Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Aberrant? You have your nerve. You insult me, and other gays in the forum, to our faces, in open forum, and I'm supposed to abide you???????? Who cares if you don't accept.
Ernie does not need any defense as he is quite capable but let me give you my experience this as I am in the deep south:
1. Homophobes which is Ernie is not.
2. Against gay marriage which Ernie is and I believe him to be wrong but that does not make Ernie a bigot.
If someone was opposed to my receiving the same privileges which others enjoy, all things being equal with the exception of a quality of mine which they do not like, I would say it is inarguable that person is a bigot toward that particular quality.
I am NOT opposed to your receiving the same privileges which others enjoy. I am opposed to you calling it marriage, popcorn or bandanna.
It is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of definitions.
Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".
Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.
Except you are refusing to realize that the abhorrent group in question is doing nothing illegal unlike molestation and bestiality which are both illegal acts. If you want to extend this to polygamy, fine it does not matter. There would be nothing wrong with that but I doubt it will go that far because many of those rights become convoluted when attempting to involve more than one spouse. The point is that none of the slippery slope results lead to any harm whatsoever. There is nothing bad about a polygamous relationship and the other arguments are moot as the acts are outright illegal.
Not 'forced acceptance, but tolerance. No one is forcing anything like 'acceptance' on anyone. But the concept of tolerance seems lost on some.bodecea is right. homosexuals are not fighting for scholarships etc...they are fighting for a fundamental right - marriage.
I agree with bod that it is not about scholarships etc... and I do not believe that it is or should be about some quota system like we have with affirmative action.... but I do think it is about forced acceptance.. or else we already would have had a law or deal in place with 'civil unions' and allowing those civil unions to have the same legal 'benefits' as married couples... (tax, inheritance, power of attorney, etc)... and a lot of times when that legal equality in treatment is mentioned, that is when we hear how it is not good enough..
but hey, that is just how I have seen things
Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".
Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.
Except you are refusing to realize that the ‘abhorrent’ group in question is doing nothing illegal unlike molestation and bestiality which are both illegal acts. If you want to extend this to polygamy, fine – it does not matter. There would be nothing wrong with that but I doubt it will go that far because many of those rights become convoluted when attempting to involve more than one spouse. The point is that none of the ‘slippery slope’ results lead to any harm whatsoever. There is nothing ‘bad’ about a polygamous relationship and the other arguments are moot as the acts are outright illegal.
I didn't say abhorrent, I said aberrant.
Classic slippery slope fallacy.
You cannot use a harmless activity as justification for legalizing a harmful one. Gay marriage is harmless. Pedophilia is not.
Why is it that bigots invariably try to equate homosexuality with bestiality and/or incest and/or pedophilia, EVERY TIME!?
What about polygamy and bestiality? Every time you relax the standards, the improbable gets less unlikely.
Why is it that someone who stands on principle becomes a bigot in the eyes of Progressives?
Don't assume I am a Progressive. I am not.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between harmful and harmless?
Because most sane and "normal" human beings wouldn't "go there", thinking that polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality is synonymous with same sex marriages. It stops at consensual human beings, not related and of legal age. The world is changing, and you can't stop it...your only option is to accept and adapt. Sorry.
Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".
Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.
Many people still don't accept interracial marriages either. You don't have to personally accept....but in legal matters, you do
Because most sane and "normal" human beings wouldn't "go there", thinking that polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality is synonymous with same sex marriages. It stops at consensual human beings, not related and of legal age. The world is changing, and you can't stop it...your only option is to accept and adapt. Sorry.
Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".
Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.
Aberrant? You have your nerve. You insult me, and other gays in the forum, to our faces, in open forum, and I'm supposed to abide you???????? Who cares if you don't accept.
Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".
Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.
Many people still don't accept interracial marriages either. You don't have to personally accept....but in legal matters, you do
Interracial marriage is about rights. Gay marriage is about definitions.
