The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Then people that are pro-gay marriage are anti-hetero marriage?

" Slavery was, of course, quite traditional. In India, it was quite 'traditional' for new wives to be stoned to death for arriving with an insufficient dowry. Stringing up blacks without anything like a trial was a tradition in the American south previously. Women, traditionally had no vote and could be raped by their husbands with no worry of legal consequences, the assault being quite legal under the traditions of the day.

Ought such traditions always to be maintained? "

The PEOPLES elected officials STOPPED the "tradition" of slavery.
Did they? Or did you actually fight a civil war on the matter because consensus could not be reached? And how close might you be to another one now?

If and when THE PEOPLE or the PEOPLES ELECTED officials feel that marriage the time is right to change the "traditional" definition of marriage, it will be done.

Apparently, NOW is not the time.

You really post some silly examples Blatham. Each "tradtion" you outline was changed according to the laws of OUR land at a time when the PUBLIC deemed it necessary by a majority of votes.
And until the majority moved over to a new viewpoint or value, was everyone else silent on the matter? Before women had the vote, were there no marches, no written protests, no people like me arguing like I am here?

Then people that are pro-gay marriage are anti-hetero marriage?

Blatham - The Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850 which set in motion many pieces of legislation that precipitated the American Civil War which began in 1861.

Again, those in the minority can speak their mind and try to sell their position on the majority or reach a compromise. Until the pro-homo marriage minority can sell that to the public, they best seek a compromise until then.

woiyo wrote:

Blatham - The Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850 which set in motion many pieces of legislation that precipitated the American Civil War which began in 1861.

Again, those in the minority can speak their mind and try to sell their position on the majority or reach a compromise. Until the pro-homo marriage minority can sell that to the public, they best seek a compromise until then.

"Pro-homo"...modern equivalent of "pro-nigger"?

What kind of silly reply is that?? Do you always twist meanings to get off message? FYI PRO-HOMO is an abbreviation. PRO-NIGGER as you so eloquently stated is, to me, a racist, vulgar comment.

Compromises may need to be constructed in various states, but legal challenges will likely be the complimentary strategy, along with education and activism. One more generation in the grave and the visceral disgust at homosexual acts (that's boys...with girls it's ok, yes?) will likely have gone the way of legislation banning oral-genital contact.

Yeah, that really doesn't make any sense, McG.

Why would you assume that someone who is pro-gay marriage is anti-regular marriage? You are trying to flip the argument around, but it doesn't work, and do you know why?

Because GAYS MARRYING DOESN'T IMPACT STRAIGHT MARRIAGES IN THE SLIGHTEST!!!!!

I would challenge you, or anyone, to tell me SPECIFIC ways in which straight people and straight marriages are harmed by the concept of Gay marriage.

Once you can lay out for me how other people's lives will be affected by this, then you can claim that being anti-gay marriage ISN'T homophobic; until good reasons can be shown why they shouldn't be able to marry, then it IS homophobia pushing this drive.

And 'tradition' isn't a good reason for doing things in a democracy, and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

You are asking millions of people to accept what they deem unacceptable. They have already been forced to give up so much in the name of "understanding".

This is not slavery. This is not racism or sexism. This is a large percentage of the American population saying "ENOUGH!"

I refuse to accept the demise of my wifes beliefs though. Therefore, I will refuse to accept homo-sexual marriage as it would be without a clarification of seperation of church and state. I refuse to have the government force it's judgement on any religious institution. I refuse to accept a future than bans religious belief.

I refuse to accept the demise of my wifes beliefs though.

Therefore, I will refuse to accept homo-sexual marriage as it would be without a clarification of seperation of church and state.

I refuse to have the government force it's judgement on any religious institution.

I refuse to accept a future than bans religious belief.

How exactly would the government do this, again? No church would be forced to recognize the marriage, hold the marriage, or sanction the marriage of homosexuals just because the state does. So this doesn't make any sense.