Quote:

Dave said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Dave said:
The Mayor of San Francosco has said that this is is the contemporary equivalent of the black civil rights legislation.

I'm with that. Banning gay marriage is another form of aparthied.

It says some people can do somethng, but another class of citizens may not.

Marriage is not just a religious institution. Its a legal institution. It enables inheritence, social security payments, all manner of legal rights. A religious argument is a misleading argument which bypasses the legal impact of such a ban.



That is, once again, an ornately crafted mischaracterization.

All the rights you describe would be available through civil union, without imposing restrictions on religious beliefs and freedom.
Again, there is a larger, and deceitfully cloaked agenda, as my example of what is already being enacted to repress religious freedom in Canada. If equal legal rights were the true issue, civil union would be satisfactory.
The real goal of gay activists is to shut religion, and specifically Christianity, out of the the system, and out of public speech.



Funny, I thought you'd raise civil unions.

Setting aside Animalman's comments about the lack of legal equality between marriage and civil union, it also creates a caste or aparthied system.

Straights get the full measure. Gays get the other version.

The stat that many blacks don't support gay marriages means nothing. Since when does equality depend upon a measure of opinion by a particular class of people?

I've read nothing here against gay marriage so far which isn't apologism for discrimination. At least the Klan wore white hoods so we could spot them more easily.



Your emotionally charged stereotypes of anyone who opposes gay marriage is just so much posturing pretentious drivel, Dave.

I don't believe what Animalman posted above. That is a distortion by advocates of gay marriage, I'm sure.

I fail to see how civil unions as an alternative creates "an apartheid".
Since gays retain all the rights to insurance, health benefits, spousal estates, etc., under proposed civil unions.

As I've said endlessly, if gays really need or deserve these rights, civil unions gives them those rights to benefits, without urinating on religious freedom, and outlawing the ability of Christians and other groups to teach the real moral standard their Bible teaches. Instead of a politically correct gayed-down repression of the truth.

That is my major distaste with gay rights.

And I notice in your arguments, that you ignore and don't give a flying crap about lost religious freedom in Canada that I've described above. Which is a precursor for what is planned for the United States.

True freedom allows Christians to practice their religion in the scriptural form God gave it to them (and I've posted earlier several times about the historical evidence for scripture being accurately preserved for 2000 years, with at least 60,000 handwritten manuscripts in existence from within 100 years of Christ's death and resurrection.)

True freedom doesn't proclaim "freedom" for gays, while taking freedom of religion from the 33% of the U.S. population who attend church weekly, and the larger 80% of the U.S. population who mostly don't attend church but still describe themselves when polled as "Christian".
And Jewish. And Muslim. And Hindu. And Buddhist. Or agnostic, who just don't approve of the gay lifestyle, and don't want their goverment to force it on them.

If civil unions didn't offer this alternative in the first place (equal rights, but within a secular framework, that doesn't outlaw religious teachings that homosexuality is immoral, or change the definition of marriage out from under Christians and others), then why would liberals suggest it at all? It's not like civil unions are the idea of conservatives. Howard Dean's state (New Hampshire) already has civil union as its legal standard.

In any case, I fail to see the need for rude stereotypes of any dissenters of your oh-so-superior-and-enlightened views on the subject of gay rights.

As a wise man said on the DC boards: You have an opinion. I have and opinion. Let's learn to deal with it.

And as I've said elsewhere:

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Originally posted by Dave:

I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".



I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.



I read the "bigot" label the same way.



--------------------


"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."