NationStates Jolt Archive

Here are few Frequently Asked Questions about same-sex marriage, and here are my answers:

Q: Is it not true that same-sex is grammatically incorrect, and that legalizing it is changing the definition of a word that has existed in the same sense for thousands of years?

A: Actually, the definition has not been the same. The word "marriage" (the ceremony evolved out of men purchasing women as sex-slaves) was considered Catholic for a long time; for instance, until the French Revolution, non-Catholics could not be married in France, since marriage was not "their" word. Instead they had "concubinage" (civil union is the modern euphemism). I also point out that interracial marriage was considered absurd in many cultures, certainly Western, before the 20th century.

Q: Does it not go against God's will?

A: I believe church and state ought to be separated, but if you do not, remember in the Old Testament the reason homosexuality is heavily condemned is probably due to the fact that Jews were in danger of dying out from wars, plagues and starvation, and which is also why birth-control was shunned.

For Christians who say the Bible's word is "eternal", I present:

"Go nowhere among gentiles"
-Matthew, 10: 5.

"Salvation is from the Jews."
-John, 4: 22


Q: Homosexuals spread disease, yes?

A: Yes (so do heterosexuals), so why do you not encourage marriage, since this helps stop promiscuity?




Is there anything I have left out?

Plenty.

Q: If we allow this then won't the schools start teaching this to kids and showing why they should be getting married to the same gender?

Q: Since gay people decide to become gay, if they really wan't to be married can't they marry someone of the opposite gender?

Q: But forbidden of same-sex marriage isn't discrimination at all. After all gays can marry other people of the opposite gender and non-gays can't marry people of the same gender as well. How does this treatment of everyone equally be classed as discrimination?

Just a few questions you missed out on. Don't start attacking me for it people

Ok, how many threads do we need on gay marriages?

Ok, how many threads do we need on gay marriages?

Now that would have to be one of the best questions here.

ok, how many threads do we need on gay marriages?

42.

Plenty.

Q: If we allow this then won't the schools start teaching this to kids and showing why they should be getting married to the same gender?

A: Yes, just like when interracial marriage was allowed, schools started teaching kids that they had to marry people of another race.


Q: Since gay people decide to become gay, if they really wan't to be married can't they marry someone of the opposite gender?

A: Exactly. Gay people decide to be gay, everybody knows that. It's not like there's a wealth of information indicating that this is not the case, and that no person has ever chosen their sexual preference.

Q: But forbidden of same-sex marriage isn't discrimination at all. After all gays can marry other people of the opposite gender and non-gays can't marry people of the same gender as well. How does this treatment of everyone equally be classed as discrimination?

A: Again, you are right on the mark. It wasn't discrimination to ban interracial marriage, either. After all, every person had the right to marry somebody of the same race.


I have my own:

Q: Should gay marriage be illegal?
A: No.

Q: Does it not go against God's will?

A: I believe church and state ought to be separated, but if you do not, remember in the Old Testament the reason homosexuality is heavily condemned is probably due to the fact that Jews were in danger of dying out from wars, plagues and starvation, and which is also why birth-control was shunned.

For Christians who say the Bible's word is "eternal", I present:

"Go nowhere among gentiles"
-Matthew, 10: 5.

"Salvation is from the Jews."
-John, 4: 22


You forgot to bring up other religions, and even other Christian sects that disagree.

Plenty.

Q: If we allow this then won't the schools start teaching this to kids and showing why they should be getting married to the same gender?

Q: Since gay people decide to become gay, if they really wan't to be married can't they marry someone of the opposite gender?

Q: But forbidden of same-sex marriage isn't discrimination at all. After all gays can marry other people of the opposite gender and non-gays can't marry people of the same gender as well. How does this treatment of everyone equally be classed as discrimination?

Just a few questions you missed out on. Don't start attacking me for it people

EPIC FAIL!

Sorry, I haven't been back to NSG in a while. I'll have to actually start constructing arguments and stuff. It will be difficult.

My big question - Why is this such a big issue? People are shooting each other in the name of their respective gods, we have a worldwide economic crisis, drug traffic is more profitable and deadly than ever and the lunatic fringe latches on to this as if it were important. Let people marry who they will and aim your energy at the real problems. Jeez.

Ok, how many threads do we need on gay marriages?

until the entirety of Page 1 is filled.

42.

!!! Its all so clear now. I think I just ascended!

!!! Its all so clear now. I think I just ascended!

Hands you a golden apple and a pope card.

Ok, how many threads do we need on gay marriages?

As many as it takes for Parkus to work up the courage to come out of the closet.

Q: Should gay couples be forbidden from adopting because a child needs a mother and a father?

