Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you explain how supporting denying gays the opportunity to marry the person they love is not anti-gay?
Does wanting to deny people the right to marry a different race not make one racist?
Does wanting to deny women the right to vote not make one anti-women/feminist?
Gay marriage is absolutely harmless. So aside from completely stupid and flawed religious and "tradition" reasons and a personal disgust of gay people, what logical reason is there to vote against gay marriage that doesn't make one anti-gay?
Theere are gays who are against gay marriage laws.
<sigh> And I was responding to your response. Ever your thread title labels him "anti-gay", which is ludicrous since he IS gay. I repeat. Being opposed to gay marriage does not make one "anti-gay".
Want to respond to that part of my post where I said I remember from a post you made eons ago that you were opposed to same-sex marriage?
Of course being opposed to gay marriage doesn't make him anti gay, but the Republican haters need a thin reed to hang this guy by. There are plenty of examples of hypocrisy on both sides, but when the left is so desperately trying to make a stretch such as this you have to wonder why?
Even that doesn't make him anti gay or a hypocrite. People simply want to bash him because he is a gay Republican. Gays should be outraged by this tactic, not contributing to it.
Thanks, but I think each of us can make up our own minds about this, regardless of our sexual orientation. I don't like it when someone tells an entire category of people how they should behave - especially when that person doesn't even belong to that group.
Last edited by AnUnidentifiedMale; 08-27-2011 at 04:04 PM..
Oh, really? So now you're going to tell all gays how they should act? Thanks, but I think each of us can make up our own minds about this, regardless of our sexual orientation.
LOL, who is telling gays how to act? Act anyway you wish? If selling out people who share your sexual orientation by distorting the truth for cheap political points, is how you wish to act, knock yourself out. But don't expect not to be called on it.
Can you explain how supporting denying gays the opportunity to marry the person they love is not anti-gay?
Does wanting to deny people the right to marry a different race not make one racist?
Does wanting to deny women the right to vote not make one anti-women/feminist?
Gay marriage is absolutely harmless. So aside from completely stupid and flawed religious and "tradition" reasons and a personal disgust of gay people, what logical reason is there to vote against gay marriage that doesn't make one anti-gay?
"Anti-gay" means one is opposed to homosexuality. "Anti-gay marriage" means one is opposed to giving legal recognition to same-sex unions.
There are millions of people of all races and ethnicities around the world who do not want their children or family members marrying outside of their culture, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. That does not mean they are "racist".
At one time in this country, there were millions of people (mainly men) who believed totally that a woman's place was in the home taking care of the family and that a man's place was in the "marketplace" handling the affairs associated with that. They recognized that there was a division of roles and men of that era believed that women were not psychologically equipped to assume the role traditionally held by men. That did not make them "anti-women".
All of Puerto Rico is talking about him now. I think this is worse than Larry Craig's "wide stance" incident. At least there weren't photos of that - thank goodness.
"Anti-gay" means one is opposed to homosexuality. "Anti-gay marriage" means one is opposed to giving legal recognition to same-sex unions.
There are millions of people of all races and ethnicities around the world who do not want their children or family members marrying outside of their culture, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. That does not mean they are "racist".
At one time in this country, there were millions of people (mainly men) who believed totally that a woman's place was in the home taking care of the family and that a man's place was in the "marketplace" handling the affairs associated with that. They recognized that there was a division of roles and men of that era believed that women were not psychologically equipped to assume the role traditionally held by men. That did not make them "anti-women".
Sorry, I don't find that logic convincing. Telling 2 men or 2 women their relationship is inferior and less valuable than a man and woman, so much so that they do not deserve legal recognition in a secular nation and 1500 state and federal rights associated with it, sounds pretty anti-gay to me.
And what bothers me more are the reasons for giving a darn what other people do with their personal lives. A bad understanding of a 4000 year old text, and the ridiculous notion that "tradition" should be maintained, when history proves tradition is usually bad are just terrible reasons to obstruct it.
"Anti-gay" means one is opposed to homosexuality. "Anti-gay marriage" means one is opposed to giving legal recognition to same-sex unions.
There are millions of people of all races and ethnicities around the world who do not want their children or family members marrying outside of their culture, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. That does not mean they are "racist".
At one time in this country, there were millions of people (mainly men) who believed totally that a woman's place was in the home taking care of the family and that a man's place was in the "marketplace" handling the affairs associated with that. They recognized that there was a division of roles and men of that era believed that women were not psychologically equipped to assume the role traditionally held by men. That did not make them "anti-women".
They believed that women were not psychologically equipped to assume the role traditionally held by men--but that didn't make them anti-women? Wait...what? Is it just me or is that pretty much the definition of being anti-women?
Wanting gay people to be treated anything other than equal is anti-gay in my book, just like wanting people of color to be treated anything but equal to whites was and is racist.
Sorry, I don't find that logic convincing. Telling 2 men or 2 women their relationship is inferior and less valuable than a man and woman, so much so that they do not deserve legal recognition in a secular nation and 1500 state and federal rights associated with it, sounds pretty anti-gay to me.
And what bothers me more are the reasons for giving a darn what other people do with their personal lives. A bad understanding of a 4000 year old text, and the ridiculous notion that "tradition" should be maintained, when history proves tradition is usually bad are just terrible reasons to obstruct it.
Nor do I find your broad brush for labeling someone "anti-gay" either fair or logical. Who knows? There may even be people around who are of the mindset of "go ahead and let 'em get married--just keep their disgusting displays of affection out of the public view and don't go teaching my children in school that it's 'normal'". Are those people still "anti-gay" even though they are pro gay marriage?
As for history proving that "tradition" is usually bad, well, that one is off-the-cliff illogical as it is "traditions" that have held cultures together over thousands of years and allowed them to thrive.
They believed that women were not psychologically equipped to assume the role traditionally held by men--but that didn't make them anti-women? Wait...what? Is it just me or is that pretty much the definition of being anti-women?
Wanting gay people to be treated anything other than equal is anti-gay in my book, just like wanting people of color to be treated anything but equal to whites was and is racist.
Not to me, it isn't.
A hundred or more years ago, men had their place in life and women had theirs. It was a complementary, symbiotic relationship, not the competitive one we so often see today. In actual practice, men often placed their wives on pedestals and held them in high esteem. Maybe even much higher than they held other men. There are still men around who think of women that way but they are few and far between. Fortunate, indeed, is the woman who has found such a man.
I've known Japanese parents who wanted their children to marry another Japanese. Same with Chinese. I've known Jews who wanted their children to marry a Jew. I don't consider that being "racist".
I've said it before and been called a homophobe for it but, speaking from a strictly legal standpoint, regarding marriage, no one has any more legal rights than anyone else. I can't marry someone of the same sex and neither can anyone else. What is being pushed for is a new legal right that will apply to everyone--the right to marry someone of the same sex.
Note that I did not take a stance on it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
