You don't get it, do you? You cannot see that the things you do to hurt others could just as easily be used to hurt you.
Look who's talking! You don't see that granting a special privilege and a novelty institution is a dagnerous precedent, much less compelling others to render artificial respect and legal obligations to said institution, just because you perceive an iniquity where none exists. Because of the aberrant behavior and choices of homosexuals exclude them by their own choice from certain social constructs and lifestyles, they demand that a pointless institution be created and legally empowered, even forced down the throats of those who do not share their beliefs. This is not a case of inequality or discrimination - the status quo applies equally to both sides. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the exact same rights of marriage. Neither may marry a person of the same sex and either may marry any eligible person of the opposite sex. The personal choices of homosexuals to abstain from such arrangements does not entitle them to special privileges, anymore than the refusal of Catholics to eat meat on Fridays entitles them to legally compell restaurants to serve meatless dishes. Instead, you point to the ridiculous parts of the case as applied to you while failing to see how ridiculous the arguments against the group that happens to scare you are.
In what manner do they scare me, and why don't you demonstrate some evidence of that? You are the one making illogical, unreasoned and unsupported arguments. You draw parallels where none exist and compare completely unrelated institutions and practices. You are excoriating people for making a decision that affects their lives and communities because it is at odds with your aesthetic sensibilities.Its not that you are conservative. Your way of thinking would be equally damaging regardless of ideology.
You are the one trying to do damage, by insisting that people make changes they will have to live with and do not want to, according to your ideals, while showing absolutely no evidence of having considered the ramifications beyond an artificial abstract notion of false equality. You are a shallow, thoughtless and selfish demagogue, regardless of ideology.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Let's ban all Christian Marriage.
07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM
- 1530 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me.
07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM
- 958 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people.
07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
- 1179 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there!
07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM
- 992 Views
Who else should make those decisions?
07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM
- 939 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM
- 905 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM
- 1050 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering.
08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM
- 976 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged
08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM
- 890 Views
*Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM
- 858 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM*
08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM
- 503 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM
- 953 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM
- 914 Views
Re: *Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
- 906 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution
08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM
- 1005 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM*
11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM
- 416 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about.
08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
- 851 Views
You cannot be that stupid.
11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
- 1135 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them...
11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM
- 1013 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM
- 879 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad.
09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM
- 917 Views
Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM
- 870 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM
- 853 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM
- 963 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives.
11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM
- 994 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM
- 883 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM
- 844 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
- 939 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
- 958 Views
It should be noted again...
09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
- 984 Views
and how is it not a right?
09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM
- 856 Views
My definition of rights...
09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM
- 983 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right.
10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM
- 749 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example
10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
- 847 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis...
10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
- 972 Views
If we need a more specific resolution...
10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM
- 1157 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
- 844 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
- 1159 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize.
10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM
- 810 Views
The point is that marriage IS a right, one which cannot be denied based upon sexual orientation *NM*
10/08/2010 07:04:16 PM
- 675 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM
- 1036 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though.
10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM
- 843 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM
- 838 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM
- 771 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM*
10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM
- 425 Views
To clarify for you
10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM
- 773 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
- 1218 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
- 819 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body
10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM
- 1082 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless....
10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM
- 781 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM*
11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM
- 473 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right.
10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM
- 923 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction...
10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM
- 1001 Views
Note it all you want...
10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM
- 721 Views
No, they seek to expand the terms of the partnership. Homosexuals can & do get married normally *NM*
11/08/2010 03:14:25 PM
- 479 Views
The best one yet.
10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM
- 968 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM
- 844 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM
- 951 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM
- 832 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM
- 954 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM
- 929 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM
- 918 Views