Well yeah, it is a biased stereotype, but you’re right that it’s the problem some people have with gay marriage. However, I don’t think it passes the “rational” part of the “rationale” test… do you?
So, your position that gays are equally bigoted is based on the theory that Gay people don’t know why they’re irratated at those who are actively working to block their ability to get married?
What is this about? What’s the Blue Oyster Bar?
I didn’t say gays are equally bigotted. Gays who don’t hate Evangelicals are not bigotted.
Once I do understand why I think something is invalid, am I then allowed to conclude that it’s bigotry? Just checking.
I believe it’s a fictitious place in the Police Academy movies that the hetero group of misfit cops were somehow involved in going to, resulting in leather butless chaps and the like.
It’s a tired old joke.
Maybe only as much as a stereotype is true.
I can only view this in hindsight, but I would, if I could choose my parents, choose a loving hetero couple over a loving gay one, if only to avoid ridicule from my peers.
An attitude which may be changing quite a bit as time progresses.
[quote=“Miller, post:328, topic:492382”]
You’re still ignoring the other book over there that’s called, “Ammendments to the legal rights inherent in civil unions.” You know, the one that’s full of laws that were passed specifically targeting civil unions, that doesn’t in any way effect marriages? That’s how you know you’re talking about two laws - when you can change one without changing the other. Doesn’t matter if you write them down in the same book, the effect is still two separate legal institutions.
The “law” I wrote specifically made that an impossibility. Or as much of as an impossibility as the law you want being changed, as well.
They might not be individually, when hooked up with a person of the opposite sex, but not in the homosexual union. And that is what we’re talking about: gay couples. In order to have children they have to move outside their union. You did have Health class back in middle school, didn’t you? And, thanks for the trip to the absurd, where when it comes to couples reproducing, gayness offers and advantage!!! I really think its sad that this topic makes a poster of your caliber spew such…such…gems.
Oh, I wish it were that easy. I tried to get people to define the word one time on these boards and it was a train wreck. People couldn’t agree. Same with “atheism”. Comical, it was. So you can look at my views, hold them to be odious, and then craft an appropriate definition to homophobia to make sure I fall within it. It’ll be fun, I’m sure. So, knock yourself out.
As long as you are not dismissing it out of hand. As long as you don’t think bigotry is a ‘reason’ for something. No one does things because they are a bigot, they are a bigot because they do certain things.
Maybe this is where the confusion is, though I’ve covered it several times. I’m not copying and pasting anything. There will be just one set of laws. The laws will cover two groups: heterosexual marriages and gay civil union. Period. ONE set of laws.
Ok thanks. I once went to a gay bar called Rodeo in Albuquerque. The guy who took me was trying to get me to be shocked by going to a gay bar, I told him I’d been in gay bars before. It didn’t really sink in. What I was shocked by was a gay bar where people were line-dancing to country music. 
And now that you’ve established a second legal group, precisely what do you think will stop people from making new laws exclusive to that group?
No, it doesn’t. Not even remotely. There is absolutely nothing about the law you proposed that prevents someone from later altering the law regarding civil unions. If we have your law, and someone comes along and passes a new law that says, “The rights of married couples to inherit property from their spouse is not extended to civil unions,” what in your law prevents that from being enacted? You can’t point to the part where your law says, “marriage and civil unions are equal,” because the new law has just ammended that.
Sure. I can have as much gay sex as I want, and I never have to worry about producing a child I don’t want to raise. Wouldn’t you consider that an advantage? Hell, some straight men pay a doctor to cut into their privates with a knife for the ability to do that!
Of course, if I decide I do want a child, I have to make a little bit of extra effort to do so, which is a slight disadvantage, but I’d say the former advantage well outweighs it.
Now, as to the matter of couples. You’ve tried to couch this as an argument about nature. But nature doesn’t care who I love, nature only cares if I can reproduce. And I can. So I am not at all deficient in that manner.
My definition of homophobia was established long before I ever met you, magellan.
Really? Atheism has developed at least two major definitions, but I’d never heard of “homophobia” having the same problem. Homo-phobia. Pretty simple. I qualify for it myself. (Don’t vote based on it or anything, though.)
If it was, it would only be passed with the intention of immediately altering “civil unions” to be inferior, I’m sure of that. But yes, I think it’s unlikely that a legal status created to appease bigots would actually be written to be fair.
I’m glad you’re willing to trust that dictionary. Oh, by the way, have you looked in the 8th edition? Perhaps the 7th has some magical property that gives it more weight than the 8th, because the 8th doesn’t back you up.
You mean that decision that held that the State didn’t have a rational basis to deny marriage to same sex couples? I’m starting to think you’re actually a supporter of same sex marriage.
Gay marriage is marriage. According to latest version of the legal dictionary that you cited.
Still hoping my contributions will be addressed.
Are pro-SSM arguments being labeled bigotry now? That seems odd.
Women wanted the vote. There was no good reason to block them, so why do so? Bigoted?
Interracial couples wanted to marry. There was no good reason to block them, so why do so? Bigoted?
Same-sex couples want to marry. Is there a good reason to block them? If not, why do so? Bigoted?
If you have a software block on his posts, remove it or use PM to ask another poster to read it to you.
Do not make a point of indicating that you have placed a poster on “ignore,” either through the vB software or other means.
[ /Moderating ]
My bad. I thought we were allowed to do that now under the new rules.