>It's your opinion they are the out group... its flawed though. Everybody knows supporting the gay agenda is the popular thing to do.
OK, I'll bite. What's the "gay agenda?"
>This however is no justification for you to make hateful false allegations.
Correct. Which is why I'm making true allegations
>It is not a matter of what one is allowed to do it is a matter of a term that is used for legal status. You keep making that error. Do you really not get it?
Laws can be changed. In this case, they've been changed in four states and will again. And that's a good thing.
>No one is forbidden to do what they want. The question is a definitional one. Marriage defines a traditional relationship.
To you.
>As in traditional heteroculture, gay lifestyle has defined and predicted direction for the subculture. Political goals are defined, beyond that the lifestyle speaks for itself.
Explain...
>One in five gay men in London report taking meth to get rid of emotional inhibitions when they go out.
So? In the '80s, I'd bet one in five straights used coke when they went out. And in the rave culture, almost everyone uses Ecstasy. And isn't drinking alcohol when people go out about getting rid of inhibitions? Should people who do those things not be allowed to get married?
>The consequense of being in a gay relationship is that you are not entitled to use the term that defines the other kind of relationship. wah wah waaa
Huh?
>Illicit promiscuity becoming common is not the same as becoming acceptable.
Not acceptable to you, maybe. But many people think it's OK now. And it should be.
>Families are broken, children are harmed, people engage in bitter divorce, fatherless children are common, social ills are directly tied to this.
Yeah. But casual sex doesn't lead to these things if handled responsibly.
>Literature whether scriptural or otherwise cronicles the devastation since the beginning or time brought on by casual sex and infidelity.
Infidelity and casual sex are very different things.
>>"But not in ways that should keep two people from getting a damn piece of paper that says that they're married...
>If you truly didn't see value in the legitimacy you would not be complaining. I don't believe you are being honest with yourself.
I know that it makes people feel better to have their relationships defined as "legitimate," and that I still haven't heard a reason why gay relationships should be any less legitimate than straight ones.
>not true. The benefits are available without the paper and you know it.
Didn't say they weren't.
>Yes there is. Gay couples are not defined by the term Marriage.
In your mind.
>By stripping the traditional definition of marriage you deny traditional couples the legitimacy of their identity.
>That is not the case with Gays, since that identity does not define them.
For the ones I know who are married, it certainly does.
>Marriage is not a right it is a definition. You don't seem to be able to get that.
Definitions expand, and there's nothing wrong with it.
>>"Gay people don't "reject" being straight. I can't make myself attracted to a man any more than my gay male friends can make themselves attracted to women. Their anatomy doesn't work that way. If I had a choice, I'd be bisexual for sure... why not expand my options? But I'm not."
>Irrelevant.
Very relevant. You were the one that was talking about choices.
>Nope. If you are a soldier shooting your gun it is not true that you are finger painting. Simple as that.
What? Wow. Non sequitur City. We're in the outer reaches of Wingnuttia here...
-Z |
