The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Nope. The Orwell I studied described the archetypical totalitarian society. Seems to me the marriage laws are quite even handed and equitably adminisered and democratically supported.

So were a whole host of race laws, FF, 'specially they was equitable like.

Until JTT can explain to me how the marriage laws deny him any right afforded to anybody else, his complaints of 'separate but equal' simply won't hold water. You guys keep trying to compare the issue with race. The laws that prevented one race from doing what another race was allowed to do were in fact discriminatory and were voted down. That didn't happen until a majority of Americans saw and recognized the inequities and knew that situation should be made right.

"The laws that prevent[ed] one group from doing what another group IS allowed to do ARE in fact discriminatory and SHOULD BE voted down."

"a majority of Americans saw" might be a bit of a stretch. If instead of a Supreme Court decision, it had been put to a vote, we can't really be certain how long segregation would have gone on.

Marriage laws are not discriminatory. Nobody is excluded or disenfranchised. And until more Americans see more good reasons to change them than they see good reasons to keep them as they are, change is not likely to occur.

Let's just analyse your words here, Foxy and you are, in the sly way.

"Marriage laws are not discriminatory" but those who have same sex partners can't expect any changes to get the same rights held by different sex partners "until more Americans see more good reasons to change them than they see good reasons to keep them as they are".

This is 1896 deja vu all over again.

And you have the temerity to suggest that you aren't a bigot! What gall, what unmitigated gall! Okay, you're just a lil'got.

Meanwhile, most of us have an offer on the table to support a way to correct inequities between the married and unmarried. If everybody will be reasonable, I think that's doable.

Otherwise extremism begets extremism and we'll see more of the unfortunate initiatives to protect marriage that shut out considerations for the unmarried altogether.

See what it boils down to? "You get uppity [asking for equal rights was always a clear sign of uppityness] and beatings, lynchins and other uppity defying measures shall ensue. Don't say we fair folk didn't warn ya none."

Oh are you giving up on the U.S. history of slavery and now going to the old 'have you stopped beating your wife' analogy? Okay, can you put that one into any kind of reasonable context that in any way relates to this discussion?

That you fail to see that will surprise no one.

Oooo . . . there's another oldie but goody from our dear George . . .

Chrissee wrote:

Goebbels would be proud as well:

Quote:

...people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

Luckily, in this case, the strategy is not working. I guess that any good lie requires a bit of truth in it to get people to believe. In this case, there is not a scintilla of truth in this absurd, illogical and Orwellian contention.

So tell me. What right do you or anybody not have under the current marriage laws? Until you guys have the integrity to answer that question, you are just spitting in the wind so far as making a case for how you want the laws to be.

Nope. The Orwell I studied described the archetypical totalitarian society. Seems to me the marriage laws are quite even handed and equitably adminisered and democratically supported.

So were a whole host of race laws, FF, 'specially they was equitable like.

"The laws that prevent[ed] one group from doing what another group IS allowed to do ARE in fact discriminatory and SHOULD BE voted down."

Marriage laws are not discriminatory. Nobody is excluded or disenfranchised. And until more Americans see more good reasons to change them than they see good reasons to keep them as they are, change is not likely to occur.

Let's just analyse your words here, Foxy and you are, in the sly way.

"Marriage laws are not discriminatory" but those who have same sex partners can't expect any changes to get the same rights held by different sex partners "until more Americans see more good reasons to change them than they see good reasons to keep them as they are".

This is 1896 deja vu all over again.

And you have the temerity to suggest that you aren't a bigot! What gall, what unmitigated gall! Okay, you're just a lil'got.

Meanwhile, most of us have an offer on the table to support a way to correct inequities between the married and unmarried. If everybody will be reasonable, I think that's doable.

Otherwise extremism begets extremism and we'll see more of the unfortunate initiatives to protect marriage that shut out considerations for the unmarried altogether.

See what it boils down to? "You get uppity [asking for equal rights was always a clear sign of uppityness] and beatings, lynchins and other uppity defying measures shall ensue. Don't say we fair folk didn't warn ya none."

So tell me. What right do you or anybody not have under the current marriage laws?

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you, Foxfyre? This "gold standard" is being denied to a large group of people SIMPLY because of their sexual orientation.

Until you guys have the integrity to answer that question, you are just spitting in the wind so far as making a case for how you want the laws to be.

All anyone is asking for is for people to be treated equally. It's folks like you who are content to see discriminatory laws be put in place to make people second class citizens. You've said so yourself in a number of postings now and when I point out your biogtry, you ignore it.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that thinking people don't share your myopic vision of equality. Equality is NOT a half measure or a three-quarter or a nine-tenths measure; equality is equality.