OP's original post basically said "I pretend to be someone I am not, because I know that my views are archaic, unevolved, and unfair. But even though I recognize I am a bigot, I take actions based on my anti-gay prejudice that will serve no purpose other than to engender the same attitudes in my children. Who's with me??!"

Sure, she's honest. But she sucks.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I find the OP's post quite honest.

She rationally knows what is right, which is why she feels like a hypocrite. But she feels what she feels.
Maybe its based on misinformation, or lack of experience, or previous bad experience -- whatever...

Isn't it better that you have this realization, that what people tell you to your face, is not necessarily what they feel?

I don't think anyone meant any harm, and particularly in an anonymous forum, we can exchange these ideas without any real consequences.

Take it for what it is ... just one person's opinion ... like the old saying goes.... everyone's got one.

Well, OK, if you want to give her credit for being honest about her dishonesty, good for you I guess. Would YOU want to be friends with her? Count me out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rational legal basis for denying the right to marry another species is there's no consent. A cat can't say "I do." That one's easy.

The rational legal basis for denying polygamy rights is the legal mess it creates. What if four people marry and then one of them wants a divorce? Who are the parents if kids are produced? Who gets the benefits if one of the people dies? It would require an entirely new set of laws to be written, and would take years. It's not as simple as just changing man/woman to person1/person2 on a form. However, in theory it could be done.

I'm actually not sure if there's a rational legal basis for denying the right to marry your sister.

Went to get a marriage license in MD last year. A question asked, "is this person related to you", I was tempted to check yes. Would I have been denied?

Yes, you would have been denied -- they aren't asking for fun.

I thought some states still allow distant cousins to marry

Many states ban marriage between close family members because of the risk of genetic mutation in offspring.

So, there's a reason to ban sibling marriage, but only if you're straight and planning to procreate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rational legal basis for denying the right to marry another species is there's no consent. A cat can't say "I do." That one's easy.

The rational legal basis for denying polygamy rights is the legal mess it creates. What if four people marry and then one of them wants a divorce? Who are the parents if kids are produced? Who gets the benefits if one of the people dies? It would require an entirely new set of laws to be written, and would take years. It's not as simple as just changing man/woman to person1/person2 on a form. However, in theory it could be done.

I'm actually not sure if there's a rational legal basis for denying the right to marry your sister.

Went to get a marriage license in MD last year. A question asked, "is this person related to you", I was tempted to check yes. Would I have been denied?

Yes, you would have been denied -- they aren't asking for fun.

Actually, I find the OP's post quite honest.

She rationally knows what is right, which is why she feels like a hypocrite. But she feels what she feels.
Maybe its based on misinformation, or lack of experience, or previous bad experience -- whatever...

Isn't it better that you have this realization, that what people tell you to your face, is not necessarily what they feel?

I don't think anyone meant any harm, and particularly in an anonymous forum, we can exchange these ideas without any real consequences.

Take it for what it is ... just one person's opinion ... like the old saying goes.... everyone's got one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Wow. I've hurt you and I did not mean to. I'm sorry for this.

You disingenuous bitch.

Yep, OP is the lowest of the low. I would rather deal with that horrible bigot who thinks she has the gay son than OP because at least I would know where I stand. This thread and the various racist threads are making me feel extremely bitter today

You are bitter because OP has a perspective that differs from your own? Just curious.

Anonymous wrote:The rational legal basis for denying the right to marry another species is there's no consent. A cat can't say "I do." That one's easy.

The rational legal basis for denying polygamy rights is the legal mess it creates. What if four people marry and then one of them wants a divorce? Who are the parents if kids are produced? Who gets the benefits if one of the people dies? It would require an entirely new set of laws to be written, and would take years. It's not as simple as just changing man/woman to person1/person2 on a form. However, in theory it could be done.

I'm actually not sure if there's a rational legal basis for denying the right to marry your sister.

Went to get a marriage license in MD last year. A question asked, "is this person related to you", I was tempted to check yes. Would I have been denied?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Wow. I've hurt you and I did not mean to. I'm sorry for this.

You disingenuous bitch.

Yep, OP is the lowest of the low. I would rather deal with that horrible bigot who thinks she has the gay son than OP because at least I would know where I stand. This thread and the various racist threads are making me feel extremely bitter today

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Wow. I've hurt you and I did not mean to. I'm sorry for this.

You disingenuous bitch.

Original PP and I agree. OP, read - I mean really read 14:51. Now think for a second if that was your so-called best friend you think you have. You don't know, maybe that is your friend. But just in case you don't know, why don't you show him or her this thread and tell him or her it's you. Can't do it? Didn't think so. Not because you're some caring and thoughtful person who cares for the feelings of others. But because at the end of the day you feel justified in your feelings and opinions but want the benefit of appearing to be an open-minded person and all that that entails, including that poor person's friendship.

I hope you feel better, soon. Sigh (smh).

I am not in the closet on any issue, so I have nothing to feel bad about. Because I have, what's that called? Integrity, that's right. But thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Wow. I've hurt you and I did not mean to. I'm sorry for this.

You disingenuous bitch.

Original PP and I agree. OP, read - I mean really read 14:51. Now think for a second if that was your so-called best friend you think you have. You don't know, maybe that is your friend. But just in case you don't know, why don't you show him or her this thread and tell him or her it's you. Can't do it? Didn't think so. Not because you're some caring and thoughtful person who cares for the feelings of others. But because at the end of the day you feel justified in your feelings and opinions but want the benefit of appearing to be an open-minded person and all that that entails, including that poor person's friendship.

I hope you feel better, soon. Sigh (smh).

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know if they come from the same place. I doubt very seriously the white man ever fearing the black man. the white man felt superior to the black man and every other color of man. yes, the hatred was/is there, but not the fear. heck, the white man literally conquered the world, from asia, to africa, to south and north america.

A lot of racism does come from fear and not just a delusional sense of superiority.

A lot of racial hatred and backlash against blacks after Emancipation was because of the fear held by poor whites of an economic threat from newly-freed blacks. Whites also were fearful because of political threats from blacks, who during Reconstruction were able to participate in the political arena.

Politicians played to that fear and helped incite a lot of hatred. (See: Nadir of US race relations.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Wow. I've hurt you and I did not mean to. I'm sorry for this.

You disingenuous bitch.

Original PP and I agree. OP, read - I mean really read 14:51. Now think for a second if that was your so-called best friend you think you have. You don't know, maybe that is your friend. But just in case you don't know, why don't you show him or her this thread and tell him or her it's you. Can't do it? Didn't think so. Not because you're some caring and thoughtful person who cares for the feelings of others. But because at the end of the day you feel justified in your feelings and opinions but want the benefit of appearing to be an open-minded person and all that that entails, including that poor person's friendship.

The rational legal basis for denying the right to marry another species is there's no consent. A cat can't say "I do." That one's easy.

The rational legal basis for denying polygamy rights is the legal mess it creates. What if four people marry and then one of them wants a divorce? Who are the parents if kids are produced? Who gets the benefits if one of the people dies? It would require an entirely new set of laws to be written, and would take years. It's not as simple as just changing man/woman to person1/person2 on a form. However, in theory it could be done.

I'm actually not sure if there's a rational legal basis for denying the right to marry your sister.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Wow. I've hurt you and I did not mean to. I'm sorry for this.

You disingenuous bitch.