A: Well, yes. But ONLY if you take away the children of all single parents. Because a single parent can't raise their own child. What a gay person who has a biological child? Say a woman gets pregnant by a man, but then becomes a lesbian and marries a woman. Should she not be allowed to keep her biological child because otherwise said child will have two mummys?

Q. If we allow gay marriage, won't we also have to allow other types of marriage, such as polygamous marriage, bestiality and peadophilia?


(I keep hearing that one and I never get it... they have NOTHING to do with it. Ah well, but then I don't get most arguments against it)

EPIC FAIL!

Sorry, I haven't been back to NSG in a while. I'll have to actually start constructing arguments and stuff. It will be difficult.

Hang on.

Explain why it is an EPIC FAIL.

These are all questions and statements that I have heard people who are against same-sex marriage ask and state.

As I said in the bottom bit in the [SIZE=1]tiny writing[/QUOTE] don't attack me for it. It is not my questions, I could answer them very well if I wanted to but I was giving PE a few extra FAQ he missed out on.

A: Yes, just like when interracial marriage was allowed, schools started teaching kids that they had to marry people of another race.

A: Exactly. Gay people decide to be gay, everybody knows that. It's not like there's a wealth of information indicating that this is not the case, and that no person has ever chosen their sexual preference.

A: Again, you are right on the mark. It wasn't discrimination to ban interracial marriage, either. After all, every person had the right to marry somebody of the same race.

All excellent answers, and for a minute there I thought you were being serious when saying that they do decide.

Q. If we allow gay marriage, won't we also have to allow other types of marriage, such as polygamous marriage, bestiality and peadophilia?


(I keep hearing that one and I never get it... they have NOTHING to do with it. Ah well, but then I don't get most arguments against it)

Gay marriage = mutual union between consenting adults

Interracial marriage = mutual union between consenting adults (just for comparison)

Peadophilia = statutory rape. The law states that people under the age of 18 can not give concent, therefore, even if they say they do, legally, they don't. Hence, illegal.

Beastiality = adult + animal. The animal is not legally able to give consent. Therefore, illegal.

Polygamy = too difficult to manage. I was just watching a documentary on TV about two different polygamous groups. One of the groups was a man and two women, who were all deeply in love with eachother. One of the females is a lawyer, and she said that she couldn't even begin to imagine how difficult polyamourous marriage would be from a law point of view. So, whilst it may be fair to have polygamous marriages, it is not legally practical.

Is there anything I have left out?
Yes.
A: [...]I also point out that interracial marriage was considered absurd in many cultures, certainly Western, before the 20th century.
Q. So if we encourage marriage between different races, why not between different sexes?


A: I believe church and state ought to be separated, but if you do not, remember in the Old Testament the reason homosexuality is heavily condemned is probably due to the fact that Jews were in danger of dying out from wars, plagues and starvation, and which is also why birth-control was shunned.
Q. But what about WTC? And do want us to die out from lack of birth? Why do you hate America?

Hands you a golden apple and a pope card.

How do you figure five into forty-two?

Q. So if we encourage marriage between different races, why not between different sexes?[

Because as a nation we have never "encouraged" marriage between different races.



Q. But what about WTC? And do want us to die out from lack of birth?

If I recall correctly, our problem is too high a birth-rate, which is why many persons are pushing for birth-control to be taught more in school.

Why do you hate America?

I will not, once I am president in another thirty years.

Q. If we allow gay marriage, won't we also have to allow other types of marriage, such as polygamous marriage, bestiality and peadophilia?

One could just as well use this argument against slavery: "Soon we will be emancipating horses, and giving children total independence from their parents!"

As for polygamy, when that can be instituted as a fair legal union (whene women can take many husbands as well as vice versa) I shall laugh.

Beastiality = adult + animal. The animal is not legally able to give consent. Therefore, illegal.

Nether is a bicycle. And animals are not required to give consent to be killed, then eaten.

Nether is a bicycle. And animals are not required to give consent to be killed, then eaten.

But in the case of marriage, both parties are required to give consent, and an animal cannot give consent, therefore you can't marry an animal.

If gay marriage is legalized, won't my church be forced to hold gay marriages?

Isn't that a violation of separation of church and state?

One could just as well use this argument against slavery: "Soon we will be emancipating horses, and giving children total independence from their parents!"

As for polygamy, when that can be instituted as a fair legal union (whene women can take many husbands as well as vice versa) I shall laugh.

actually some people would say that the kids rights thing the UN has put forth would give children freedom from their parents, though I am not very knowledgeable in that.


another question, than shouldn't incestuous marriages be allowed/?

If gay marriage is legalized, won't my church be forced to hold gay marriages?

Isn't that a violation of separation of church and state?

