. Not for religious reasons or anything to do with it being a “threat to traditional marriage” (my fellow heterosexuals have done enough damage to that already). I oppose it because words cannot be allowed to have their meanings changed for political convenience. Words must have meaning. This is the perfect illustration of the difference between liberals and conservatives.

For centuries, marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. Until recently, the thought of it meaning a same-sex union would have been met with the same confusion you would get by pointing to a tree and saying “look at that fish.” But thanks to a liberal courts and legislatures around the country, the word – and thereby the institution – has a new meaning.

But if word meanings can be changed to fit the times, what would we be left with? Skilled lawyers could invalidate any contract on technicalities because their client has a different interpretation of the meaning of the terms. Or someone could argue they didn’t commit perjury because the word “is” means something entirely different to them than everyone else who hears it.

Conservatives read the Constitution, see the words and recognize their meanings. We accept the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers when it comes to those words and, when those words are deemed inadequate or wrong, as was the case with slavery and the treatment of women, we change them through the channels the Founding Fathers set up for us to correct them.

Liberals view the Constitution as a “living document” – open to interpretation. What the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote it is not as important as what liberals’ political agenda demand they mean at any given time. If the politically correct winds of the day don’t agree with the Constitution, they simply re-interpret the Constitution to fit their agenda.

That logic has brought gay marriage to a few states. The word had a meaning, but that meaning no longer fit the liberal agenda. So they redefined it.

This liberal logic applied to many people’s lives would mean they could find a judge who was an animal rights activist and get them to change the meaning of the word dependent.

Dependent, in terms of taxes, always has meant children. But I, like many people, don’t have any children. We have pets. Those pets are like our children. We love them, teach them right from wrong, give them food, shelter, and affection – just as if they were children.

All someone would have to do is get someone in power to redefine “dependent” based on a political agenda (be it vegetarianism or anti-fur) and take a $1,000-per-pet tax credit. But we can’t do that because dependent has a meaning, and that meaning must stay the same. Just like marriage.

Liberals argue gay marriage is needed because of issues dealing with inheritance and hospital visitation. It’s sad some families never accept their child’s homosexuality and fight their partners when it comes to such things. But those issues could be easily solved through a living-will and a regular will. Planning is the best medicine for this and most issues – not government.

They also argue for the same benefits as married couples when it comes to healthcare. That is not a government issue either. Companies themselves choose whether to offer families health coverage or just the individual, and many companies already offer same-sex partner benefits with more adding them all the time.

The final argument they make is the most egregious one. They equate the battle for same-sex marriage with the civil rights struggle. But that misses the whole point of the civil rights struggle.

It was a discrimination based upon what color someone was born. Blacks were denied full citizenship rights for nothing more than having different pigment in their skin than whites.

Gays argue their plight is the same, but I’ve never heard of anyone “experimenting” with being black in college, or having decided later in life they were black. Some homosexuals may have been born that way, but many enter and leave that lifestyle and are/have been in marriages. Equating gay marriage with civil rights cheapens the struggle blacks went through to obtain equality.

The fact is homosexuals have the same “marriage rights” as heterosexuals – they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want because that’s the definition of the word. Civil unions, on the other hand, can have the same benefits of marriage without redefining the word. But many gays have married and divorced later once they either “realized they were gay” or decided to stop living a lie. Good for them, I hope everyone is comfortable enough to be who they are. But society shouldn’t have to change the meaning of words that have stood throughout the course of human history to accommodate them.

I love my gay friends and family members just as much as I love my straight ones, I want them to be happy, but words have to have meaning. If they don’t, then nothing really does.

[MrFun]

Wrong. Definitions should be change, when one group of people who are citizens of a country, are denied the rights that other citizens enjoy.

It's not necessarily wrong to redefine something; in fact, it can be a positive good.

[MrFun]

Oh, and also in response to that article. I still stand on my position that even if anti-miscegenation laws refused to recognize interracial marriages even though they did fit the tradition definition, there was still no discrimination applying the ridiculous logic that has been used against gay marriage.

"Gays are not discriminated against. A gay man is free to marry a woman."
"Blacks were not discriminated against with anti-miscegenation laws. A black man was free to marry a black woman."

[MrFun]

Come to think of it, that article's writer might be a retarded douche, if he thinks language and words are static, and never change.

[Wiglaf]

"Gays are not discriminated against. A gay man is free to marry a woman."
"Blacks were not discriminated against with anti-miscegenation laws. A black man was free to marry a black woman."

You just refuse to listen to responses to this argument, whether I say it or Kuciwalker says it, so there is no point in continuing to talk to you about it.

Wrong. Definitions should be change.

Okay.

[MrFun]

Look, anti-miscegenation laws did not exclude blacks from getting married. There was no discrimination with anti-miscegenation laws, because it did not stop blacks from marrying other blacks. Hence, they were still free to enter into a traditionally defined, heterosexual marriage.

[Wiglaf]

I think you should step back and realize that the author understands what liberals believe (That words and their definitions are meaningless) and why he thinks that is dangerous.

Look, anti-miscegenation laws did not exclude blacks from getting married.

No kidding.

[Wiglaf]

There was no discrimination with anti-miscegenation laws,

Like I said, you refuse to acknowledge the response to this argument, so there is no point in talking to you about it. You just keep repeating this.

[giblets]

I think you should step back and realize that the author understands what liberals believe (That words and their definitions are meaningless) and why he thinks that is dangerous.



No kidding.

If liberals actually thought words were meaningless there would be no point in insisting on having same-sex marriage. If words meant nothing, it would be just as good to have a civil union that provided all the benefits the government grants to married couples.

[Wiglaf]

Maybe it is more precise to say "very elastic" rather than "meaningless."

[MrFun]

Wiggy, if you agree with me then, that anti-miscegenation laws did not exclude blacks from getting married, what is your beef with my applying the "logic" to anti-miscegenation laws that you and Kuci apply to laws not recognizing gay marriages?

[Wiglaf]

I'm not sure what that means, can you write it in a way that makes more sense?

[MrFun]

If anti-miscegenation laws did not exclude blacks from marrying, how were anti-miscegenation laws discriminatory?

[Wiglaf]

That's been asked and answered I think at least five times by now.