Shhh, TH is having a great time with his straw man.
I just hope it's not too good a time, because that would be immoral. ^_^
Not championing a cause is not the same as opposing it. There are advocacy groups dedicated to the very topics you talk about, but expecting every group to champion every causes is somewhat ridiculous. I've never heard of a SSM advocacy group come out directly opposing any of the things you are talking about, but even if they did being wrong about one topic does not make them wrong about another.
Um, gays can already do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes. SCOTUS shot down the sodomy laws as un-Constitutional. This debate is about public behavior - the same recognition, the same respect, the same legal protections and benefits the rest of us take for granted.Bull crap.
Gays want to be able to do what they want in the privacy of their homes.
But if my wife and I want to make some extra money off craigs list, we are out of luck. What about our privacy?
Um, gays can already do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes. SCOTUS shot down the sodomy laws as un-Constitutional. This debate is about public behavior - the same recognition, the same respect, the same legal protections and benefits the rest of us take for granted.
It's also about a very important principle which has nothing to do with gay people - the principle that says government should not have the power to infringe upon individual liberty, even with the consent of the majority, without showing a damn good reason why such infringement is necessary. In this age of government spying, no-knock warrants, drugs war confiscations, and ever more complicated tax law, even those who despise gays should be able to recognize that this is important to us all.
What about my privacy rights? Don't you care about my rights?
If you do not respect and uphold my privacy rights, why should I respect and uphold yours?
I seriously doubt support for gay marriage will ever reach close to 100%.
All moral stances aren't correct, and I never said they are. I should have called you on that strawman some posts ago.
But common sense should tell you that all moral stances aren't correct.
If I needed to tell you that, you need a reality check.
{B]I simply don't champion the cause of SSM -- nothing "immoral" about that.[/B]
Get a reality check.
The cause of SSM supporters is to get the government to apply the rights and protections equally to all citizens.
Wrong. All citizens already equally enjoy the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
The cause of SSM supporters is to get the government to apply the rights and protections equally to all citizens.
Which certainly explains why they sue everyone who won't celebrate their relationships.
Marriage isn't about individual liberty. Marriage is inherently about having special societal recognition for your relationship. Which is about as far from individual liberty as you can get.
Also a bit ironic that individual liberty apparently goes out the window the first time someone wont bake a cake to celebrate a gay union.
You don't have any privacy rights by willfully choosing to post your evil hate here, you sick little inbred troll. And your ridiculous arguments just get less and less coherent as you mindlessly plow on with your incredible brand of obtuse stupidity, just like your buddy the toaster lover.
eventually, hopefully, support for human rights will level off at 100%.
As usual people such as yourself want equal rights while keeping your boot on the neck of others.
I long for the day that this is no longer and issue, when people won't identify them as a gay or interracial couple but just a couple. I am sure I won't be around to see it though...
Um, gays can already do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes. SCOTUS shot down the sodomy laws as un-Constitutional. This debate is about public behavior - the same recognition, the same respect, the same legal protections and benefits the rest of us take for granted.
It's also about a very important principle which has nothing to do with gay people - the principle that says government should not have the power to infringe upon individual liberty, even with the consent of the majority, without showing a damn good reason why such infringement is necessary. In this age of government spying, no-knock warrants, drugs war confiscations, and ever more complicated tax law, even those who despise gays should be able to recognize that this is important to us all.
I long for the day that this is no longer and issue, when people won't identify them as a gay or interracial couple but just a couple. I am sure I won't be around to see it though...
I long for the day that this is no longer and issue, when people won't identify them as a gay or interracial couple but just a couple. I am sure I won't be around to see it though...
Gays are all for same-sex marriage until straight people starting getting them.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/gay-gro...-marry-to-win-rugby-trip-20140912-10fu3t.html
:thumbsup:
With all the actual problems facing our nation, continually arguing what should be a non-issue is a huge waste of precious time.
Since T.H. seems to post the same thing over and over again I'm going to repeat my stance that there is NO possible way he is NOT a TROLL.
His arguments make NO sense. How is comparing gays wanting equal marriage rights for all people the even close to a moronic argument about white people wanting only specific rights for white people????
As the article notes, what both SSM proponents AND social conservatives objected to was that this was a SHAM marriage, and trivialized marriage in general. What you are apparently unaware of is that society - in both the U.S. and elsewhere, even in those countries where same-sex marriage is legal - would equally object to a sham marriage by heterosexuals.
Note also that OBJECTING to a sham marriage is not the same thing as advocating that sham marriages be illegal. If, for example, a man and woman in America openly announced that they were getting married solely to obtain marital benefits - such as lower tax rates and spousal health-care benefits at work, such a marriage would be LEGAL, even though most of the rest of us would find such a marriage morally objectionable.