NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Why is it whenever Conservatives are faced with expanding basic rights to their fellow citizens, they complain that such a logical and moral extension of basic rights is, in their narrow view, "special rights"? I heard the very same arguments during the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement. Again in the 1970s and the Women's Rights movement.so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....
Seems protecting basic civil rights for every citizen means creating "special" rights to the stunted Conservative view of 'rights'.
Perhaps that sorry attitude explains why during each and every struggle for tolerance and the protection of rights to each and every minority group, it has been Conservatives providing the resistance.
It seems that Conservatives are happy with their rights but down right belligerent about protecting the rights of others. In other words, they love America, but hate Americans.
*whiine*
obviously you think everybody should be able to marry....from gays to bisexuals to polygamists to brothers and/or sisters to NAMBLA pervs to "whatever feeeeeels good"......you epitomize the moral relativism of secular progressives who are destroying our country from within...
When people start threads advocating those sorts of marriage, then you should feel free to argue with them.
In the meantime, you should try to show us why same sex marriage, with exactly the same rules and responsibilities and rights and privilegs as opposite sex marriage, with the exception of the opposite sex requirement,
has any inherent, unique quality about it that is so detrimental to society that the government has a compelling interest to keep it from being legally recognized.