It isn't? Then why don't gays just go down to the courthouse and get married, then? What's all the fuss about? Baron Max
Does the existence of a married homosexual couple somehow cancel those out? If so, is that necessarily a bad thing?
yes it is a bad thing, we need family values and tradition, i understand that gays want to marry, but tough they cant because it goes against churche and moral standing.
Geez, that's odd, they said the same thing to me when I when down to the courthouse to get a marriage license to marry my two goats and a sheep. When I said, "Hey, I love those goats and that sheep!" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It really hurt my goats' feelings, too. Baron Max
Family values? Whose family values? Yours or mine? Secondly, I don't give a damn about tradition especially when it violates human rights.
The society's values ...most probably YOUR OWN society's values. Thankfully your society gives a damn about it ...and unfortunately, they probably care about you, too. Where did that "human right" come from? Did the Chinese give it to you? The Russians, perhaps? Or did your society give you SOME rights? And where is it written in stone that gays have a "human right" to marry? Where? Where do you get that odd and strange idea? Baron Max
Baron, Here's where we stand: You believe that once homosexuals are allowed to get married, then more laws will change that benefit other special-interest groups, such as pedophiles and...well, pedophiles is your main argument. You see gays as this tiny minority that is just trying to bend society to fit their immoral wants. You see homosexuality as an abomination, and harmful to your personal life, and to your society. Am I right so far? Here's why I think you're wrong: Homosexuality, while still viewed as morally wrong by a large number of Americans, is being more widely accepted as a fact of society. There are no more PSAs that depict homosexuals as pedophiles or predators, or as mentally damaged. The prevailing public opinion is still that homosexuality is a choice, but the "disgust level" is lowering. Homosexuality is even losing its taboo status, as is evident by its representation in popular network sitcoms, and in the fact that there is now an all-gay cable network, LOGO, which features news updates from CBS. I'm starting to believe you when you say that you're aren't comparing homosexuality to pedophilia in anything more than America's distaste for them both, but I still think that your position is flawed; some states in our great nation have already legalized gay marriage, while none of those states have lowered their age of consent laws, or allowed blood relatives to marry, or permitted Farmer Jack to marry his fay-vrit sheep, Barb. Homosexuality and a civilized culture can live hand-in-hand, as has been proven already. There is no need to fear that legalizing gay marriage would immediately open the flood gates for other groups to start winning battles in government and getting their own agendas passed through. And your stance that homosexuals and heterosexuals are treated equally by law is false as well. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military is biased against homosexuals, despite the fact that they have enlisted and are defending our country. You say: Homosexual men can't marry men, heterosexual men can't marry men. That is a flawed argument. The difference between the two is that heterosexual men aren't attracted to other men, don't fall in love with other men. Gay men, however, do, and to deny them the right to marry the man they love is a punishment for being different. Homosexuality doesn't harm young boys. The only harm that comes is in the form of ridicule (or violence) at the hands of their ignorant peers, or in the form of the fear that young homosexuals live with every day while they try to cope with the fact that they are attracted to the same sex, and not to the opposite sex. But no harm comes from it. Not to them, not to society, and not to you. And finally, the reason that most politicians won't touch the marriage issue is because it's controversial. I've heard plenty of candidates say that they were in favor of Civil Unions (Which I've heard--though I'm not exactly versed on the subject--are nearly identical to the legal benefits of marriage), which means that they aren't opposed to homosexuals sharing the legal rights that heterosexual couples are afforded--they are just afraid of connecting homosexuality to religion, and since marriage can also be a religious institution, the connection is obvious. But again, marriage can stand alone as a legal institution, without ever stepping foot into a house of worship, and that's why morality and religious beliefs should play no part in the decision. It will happen eventually. Civil Unions will be the first step, then everyone will become accustomed to homosexual couples having the same benefits legally as heterosexual couples, and marriage will come after that. It really is a backwards and silly concept that they aren't allowed to marry now, especially when you consider that civil unions are being discussed.
And that's where I stopped reading ....becaause I ain't wrong! So there was no reason, none under the sun, for me to waste my time reading where you think I'm wrong. See? Gays should not be permitted to marry because it's nothing but special-interests selfishly seeking special rights above and beyond what others have. Baron Max PS - I'm sorry that you had to type all that bullshit ....but maybe someone who is wily-nily on the issue might sway to your special interest group, then you'll have one more fucked up member to vote for your special interests.
Hetero males can't marry other males; homo males can't marry other males. Perfectly equal rights in every possible way. For homos to gain the right to marry other males, they'd be given SPECIAL RIGHTS under the law. And that ain't nice. Baron Max
OK, enough of Baron. Can we move on to someone else now? Considering that he completely ignored my post and decided not to comment on it, we should move on from him. Any takers?
I didn't ignore your post. But the moment you told me I was wrong, then began the long tirade, why should I read the rest of it? You've told me I was wrong ....the rest was just nothing more than telling me I'm wrong using more words. Baron Max
There's no need for special rights for gay people. We just legalise same-sex marriage for ALL people, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Then, there's no special treatment and no discrimination. Problem solved!