Believe me sports fans I have seen my share of bigots and racists in my 58 years!
Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".
Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.
Many people still don't accept interracial marriages either. You don't have to personally accept....but in legal matters, you do
Interracial marriage is about rights. Gay marriage is about definitions.
Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".
Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.
Gay marriage will open the floodgates for polygamny and fundy islam?
The difference is there is no compelling government interest in limiting Civil Marriage based on gender, there is a compelling government interest to limiting Civil Marraige to two participants.
If by "fundy islam" you mean limiting Civil Marriage to age of consent, then yes there is a compelling government interest in preventing child rape.
>>>>
Because most sane and "normal" human beings wouldn't "go there", thinking that polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality is synonymous with same sex marriages. It stops at consensual human beings, not related and of legal age. The world is changing, and you can't stop it...your only option is to accept and adapt. Sorry.
Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".
Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.
Total Bull shit there Ernie.
They said the same thing with interracial marriage and women's right to vote.
40 years ago gays were treated like 2nd class citizens and that was the norm.
Ernie does not need any defense as he is quite capable but let me give you my experience this as I am in the deep south:
1. Homophobes which is Ernie is not.
2. Against gay marriage which Ernie is and I believe him to be wrong but that does not make Ernie a bigot.
If someone was opposed to my receiving the same privileges which others enjoy, all things being equal with the exception of a quality of mine which they do not like, I would say it is inarguable that person is a bigot toward that particular quality.
I am NOT opposed to your receiving the same privileges which others enjoy. I am opposed to you calling it marriage, popcorn or bandanna.
It is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of definitions.
If someone was opposed to my receiving the same privileges which others enjoy, all things being equal with the exception of a quality of mine which they do not like, I would say it is inarguable that person is a bigot toward that particular quality.
I am NOT opposed to your receiving the same privileges which others enjoy. I am opposed to you calling it marriage, popcorn or bandanna.
It is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of definitions.
Brittany fucking Spears went to Vegas and got married for three days, but I can't call my 17 year relationship a marriage? Screw that.
If someone was opposed to my receiving the same privileges which others enjoy, all things being equal with the exception of a quality of mine which they do not like, I would say it is inarguable that person is a bigot toward that particular quality.
I am NOT opposed to your receiving the same privileges which others enjoy. I am opposed to you calling it marriage, popcorn or bandanna.
It is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of definitions.
Ernie, are you that defensive and thin skinned you are worried what people call something?
Definitions really bother you that much?
Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".
Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.
Total Bull shit there Ernie.
They said the same thing with interracial marriage and women's right to vote.
40 years ago gays were treated like 2nd class citizens and that was the norm.
Well, look back to what was considered normal back when laws prohibiting interracial marriage were struck down. No one in their right mind would have considered we'd be having this discussion either.
Many people still don't accept interracial marriages either. You don't have to personally accept....but in legal matters, you do
Interracial marriage is about rights. Gay marriage is about definitions.
So, when the "widow" of a gay women doesn't get the same estate tax exemption that straight widows get, it's just a matter of defnition and has nothing to do with rights? Come on. At least try to be serious.
Really? So...if my wife and I move to Virginia, we are as recognized as a legally married couple as any of our straight friends would be?
No, but last I checked couples don't have rights. As individuals, however, you both would have the same right as your straight friends regarding whom you can marry.
Right...and anti miscegenation laws weren't discriminatory because they applied equally to men and women. Tried and failed. We don't have the right to legally marry the non-familial consenting adult partner of our choice. You do. We don't have the same rights.
Aberrant? You have your nerve. You insult me, and other gays in the forum, to our faces, in open forum, and I'm supposed to abide you???????? Who cares if you don't accept.
Well, not exactly. Aberrant is essentially defined as abnormal or unusual so gay is, by that definition, definitely Aberrant. You cannot argue that something that 5% of the population practices or experiences is normal. It is the way that it is but lets not get caught up in language because we feel that there are negative connotations here.
