Listen Tim, that post is total bullshit.
On this thread we try to post honest logical facts. You are treating the truth and logic with great disrespect when you post tripe like that..
The first thing you need to do is grow up!
The folks on this thread are decent serious thinkers and I'll bet you could contribute a lot and learn a lot if you gave it a try.
But posting crap like that is just a terrible wast of time for everyone. You stay on that path of thinking and it leads nowhere.
It makes you sound like you are 10.
>>
The right wing doesn't even understand that gays are born that way and as such the CONSTITUION requires they be treated equally under the law.
Technically they are treated equally under the law now. A gay man or a straight man can marry a gay or straight woman. A gay woman or a straight woman can marry a gay or straight man. There is no constitutional requirement to change that. The argument is more one of fairness which is largely subjective, but arguably equal treatment under the law can be unfair. (The classic example is a law that forbids the rich and the poor from begging, both face the same restriction, but the rich can still do what they want or need to do, the poor perhaps not.)
A side note - I don't really consider the issue to be "gay/same sex marriage". Its "state recognition of and benefits to gay/same sex marriages". Two people of the same sex can have a ceremony, consider themselves to be spouses, expect others to consider the same, live together, have a sexual and romantic relationship etc. If the state tried to forbid that it would be a major abuse, and I would be totally against the politicians pushing those restrictions. On the recognition issue, I've shifted from being against it, to being pretty neutral, only not wanting the courts to invent or misapply some constitutional principle to settle the issue by judicial fiat. If the people and their elected representatives want to recognize and provide benefits to such relationships I won't oppose it.<< |
