Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2007 15:45:56 GMT -5
What's amazing is that we have to bring it up and point out the obvious. Then again maybe it says a lot for the queer loving mentality, or lack thereof. Newsflash...if you have to point it out, it's not that obvious. LOL So far, you've given no concrete reason why recognizing gay relationships would automatically result in rendering marriage obsolete. Nice attempt at understating the problem there Meaner. Are you in the news biz? No one has a problem with queer "relationships", just with queer marriages. Get it? Apparently you have no problem with re-defining marriage, most people do have, despite you libs and your PC intentions.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Feb 13, 2007 5:17:44 GMT -5
*sigh* Mr. Meaner, don't you get it? This is more of the two-dimensional thinking so typical of our friends, the Republicans. You are either with us, or with the terrorists. You either oppose gay marriage with every fiber of your being, or you are a queer lover. There IS no middle ground; remember, "moderates" are just liberals in denial. Grumpy, Lester, here is a reality check for you, not that you will heed it: I am not gay. I am not attracted to women, not even a little. I do not even have any close gay friends. I have a few acquaintances who are gay, but none close enough that I really give a fat flying fart about their personal issues. So, why would I be 'pro-gay?' Oh, wait, could it be that YOU are the ones clouding this issue? No, say it isn't so! I am not 'in favor of gay marriage.' Frankly, I could care less. What I *am* opposed to, though, is this idea that gays should be relegated to some subhuman status, or that they should be denied rights available to others who pay the same taxes. I believe that the legal status and tax breaks and inheritance perks bandied about to heterosexual couples have no RATIONAL legal foundation. The only foundation for them exists in a religious ceremony, and that is not sound justification for the weight of law. It is the weight of tradition, but that is something very different; and if you want to use 'tradition' as justification for it, then you have to recognize that the SAME argument has been trotted out to 'justify' many other egregious wrongs in our past, such as slavery, suffrage, etc. As a matter of fact, the EXACT same arguments being applied to gay marriage now were used as arguments why black men should not be allowed to wed white women; why it would destroy the entire face of marriage and make a mockery of the whole procedure, what a disgrace! We can clearly see how THAT is a ridiculous argument, but that is NOT THE SAME as objecting to gay marriage. Now, is it?
|
|