Republicans really do hate gay people

[MrFun]

Right. You've said because interracial marriages would still be within the traditionally defined heterosexual marriage, that that would make anti-miscegenation laws discriminatory.

But I disagree, because blacks could still enter into a traditionally defined marriage with other blacks.

[Wiglaf]

You are right that anti-miscegenation laws could have been even more discriminatory than they were.

[MrFun]

They weren't discriminatory at all. Go back and reread my responses. Blacks were still free to enter into heterosexual marriage in spite of the anti-miscegenation laws.

[Jon Miller]

It wasn't that blacks were not able to enter into heterosexual marriage.

It was that specific marriages (those of mixed races, which were recognized as marriage by everyone, and had been recognized as marriage by everyone), were made illegal.

What is happening now, and what should happen, is that the definition of marriage is expanded to include a man and a man and a woman and a woman. But the principle should be 'what is advantageous'. Not 'we are discriminating'. You can use 'we are discriminating' to make the definition of marriage to include a man and his horse too.

JM

[kentonio]

But the principle should be 'what is advantageous'. Not 'we are discriminating'.

No it shouldn't.

You can use 'we are discriminating' to make the definition of marriage to include a man and his horse too.

Yes you can certainly equate the marriage of a man and a horse to the marriage of two human beings. Because obviously we grant full human rights to horses..

[Jon Miller]

I don't think that it is marriage between a man and a horse, just like I don't think it was marriage between a man and a man.

It has nothing to do with human rights.

JM

[kentonio]

I don't think that it is marriage between a man and a horse, just like I don't think it was marriage between a man and a man.

It has nothing to do with human rights.

JM

Actually it has everything to do with human rights.

[giblets]

The horse can't even consent to entering a marriage because it has no idea what you're talking about. That is not a very good example. You and the other "slippery slope" people should stick to polygamy.

[Elok]

Are you trying to imply that horses don't understand sexuality? Because I can assure you they do. They have wild, raucous horse sex. Also, I read somewhere that it's normal for a mare to screw every stallion in the herd the moment she becomes pregnant, because otherwise at least one stallion will be sure that the colt isn't his and kick it to death just to be a jerk. Horses would only benefit from the stable family structure provided by marriage. I, for one, support horse marriage.

[Jon Miller]

The horse can't even consent to entering a marriage because it has no idea what you're talking about. That is not a very good example. You and the other "slippery slope" people should stick to polygamy.

I am not arguing 'slippery slope'.

I don't care that marriage would never be defined as between a man and a horse.

I am 'pro' gay marriage.

What my point was that it was a different definition. Just like that of a man riding a horse (not being at all sexual here).

JM

[giblets]

No, if horses got married their colts would get kicked to death. Horses don't want marriage. Please try to be consistent.

x-post

[Kuciwalker]

Also, I read somewhere that it's normal for a mare to screw every stallion in the herd the moment she becomes pregnant, because otherwise at least one stallion will be sure that the colt isn't his and kick it to death just to be a jerk.

Ah, I love games with multiple Nash equilibria.

[Ming]

The bigots will keep coming up with excuses on why gays can't have equal rights...
They bring up Bestiality, Polygamy, meaningless traditions that only relate to their argument, an outdated religious book that can be interpreted however it supports their arguments, and my favorite... how it will change what their own marriage means...

It's all a load of crap to justify their wish to deny gays their equal rights. They can package it how ever they want, put their own spin on it, come up will illogical justifications, but at the end the day, they are simply looking like a bunch of bigots... and they will then claim they are the victims because they are being called bigots.

The only victims here are the gays that are being discriminated against. And people who discriminate are bigots. Fell free to put whatever spin on it you wish, or keep coming up with lame ass justifications for your reasons of denying equal rights to gays... but it is what it is, and nothing you say changes that simple fact.

[Jon Miller]

Except that I am pro gay marriage.

And I think that the argument from discrimination is stupid, harmful, and offensive when used to attack others.

It is just to allow you to hate on those who don't see things the same way as you.

JM

[Ming]

Calling somebody a bigot is not a matter of hate... simply a reality and truth.
As I posted, you can spin it however you want... but denying gays equal rights IS DISCRIMINATION.

If that FACT disturbs you and is harmful to you... that's nothing compared to the discrimination that gays face.

I'm tired of hearing how bigots are victims simply because they are being called what they are. I'm more concerned about equal rights for gays.