Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational basis for denying two men or two women the same rights provided one man and one woman.

i find this interesting and i completely agree with you. my husband is anti-gay marriage and it really bothers me. whenever i say that i can't believe he, a genuinely caring and kind person in most respects, would think it's right to deny some people rights that others have, he says things like, "ok, so i want to marry two people. or my dog. or my sister. where's the line drawn?" i never know how to respond and it pisses me off royally.

Yes because you can equate gay people to dogs and gay marriages to incestous relationships. It wouldn't bother me that he is anti-gay, it would bother me that he lacks basic human decency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50-100 years from now, the younger generation will look back and wonder what we were smoking disallowing gay marriage. And our generation will look back and long for the times when "things made sense". Just like we look back now and marvel at the utter stupidity of slavery and segregation and older generations long for times when "things were simpler and everybody not only knew their place but stayed in it"

No one was ever in the closet about their race though. Unless you could easily pass as a white person, black people were unable to hide their race. You can hide your sexuality and because of this I would not say that it is comparable to racism or slavery. While no one should ever have to hide it, it is possible unlike skin color.

What about interfaith marriage?

I would still say that interfaith marriage is not comparable to racism and segregation based on skin color. You can hide your religion.

Would you have a problem if a state decided to ban interfaith marriages?

If states banned interfaith marriage it would still not be comparable to lynchings, racism, or segregated facilities. There would still be many places to retreat to for interfaith marriage. I do not think that those discriminated against based on race could easily leave the country and not face similar discrimination. There is racism in many countries, there was a thread about racism in Spain recently in the travel forum. It would still be easier for an interfaith couple to be accepted in Spain for instance. Just one country out of many with color complexes.

I agree. The fight for gay rights is a fight for civil rights, but it's not the American Civil Rights Movement and to equate the two does an injustice to both.

I agree that in 100 years, society will think it was absurd to ban gay marriage. It is. But it simply does not compare to lynching, being a piece of property, being defined as 3/5 of a person, mass killings in towns, an average of one person per day being murdered in a town during the Nadir of US race relations, schools being burned down, churches being bombed- and all this either written ino the law of the nation or condoned by way of indifference or even encouragement.

They do not compare, so let's not try to. Horrible things have happened because of racism. Horrible things have happened because of homophobia. Let's do them justice by treating them as separate issues.

This. These should be separate issues, it is unfair to both groups to combine these.

I agree that they are separate issues, but they are related. Racism and homophobia come from the same root cause: fear/hatred of people who are different than you. It's important to understand where these kinds of issues come from so that they can be fought.

Anonymous wrote:So OP, come out of the "closet." Especially with your "friend." I can sort of, slightly, maybe just a little respect someone who can own their opinions and not be a dirtbag undercover. But you really are the lowest of the low.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50-100 years from now, the younger generation will look back and wonder what we were smoking disallowing gay marriage. And our generation will look back and long for the times when "things made sense". Just like we look back now and marvel at the utter stupidity of slavery and segregation and older generations long for times when "things were simpler and everybody not only knew their place but stayed in it"

No one was ever in the closet about their race though. Unless you could easily pass as a white person, black people were unable to hide their race. You can hide your sexuality and because of this I would not say that it is comparable to racism or slavery. While no one should ever have to hide it, it is possible unlike skin color.

being in the closet is not the point. The point is society denying people rights because of their race/gender/sexual orientation. Essentially saying to them, "you are not doing anything wrong, we just don't like your kind"

In the eyes of most Americans, would they say it is easier to be a gay white man in America or a black man of any sexual orientation in this country? I still believe that the gay or straight white man would be given the advantages. There are many people of all races that would lock their doors or cross the street if a Black man approached even if he was a gay Black man. I believe these issues are larger than sexual orientation discrimination.

Yeah maybe it's "easier" to be black in 2012. Ask that same question circa 1700-1970 and you'd find varying degrees of dissenting opinions.

There is still racism within the gay community. Just because you are sensitive to discrimination to one group or another does not mean that you cannot have a racist outlook. There was a recent article on a gay bar posting an image of Obama as a chimpanzee within an advertisement that upset some.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120208/NEWS01/302080101/obama-joke-gay-bar-owner-louisville?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CLocal%20News

http://www.wfpl.org/2012/02/09/fairness-black-gay-pride-plan-procott-at-tryangles-bar-friday-audio/

Yes, and there's still homophobia in the black community. Obvs.

Anonymous wrote:I'm convinced it is a choice, but that societal pressures repress many from making that choice. So while I don't really care about it, I don't think we should provide civil, protected-class, type rights on something that is basically a choice.

And by "choice", what I mean is that there is some homo-hetero spectrum. Maybe less than 1% are on the extreme homo side where they are solely that way, and maybe 50% are solely hetero on the other side. But I think a good percentage, say 10-15% each, are close enough to the middle where they could honestly go either way based on circumstances in their upbringing and based on their life experiences.

Anonymous wrote:10:31, why is it a competition?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational basis for denying two men or two women the same rights provided one man and one woman.

i find this interesting and i completely agree with you. my husband is anti-gay marriage and it really bothers me. whenever i say that i can't believe he, a genuinely caring and kind person in most respects, would think it's right to deny some people rights that others have, he says things like, "ok, so i want to marry two people. or my dog. or my sister. where's the line drawn?" i never know how to respond and it pisses me off royally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just because I don't agree with you (gay marriage) does not mean I FEAR you or HATE you.

Sure it does. The anti-gay-marriage movement boils down to "I believe that gays are less than me." No other way around it. None.

No, it doesn't. And to insist that it does reveals a mental disconnect on your part.

Anonymous wrote:And I don't think I should have to subsidize any man who can't get it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with gays, but this "transgender" stuff, no way. That's just sick. And with all of the debate on health care, I sure don't think that insurance -- public or private -- should be covering T-G hormone treatment or sex change operations. OMG!

How do you feel about transexual or transgendered kids and teens?

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with gays, but this "transgender" stuff, no way. That's just sick. And with all of the debate on health care, I sure don't think that insurance -- public or private -- should be covering T-G hormone treatment or sex change operations. OMG!