“Who is running the Republican party right now, eh? It’s been the Conservative Christians for the past 8 years. The whole party is in a constant battle to “out-God” each other, and so they pick on the gays.”
Er, let’s see … George Bush is a very mild born-again Methodist, and therefore the entire GOP, from the federal to the state to the local, is automatically transmogrified into fundamentalists endlessly goofing on Jesus while chasing down gays with pitchforks and a length of rope. Egads, George Bush is just one politician, not the entire GOP. I think perhaps you should stop getting all your information from TV and Hollywood movies — they are absolutely the worst sources.
“I admit it was a broad brush statement, but if you can’t see that most Republicans are Christian and are against gay marriage, you are the one who is obtuse.”
Republicans make up only 33% of the population, but approximately 80+% of people in this country describe themselves as Christian, and most people generally, Christian or not, oppose same-sex marriage. And that includes most Democrats. Geez, just what insulated environment did you grow up in that you have these bizarre notions about the demographic make-up of the United States?
“My issue was with the fact that conservatives have attempted to define the family as belonging solely to them – and the fact that many of those same conservatives won’t allow gay people to have families is a hypocrisy.”
What a strange little narrative you’ve constructed. You must be at the university … or in high school. It sounds to me that your caricatures are more tantrum that careful consideration of the facts. You also seem to confuse the Washington DC shenanigans with the country at large. Again, you need to stop watching so much TV … and look up the word ‘hypocrisy’, since you don’t seem to understand what it means.
“Perhaps I should have said “anyone against gay marriage does not value families”. ”
Whatever dude. Try to remember that most of the adults to whom you’re speaking are actually married. Do you really think you’re in a position to lecture them about what does and does not constitute marriage and family?
“You are so pretentious … This is not the language of someone trying to communicate clearly – it’s the language of someone trying to show off how smart they are by using obscure words – in order to be condescending to the opponent.”
I condescend because you deserve condescension. This is a political discussion, and politics is rough. If you don’t like it then stop jumping on discussion boards accusing half the country of being bigots and troglodytes. Sheesh. Put more simply: Stop whining.
“If you oppose gay marriage, you oppose giving gays equal rights.”
Actually, gays have exactly the same rights as I do. I’m a heterosexual male, and I cannot marry a man, which means I’m in exactly the same position as a gay man. Our rights are EXACTLY the same. If you haven’t figured that out yet you’re way behind the curve on this issue.
“In this context, it makes no sense to argue that gays “don’t need” to get married to have a family – they want to get married, they should be allowed, and your narrow-minded religious views (which are coming up in the next paragraph, I see) should have no say in the matter whatsoever.”
When did I suddenly become religious? It’s very interesting that you think the arguments against same-sex marriage are religion-based. Some people approach the issue from that angle, of course, but in point of fact religion’s got nothing to do with it. I’m starting to think that you’re anti-Christian bigot. That might be understandable if you’re a baby boomer, but if you’re young, as I suspect, you might want to reconsider. Anti-Christian bigotry is a failing of older liberal generations. Try to get with the program.
“What are you, a surfer? Get a new phrase – that one is annoying. By the way, how do you know I’m not a woman? You call me dude – why?”
I knew you were female before you bothered to ‘reveal’ it. The language you use is heavy with emotionalism. Thus the phrase, which is meant to be annoying. It’s also meant to convey that I know you’re young, and therefore in over your head.
“Normal”, ha ha ha. Normal just means common. It doesn’t mean anything else.”
Wow. That really, er, destroyed my point. Thanks, sweetie, for, um, making such a … powerful argument. Maybe you should start thinking about the difference between describing a single characteristic of someone as normal or abnormal, and ascribing the individual as a whole as normal or abnormal based on this one characteristic. Now re-read what I posted and try to get a handle on what I actually said.
“There is no merit or demerit in being normal. Gays just want to have the same right to get married, and the rights that go with that.”
A gay man can marry a lesbian. This is called gay marriage. Since we are talking about same-sex marriage, I really don’t see understand why you keep heading off into weird tangents like this.
“Why should they have to go to all that extra effort to get the same rights? Again, you’re making them second-class citizens for no good reason.”
Again, gays have the same rights re:marriage as I do. I can’t marry a man, either. Seems to me you’re the one intent on making gays second-class citizens, even when they’re obviously nothing of the sort. Why are you so insistent on disrespecting them, of believing they need special treatment, like they’re children or something?
“Well, thank you for clarifying that. I was under the impression that marriage could be about whatever the people getting married want it to be about. Now I see the light – your definition of marriage is the TRUE defintion and we must all abide by it.”
If marriage is anything you want it to be, then my definition is as valid as any other. This is probably a little advanced for you to understand, but something that can be anything is actually nothing. How can you define that which cannot be have any characteristics defined (since it can be anything), and then carry on about how something that is nothing is a great and grand issue of the day? Now before you respond, I want you take another deep draught of your chocolate milk and think for a moment about what I’ve written.
“You are the one imposing your religious rules on society. Don’t pretend it is otherwise.”
I’m agnostic. The only ‘religious rules’ I have are that people should be able to practice whatever religion they desire, free from government interference or anti-religious bigotry.
“It is about equality under the law in a secular nation and nothing more. You are a bigot, just as I suspected. “
Oh please. When only 3-4% of the population engages in anything sexual, whether it’s men wearing women’s underwear or homosexuality, it pretty much meets the definition of peripheral. That is not bigotry, it’s just a statement of fact. Unusual sexual proclivities are really nothing to get worked up about. Why do you?
“No, it is about having equality under the law.”
Again, gays are equal under the law. I’d like to remind you that if same-sex marriage is implemented, two hetereosexual men, for instance, can get married. The gay thing is neither here nor there. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but the reality is that sexual orientation is irrelevant to the arguments for or against same-sex marriage. I realize you’re not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but at least try to understand this point.
“You have no good reason to deny them the right to marry. None whatsoever.”
Whatever dude.
“You are exactly the kind of conservative Christian bigot I was referring to. Thank you for proving my point exactly.”
And here I thought I was an agnostic libertarian who lived for many years in San Francisco, the gay mecca. Like I said, you conflate ‘Christian’, ‘Republican’, ‘conservative’, and ‘people who disagree with you politically’. Perhaps you need to look up the word bigot, as well, because bigotry extends far beyond the mere Holy Trinity of gender, race, and sexual orientation.