Its about as much a violation of separation of church and state as it is for churches and conservative politicians to ban gay marriage based on the bible.

If gay marriage is legalized, won't my church be forced to hold gay marriages?
Isn't that a violation of separation of church and state?

If the marriages your church performs are legally recognised there already IS a flagrant violation of church and state.

If however you need to have your marriage validated by both a priest AND a state official there is no problem. There is also no reason why the priest would be forced to do the state officials job in statemarrying gays.

(the ceremony evolved out of men purchasing women as sex-slaves)Are there any historical sources to back that up? It sounds like an urban myth, if you don't mind me saying so.

Are there any historical sources to back that up? It sounds like an urban myth, if you don't mind me saying so.

It's a little exaggerated, I think, but this was somewhat true in many societies. Marriage was, essentially, a transfer of "ownership" of a woman from her father to her new husband.

Are there any historical sources to back that up?.

Our Oriental Heritage, (the book is a little over a thousand pages, but marriage is discussed in the first couple of hundred) by Will Durant is where I read it; if he does not satisfy you, then take a look at the sources he cites (they number in the hundreds).

Our Oriental Heritage, (the book is a little over a thousand pages, but marriage is discussed in the first couple of hundred) by Will Durant is where I read it; if he does not satisfy you, then take a look at the sources he cites (they number in the hundreds).Wow, 1935.. Anything more recent? Because some of the stuff back then, and I'm not necessarily saying that applies to Durant, but especially things to do with culture and anthropology had a tendency to be, let's say, not entirely accurate.

Actually, considering we live in the age of the internet; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Civilization#Criticism:
The Story of Civilization has been criticized by some for simplifications, rash judgments colored by personal convictions, and story-telling, and described as a careless dabbling in historical scholarship.(Note: "the Story of Civilization" is the series which includes the volume "Our Oriental Heritage", as well as 10 other volumes.)

In any case, I appreciate the prompt response to provide a source. And our university library seems to have it, so maybe I'll have a look.

Ok, how many threads do we need on gay marriages?

As many as it takes for Parkus to work up the courage to come out of the closet.

EPIC Lulz :hail: :D

I would have sprayed had I not just swallowed.

:salute:

I would have sprayed had I not just swallowed.

:salute:Do we really need to hear about your sexual exploits ;)

Wow, 1935.. Anything more recent? Because some of the stuff back then, and I'm not necessarily saying that applies to Durant, but especially things to do with culture and anthropology had a tendency to be, let's say, not entirely accurate.

Agreed, but Durant is remarkably fair toward races and peoples, and he deeply researches all subjects that he writes about. If a source mentions something unlikely he says it, in such a way: "but this story is too pretty to be true".

Actually, considering we live in the age of the internet; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Civilization#Criticism:
(Note: "the Story of Civilization" is the series which includes the volume "Our Oriental Heritage", as well as 10 other volumes.)

I know, I have read them all. Anyway, show me a book that has not been impugned. I find it hard to call 11 volumes with tens of thousands of sources "careless".

In any case, I appreciate the prompt response to provide a source. And our university library seems to have it, so maybe I'll have a look.

:wink:

One could just as well use this argument against slavery: "Soon we will be emancipating horses, and giving children total independence from their parents!"

As for polygamy, when that can be instituted as a fair legal union (whene women can take many husbands as well as vice versa) I shall laugh.

Oh agreed, which is why I posted the question as an example of absurd statements made about gay marriage.

It all comes down to consent between adults. Gay couples, let heterosexual ones can. Children and animals obviously can't. It's an easy answer.

Polygamy I see more as an issue relating to practicality and gender equality (often women do get the short end of the stick where it does exist) and is a whole other discussion. Which again, is in no way relevant to gay marriage.

Q. If we allow gay marriage, won't we also have to allow other types of marriage, such as polygamous marriage, bestiality and peadophilia?


(I keep hearing that one and I never get it... they have NOTHING to do with it. Ah well, but then I don't get most arguments against it)

Actually, polygamous marriage probably wouldn't be so bad, so long as it wasn't one man marrying twenty women and then abusing them all. I'm thinking along the lines of a set of two couples who all love each other and want to be married to each other, but couldn't be.

No harm there.

Beastiality and paedophilic marriages are, of course, ridiculous and would never happen. A.I./human marriages, on the other hand...

Actually, polygamous marriage probably wouldn't be so bad, so long as it wasn't one man marrying twenty women and then abusing them all. I'm thinking along the lines of a set of two couples who all love each other and want to be married to each other, but couldn't be.

No harm there.

Beastiality and paedophilic marriages are, of course, ridiculous and would never happen. A.I./human marriages, on the other hand...

