The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

I think a lot of people who are against gay marriage understand the need for something that will provide benefits along the lines of marriage. When my uncle died a few years ago, the idea that his partner of 50 years or so had to pay taxes on my uncles share of the house was ridiculous, as was the fact that because my uncle had not given him medical power of attorney that he could not make decisions for him. While many of us understand the problems involved for gay couples, changing the definition of marriage because some group wishes it to be changed is not something people will instantly get behind, and all the name-calling in the world won't change a thing.

Just so you know, I do have gay friends but I don't see how that has anything to do with anything. Besides my uncle whom I have alluded to above, I have a good friend (who introduced my future wife to me many years ago) who is gay and couldn't care one way or the other about gay marriage. I could go down the list and let you know about my other aquaintances who I know to be gay/lesbian, but again I don't see the point you are trying to make by asking.

And just to make it clear, nowhere have I ever stated that your side should just shut up about the whole thing and you'll eventually win anyway. I don't believe either side should shut up about anything. That is the beauty of living in a free country. ALL opinions should be heard and ALL citizens should have the right to fight for what they think is best for society as a whole. I have no qualms with gay marriage advocates standing up and expressing their opinions. Go for it. I hope they continue to do so. Doesn't bother me Cy. But yelling and name-calling won't get anyone anywhere. It's not right when one side is yelling "faggot" or "queer" or vice versa when the other side is yelling "bigot" or "prick" or whatever is the name of the day.

I don't believe that calling Bigoted behavior Bigoted is 'name-calling.' You feel this way, because it is probably uncomfortable for you to be confronted with an accurate description of your behavior; nobody wants to think of themselves as anything bad.

But the truth is that you see two classes of citizens, ones which should enjoy certain rights and ones which should not, based on a meaningless distinction which you (and most others I suspect) are against primarily on religious grounds and not logical ones. The only word to describe such beliefs is Bigot. It would be no different if you felt that blacks should have limited rights, or the elderly, or immigrants, or any other group who is different than you and the majority in some way.

I will not stop pointing this out until people have the guts to come out and admit their bigotry. You're essentially trying to have it both ways; holding opinions which seek to keep others down, but complaining when people point that out using accurate language, because that language makes you uncomfortable.

Cycloptichorn

Just so you know, I would have treated the coloreds fairly. But for them to have wanted to drink out of the same fountains as me and swim in the same pools ---there are natural bodies of water around you know; it's not like they need a swimming pool --- well, I just don't agree with people adding prefixes like 'de' to perfectly good English words like 'segregation'.

As I stated earlier, but will make absolutely clear now, I personally couldn't care less what anyone calls me, especially someone who doesn't know me. And I couldn't care less if you refer to everyone who disagrees with you as a bigot, a prick or anything else your childish minds wish to come up with. It is of no concern to me. I'm comfortable with my belief and the reasoning behind my belief. My only point in mentioning the name calling was to point out the hypocrisy that is evident in how you view the vote of the NY senator (too lazy to go back and find his name) who voted against the bill based on what he believed his constituents wanted. As pointed out, and I stand by my opinion, had it been a republican voting for the bill based on what his constituents wanted, then you and others would be applauding him for going against the majority of his party. (Granted, the small minds on my side of the aisle may well have vilified him, but that just proves there are small minds on both sides and does not justify the behaviour on one side or the other.) But because it was someone voting the wrong way in your opinion, you on the left vilify him and call him names.

As for your other point, I submit that I see only one class of people in this country, that being Americans. And all Americans are subject the the same laws and as far as I know they are applied equally. It is the left that is constantly dividing us up into groups and pitting the groups against each other. Hopefully at some point in time we will all realize we are Americans and we will begin to work together to provide solutions to the issues that divide us rather than yelling back and forth and labeling those who have different opinions.

So as I said to an overly obnoxious member many moons ago, go ahead and continue to do just what you are doing. It matters not to the stubborn on my side of the aisle who will fight against anything that resembles gay marriage, it only goes to alienate those of us who believe that there is indeed a solution to be had that can make both sides of this debate happy.

JTT, Cy made a point of saying he did not know whether I had gay friends or not, so I responded just so he would know since that seemed important to him for some reason. Otherwise I would not have mentioned whether I knew any or not since it is not relavent. So before making a smart aleck reply, why don't you try to read the back and forth so you understand the context of what I write.

The entire point is that they are not applied equally. Laws exist specifically to keep a certain percentage of the population from enjoying the right to marry the person they love, while granting the majority that right.

It is sad that you maintain this farce that the law is applied equally. I know you don't believe it's true, deep down; it's just a thin cloak you draw over your bigotry, to attempt to justify it to yourself. If you were honest, you would admit that the way the law stands right now denies rights to one group while granting them to another.

If you cannot admit the truth of that, I submit that you do not see 'one' class of Americans at all.



It has nothing to do with party or constituents; I would be against anyone who votes against Equality for All, period.



This is the biggest problem with your position; there is no 'reasoning' behind your belief. Instead, the exact opposite; IIRC, it is religious dogma which drives your opinion, and that is the antithesis of reason.

Ever has it been such and it's a ******* shame that half of our society can't get past this. But, as you said earlier - your group will age out and we will get our way. I hope you have the balls to explain to your grandkids and great-grandkids why you were a supporter of bigotry and hate in the face of this. Somehow I doubt you will.

Cycloptichorn

His post is still entirely appropriate. You have gay friends, you just don't want them to have the same rights as you.

Cycloptichorn

They have the same rights as I do. What they want is to change the law to give us all an additional right. I understand that and I certainly have no quarrel with any group who believes a law should be changed. Go for it. If you get enough support to pass it, great. It becomes law and that's that. But if you don't get enough support to pass it, quit crying and pointing fingers and yelling and what not at the mean old people whose opinion was different. After all, they were only fighting for their belief also.

No, they don't! You are focusing on the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of the law. You are doing this on purpose in order to avoid self-criticism for your opinion that they should be denied the pursuit of happiness. Please, be honest about this!



Your beliefs aren't based on Logic or Equality but on the twin (and intertwined) pillars of Religion and Fear. It is entirely correct to point this out, and you have consistently refused to admit that this is true.

You are fighting to keep people unequal. You know this is true. That deserves repeated and loud condemnation. The fact that the condemnation makes you feel uncomfortable should tell you something.

Cycloptichorn

This says it all, CT.

We're going to supply them with water fountains, just not our water fountains.

This makes me wonder, truly wonder,

"Really!? What kind of friend is that that would [you can easily fill in the blank]?

Sorry, CR, about the CT.

I won't try to read your mind and figure out what you are trying to point out to me with this. So enlighten me as to the purpose of the fill in the blank.

And I magnanimously forgive you for referring to me as CT. I figured it was just a slip. We're all entitled to them sometimes. Just don't do it again or I may go ballistic on you.

Just as I was beginning to think there was no one left to put on ignore, I add another. bye JTT

You've obviously mistaken me for someone who cares, Dys.

What kind of friend is it that would think that treating a friend as a second class citizen is a friend?



This is no argument at all, CR. Words gain new definitions all the time. In fact, it has already changed. Denying that doesn't make someone a language genius, it simply makes them a bigot.

Apparently there are still people who don't crack open any dictionary (the Oxford is comparable):

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry " J. T. Shawcross>


The Fog of Marriage

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Abraham Lincoln

Yet clearly that wasnt the case... freedom for slaves, rights for women and homosexuals, big business distorting votes with money and power...you get the idea.