Kerry gets pwned

[Ajinryu]

Kerry Vs Bush!
Who is the bigger idiot?

[sethsez]

People who treat it like it's a fucking boxing match.

[StriderKyo]

What people are asking for is a major, major change that disrupts a deeply-rooted fundamental part of human existence. Im not saying thats a reason to not change it, we've done it before (slavery), but it should give people pause and think about what could happen and what it means for all of society in the long-run.

It means dick-all for society (pardon the pun). Where I live we have legalized gay marriage, and to tell you the truth I totally forgot about it until right now. That's how little impact it has on everyday life.

Right now, in your state, in your town, there are gay guys living together, saying they're married. The only real difference is state recognition. They didn't choose to be gay (seriously, who would be crazy enough to put themselves through the crap that entails on purpose?), all you're doing legalizing gay marriage is recognizing that they exist, and that they have the same right to marry as straight people do.

Saying "they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else" is pointless ; it's like telling a woman pre-sufferage they had the same voting rights as men - they could vote if they were a man.

[sethsez]

Eh, I wouldn't say that's similar.

I'd compare it to the grandfather clauses in the mid-to-late 1800s that prevented black citizens from voting. I'm not saying this is anywhere NEAR the severity of that, because it isn't, but it's a similar idea where the law appears on the surface to be the same for everyone despite obviously being discriminatory.

[StriderKyo]

Eh, I wouldn't say that's similar.

I'd compare it to the grandfather clauses in the mid-to-late 1800s that prevented black citizens from voting. I'm not saying this is anywhere NEAR the severity of that, because it isn't, but it's a similar idea where the law appears on the surface to be the same for everyone despite obviously being discriminatory.

Okay, I gave an odd and poorly worded example, but the logic's the same. "You'd have the same rights as everyone else if you were everyone else."

[Diff-chan]

Anyway, my posts were just trying to say that just because someone is against gay marriage doesnt mean they hate gays or want to set them on fire or anything. The whole concept is ridiculous to me. Its like saying, if youre against abortion youre against woman's rights. It makes no sense.

Anyway, like I said, theyre asking for new rights. If gay marriage became legalized, then now everyone has the ability to be married to someone of the same sex. Like it seems pretty logical to me.

[Misfit]

So you congratulate people who mostly flee out of cowardice and spit in the face of all the people actually brave enough to go and fight for their country? Like I've said before, protest the war before it starts but whether you realize it or not if we get involved in a war then lose it's going to hurt our country. Because of us losing Vietnam our military was ravaged and our economy had to put up with a 10 year war that should've been over in 1965.

Yeah, I do actually. I congratulate anyone who has the balls to follow their heart and do what they think is right. Whether that means go off and fight or stay. Now, I wasn't born until '81, so there was obviously no way I could protest the war.

If I was old enough to realize the impact of the first Gulf War, I might have joined the others that marched onto the army base where my family was staying at the time. Unfortunetly, I was only 10 and was just overjoyed that my daddy wasn't one of the ones who had to go, unlike many of my friends down the block.

[StriderKyo]

Anyway, my posts were just trying to say that just because someone is against gay marriage doesnt mean they hate gays or want to set them on fire or anything. The whole concept is ridiculous to me. Its like saying, if youre against abortion youre against woman's rights. It makes no sense.

Well, it's just that there's no real logical reason they shouldn't have that right, aside from the feelings of Christians. It doesn't hurt anyone or affect anything, it just offends their religious sensibilities, which is why it comes off as an anti-gay thing.

That, and the charge is being led by Rick Santorum, who's pretty much made a career out of being an anti-gay bigot. When you say things like:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,"

...it's kind of hard for you to turn around and say "no, I'm not anti gay, I'm just concerned about families". There's definitely a homophobe element involved.

Anyway, like I said, theyre asking for new rights. If gay marriage became legalized, then now everyone has the ability to be married to someone of the same sex. Like it seems pretty logical to me.

I'm not sure what you mean there. That's exactly what they're asking for, and they've been pretty up front about it.

[Diff-chan]

SK, Ive never even heard of that Rick guy so I really dont care what he says. Anyway, I was again just saying that to prove that its not necessarilly about discrimination per se. Shit Ive read a few weblogs where the poster has said that they are against gay marriage for any number of reasons... and they're gay.

[g0zen]

Society has a vested, obvious interest in promoting heterosexual marriage. Gay couples should have access to civil unions, not marriage.

Christian rhetoric. If heterosexual marriage were the crux on which our society stood we'd no doubt all be living in anarchy by now. The ideas of gays marrying is not a threat to the sanctity of marriage, DIVORCE IS! You remember divorce, right? Yeah, that's the way more than 60% of your vaunted heterosexual marriages end.

I don't care if gay people get married, it will have no effect whatsoever on society. None. Why stop them? Blocking gay people from getting married because of these silly semantic and legalistic arguments only proves how thinly the far right tries to mask their agenda of lunatic religious fundamentalism.