Republicans really do hate gay people

[kentonio]

I was in no way implying that homosexuality was in any way similar to beastiality.

At least, I did not intend to.

In your case I wouldn't imagine you did, but many anti-gay groups have used beastiality and pedophilia comparisons in the past to try and demonize gay people.

[Ming]

It isn't denying them equal rights!

JM

Yes it is... It's that simple. This not denying them equal rights is just word crap and illogical arguments.
You think marriage can only be between a man and a woman... and that gay men can marry a woman, therefore, you aren't denying them equal rights.
That's just a load of crap and you know it. It totally ignores reality and is simply a stupid justification of your POV.

"Consenting adults" should be allowed to marry who they want to... pure and simple. To argue a gay man can't marry another gay man is simply discrimination.
You and the woman you love can get married... why can't two men who love each other and want to make a commitment. OH... THAT's RIGHT, they can marry a woman if they want, but not each other... TOTAL BULL**** and PURE DISCRIMINATION.

[Jon Miller]

Until ~10 years ago, I didn't know that anyone could consider marriage as being between two men. The idea hadn't entered my head. I was not homophobic. The idea of two men having a sexual relationship was A-OK with me.

I am saying the definition should be expanded.

Just because it is already expanded for you, and for others (and if it is expanded, than it is discriminatory not to allow a man to marry another man), doesn't mean it is already expanded for everyone.

Just because the change in definition is obvious for you doesn't mean it is obvious for everyone.

Denying that it is a change of definition is a problem with you.

Not realizing that the change is good, is a problem with them (I think).

JM

[Ming]

Until ~10 years ago, I didn't know that anyone could consider marriage as being between two men. The idea hadn't entered my head. I was not homophobic.

Your problem... Gay people wanted that right more than 10 years ago... But many were too afraid to even say it out loud because some bigot might chain them to the back of car and drag them for miles...

I am saying the definition should be expanded.

It's not "expanded" for some because a bunch of bigots want to deny gays of equal rights. A "definition" is how people define things... the fact that SOME people have no desire to define it that way is THEIR problem... and they don't want to change THEIR definition because they continue to want to deny gays their equal rights. NOBODY is saying that they have to go out and marry somebody of the same sex... But OTHERS do want that right. To deny them of that right is discrimination.

Just because it is already expanded for you, and for others (and if it is expanded, than it is discriminatory not to allow a man to marry another man), doesn't mean it is already expanded for everyone.

And some people still think blacks are inferior because their "definition" hasn't changed... and they discriminate and are bigots.

Just because the change in definition is obvious for you doesn't mean it is obvious for everyone.

That's because they won't open their eyes and see what bigots they are... hiding behind religious crap or other such silly justifications.
Again, nobody is saying they have to go marry a person of the same sex... or to allow those kind of marriages in their churches... or show love and understanding to gay couples... but we have freedom in this country, and gays simply want the same basic rights. To not allow them those rights is discrimination.

Denying that it is a change of definition is a problem with you.

No... NOT ME... but to all the gays in the world. You know, the people that are having THEIR rights DENIED TO THEM because a bunch of bigots hang on to their outdated "definition"
This isn't about "definitions"... it's simply about basic rights and freedoms.

Not realizing that the change is good, is a problem with them (I think).
JM

No... not realizing that change is reality, and they are bigots for wanting to discriminate against gays. THAT'S the PROBLEM.

[Elok]

While, like everybody else who's posted in the past five pages or so of this thread, I support gay marriage, I and I alone support gay marriage for correct and scientific reasons (i.e., so we can hook magnets up to Falwell's corpse and coffin to generate power from him turning over in his grave).

The rest of you ignorant douches are going to hell.

[Wiglaf]

Ming keeps *****ing about gays being denied rights. What rights are being denied? If you mention hospital visitation and all that crap, can't laws just grant those rights separately?

Why are you so obsessed with changing the definition of marriage?

And I would compare gay marriage not to horse marriage, but to 'marriage' with smart aquatics, like whales.

You think marriage can only be between a man and a woman... and that gay men can marry a woman, therefore, you aren't denying them equal rights.
That's just a load of crap and you know it.

It's actually completely logical. Gay couples and straight couples can have the same rights, it's just that you can't call the gay union a 'marriage.' As a side point, I would argue gay couples do not deserve the same rights because the state should be able to choose what kind of deviant sex acts it wants to endorse with special privileges, but that's another argument.

[giblets]

x-post. Nothing Wiglaf has posted in this thread was funny.

[Wiglaf]

I'm not your monkey, ******.

[giblets]

Am I not supposed to clarify the meaning of my posts? Idiot.

[Wiglaf]

You lose every argument you engage in, always being sure to run away rather than acknowledge how stupid you are, and consistently refuse to release your SAT scores and undergraduate transcripts. You're the idiot and everyone knows it. You probably went to a COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

[giblets]

You probably made up that crap about being a wealthy lawyer elected to public office. You're too stupid even for Congress. Yes, that's not terribly original but it's true.

[Wiglaf]

It's hard for anyone to be too stupid for Congress. My black colleagues set a low bar.

[rah]

There's nothing prejudiced or nosy about supporting a policy that does not directly affect you. For example, I support decreasing foreign aid, even though it hardly affects the deficit, much less me.

If you're paying taxes that are used for foreign aid then you deserve a voice in how the money is used. Much more relevant then Ben's continued baying that gay marriage somehow hurts him by infringing on his religious rights. Which I find hilarious since anything that infringes on his religious rights is so terrible that it justifies infringing on others rights. (which he denies by saying it's not a right) A bigger hypocrite than most.

[Wiglaf]

What if I think, as a matter of good public policy, our country's laws should treat definitions and centuries-old civil institutions with respect? Because I believe, if we do not treat them with respect, laws and even personal contracts might lose their intended meaning in front of an activist judge?

This definitional debate affects everyone.

[rah]

Actually in this case I think it really only affects gays since I haven't seen one REAL reason how this negatively impacts non gays.