have you noticed some that scream the most for a small government, want gov involved in people personal lives the most .
Its so odd how people like this can claim they are "patriotic Americans" but be so opposed to the Bill of Rights.
Quite the contrary, I want the government to wholly ignore race, class, sex, age, etc. and MAKE NO LAWS DIFFERENTIATING PEOPLE BASED ON THESE. I would prefer that my children be judged on the content of their character. It is you supporting special treatment and restrictive laws.
If you are against public displays of affection, well... I don't know if you are wrong or right but I understand your problem. If you are against public displays of affection by a black couple... your problem is not with behavior it's with their race. I understand your problem, I won't judge you but neither am I sympathetic. If you are against public public displays of affection by a same sex couple... your problem is not with behavior it's with their gender. Is it wrong for you to be uncomfortable around blacks or gays? Again, not my place to judge you. But if you choose to be against equal treatment of either because of your prejudice, then you're crossing a line. And yea, you are wrong.
Why are blacks being dragged into debates about homosexuality now? No offense but the argument should stand on its own without making them the torchbearer. Homophobia, while equally as bad as racial bigotry, is not the same. One is a fear of an action, the other a fear of a person. Two people side by side in a photo. Which one is black, which one is gay? Creating the argument that it is similar to black civil rights is not necessarily as fair as it ought to be. Granted gays had to go in the closet to survive, but the ability to do so placed the scope of hatred, firmly and outwardly on blacks. Blacks were hosed down, blacks were attacked by dogs, blacks were given "colored only" spots, while gays married men and women to hide and/or remained "confirmed bachelors" and "spinsters". Understandable, but...not a choice that blacks were allowed by fact of their race. I am 100% for gays having the exact same rights, but let's be fair to our African American brothers and sisters who were in the spotlight and had to fight against overwhelming odds so that all the other minorities could benefit.
There are differences, and there are similarities. I used that example, because the situation is more similar than different and I thought it would help the OP see why I have a problem with his position. The verb is kiss. The person is black or gay. If you have a problem with the action of kissing, that's one discussion. If you have a problem with the person being kissed -- then it's a different thing. And while it's easier to hide your orientation than your ancestry, neither are a choice.
Which has nothing to do with homosexuality. Why do you insist on lying about the Bill of Rights? Homosexuality is never mentioned or even hinted at anywhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.
I was clear, no special rights. Every American has enjoyed EXACTLY THE SAME MARRIAGE RIGHTS FOR 2+ CENTURIES.
Any man can marry exactly the same cohort as any other man. Their rights are identical. It's inarguable. Joe and Bob have identical rights.
Whenever I see this I have to ask if the writer would be happy for their own straight daughter to marry a gay man or their own straight son to marry a lesbian? I know I wouldn't, I'd advise them against it. But, if you'd be happy to put up your own offspring for a life of loveless misery just to prove your point, then all I can say is at least I admire your consistency.
Sex is a demonstrable genetic difference. The government recognizes this. Women aren't drafted. The day that's no longer true, you will have a point. Also, I intended 'sexual preference' not 'sex' but I purely hate the term. Forgive my error.
Seems your hate is even blinding yourself. First you want the government to ignore sex (except in the case of same sex marriage I assume) Then you say you are going to personally fight to remove rights for gay people (seriously?) As someone that leans right in most regards I really fear for the future of the Republican party as it seems most have lost their (*)(*)(*)(*)ing minds. Please do not identify as a conservative as you give real conservatives a bad name. You do not want less government, you just want less government in some areas while allowing a kissing police to make sure the homo's are locked away. While I do not agree with gay marriage (civil unions are fine) rhetoric like this is what is the problem; hate is a much bigger problem than two chicks wanting to have their union recognized. You have no right to try to penalize people for trying to be happy; please live your own life and stay the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of everyone else's.
Red hair, black skin, sacral agenesis and flat feet are genetic differences and the government recognizes them. I don't see how that is relevant. The government doesn't promise not to discriminate. It promises to only do so if there is a compelling reason for it. The military has made a case that there is a functional need to not include women and people with flat feet in drafting soldiers for war. I believe the argument is based on their current inability to accommodate those differences in combat. Same argument they used to make about not drafting folks with black skin or some sexual orientations, before they figured out how to accommodate those difference. No one has offered a compelling reason why it's necessary to deny people the right to vote or marry based on their race, religion, sex, hair color, sexual orientation, or flat footed-ness. Unless they do, the discrimination that occurs in drafting combat soldiers seems to have no significance to this discussion.
you were not clear, that is why I asked, still sounds like your saying separate but equal to me there are thousands of legally married same sex couple in this country, why should some have the right and not others? btw, those rights have not been the same for two centuries, inter-racial couple had to fight to get their rights too .
I intend to thwart 'gay rights'. And as above, I mistakenly used 'sex' when 'sexual preference' would have been clearer. You can blame Dan Savage for my now gathered hatred. It's clear he hates me. Back atcha, Baby!
as a bisexual i can see both sides of the coin here, i keep my escapades a secret on both sides and feel its appropriate to ban all public displays of affection so that the senses of kids aren't affected either by gay or straight relations
Except that you want marriage laws to differentiate on the basis of sex. In your supposed world of non discrimination, what does it say in each blank of a marriage license? Bride/female & groom/male, or person 1 and person 2? Really... Exposing the hypocrisy and bigotry in this argument is like shooting fish in a barrel anymore. It would only be easier if they'd admit it, of course, that would require honesty.
Just a question for you... If you only support equality based upon "demonstrable genetic difference," can I assume you are absolutely opposed to freedom of religion? Government should be able to separate and classify people by religion?
I stopped reading after page two because the ancillary disputes are disturbing, but I have to ask this: Do homosexuals have any objections to straight parents teaching their children that they should not be gay?