Would depend on whether A.I. is legally allowed to give consent, which would be a toss-up either way. But if they can give consent, shouldn't they be able to vote? And then you get into a big philosophical debate.

Would depend on whether A.I. is legally allowed to give consent, which would be a toss-up either way. But if they can give consent, shouldn't they be able to vote? And then you get into a big philosophical debate.

What's the debate? If they're sentient, they deserve all rights that humans get, including being able to vote, and such.

What's the debate? If they're sentient, they deserve all rights that humans get, including being able to vote, and such.

The debate is where that line of sentience would be.

The debate is where that line of sentience would be.

A good question.

Personally, (and I know how arbitrary this is, and how hard it is to evaluate) I'd set it at baseline human intelligence. That is, demonstrate basic consciousness, self-awareness, etc etc.

So long as they meet that standard, they ought to have full rights.

But then it's going to be a little while before this is even a question. I just hope that when it is a question we don't have everyone turn Luddite...

What's the debate? If they're sentient, they deserve all rights that humans get, including being able to vote, and such.

The debate is where that line of sentience would be.

I rather thought the debate would be that since it's A.I., what's to stop some company from manufacturing 8 million sentient robots for the sole purpose of voting for the companys preferred party? Elections would ultimately become about which candidate has the most robots on their side.

I rather thought the debate would be that since it's A.I., what's to stop some company from manufacturing 8 million sentient robots for the sole purpose of voting for the companys preferred party? Elections would ultimately become about which candidate has the most robots on their side.

I don't think so, because if a company did so, it could be easily argued that they were not truly sentient, and would therefore be denied the right to vote.

A good question.

Personally, (and I know how arbitrary this is, and how hard it is to evaluate) I'd set it at baseline human intelligence. That is, demonstrate basic consciousness, self-awareness, etc etc.

So long as they meet that standard, they ought to have full rights.

But then it's going to be a little while before this is even a question. I just hope that when it is a question we don't have everyone turn Luddite...

We can define sentience, but the debate would revolve around whether what the AI possessed was truly sentience or just remarkably sophisticated programming. They could appear to possess consciousness and self-awareness, but demonstrating that it was truly those things and not just incredibly complex code would be the crux of the controversy.

If gay marriage is legalized, won't my church be forced to hold gay marriages?

Isn't that a violation of separation of church and state?

Not if they strip the ability of churches to declare people married! :D

I rather thought the debate would be that since it's A.I., what's to stop some company from manufacturing 8 million sentient robots for the sole purpose of voting for the companys preferred party? Elections would ultimately become about which candidate has the most robots on their side.

Because in order to be sentient, the A.I.s would have to be independent and capable of independent thought just as any human is.

Basically what you just suggested is the equivalent of saying that Catholics have large families only for the purpose of creating more Catholics. It doesn't end up happening that way, and it wouldn't with A.I.s

Besides, odds are A.I.s will quickly surpass us in intelligence, and we'll have to catch up in other ways. (Integrating our consciousness into computers, maybe.)

We can define sentience, but the debate would revolve around whether what the AI possessed was truly sentience or just remarkably sophisticated programming. They could appear to possess consciousness and self-awareness, but demonstrating that it was truly those things and not just incredibly complex code would be the crux of the controversy.
You're probably right. I wish I could offer up a surefire way to ascertain that, but I can't. :(

If gay marriage is legalized, won't my church be forced to hold gay marriages?

Isn't that a violation of separation of church and state?

Actually, it's the government that hands out marriage licences; the process is governed by a legislation (for example, in Ontario, it's covered by the Marriage Act). You are required to obtain the paperwork from the government before you can be recognised as married. The church only plays a part as one of many sources that can solemnise a marriage, just as an officiant with the city that you're marrying in can. The ceremonial aspect is entirely optional. Just because you have that ceremony doesn't mean you're married. You need to fill out the appropriate paperwork to obtain the license required in order to marry.

No where in any of this does it say that a church HAS to marry the two individuals. It grants them the privilege to unit two individuals in the legal bounds of matrimony, which is then registered so the couple can be recognised for legal purposes as married. The same powers are granted to secular authorities. The only thing that at least is required under Ontario law is that a certain series of phrases are said in order to validate the union as performed, and is required to be witnessed by two people who are age of majority.

I happen to belive that homosexuality is genetic. Therefore they should not be denied basic rights assigned to human beings...I personally beleive we would all be better off by excluding "marriage" altogether from legal terminaology and simply redifine it as civil unions, thus leaving the label of marriage to religious instiutions and the legal rights of a civli unions up to the state.

Now here is the tricky issue for those that can view the subject objectively: Many people here equate the idea of the fight for gay marriage rights/equality to the racial and ethnic struggles of the recent past. However, the issue is fairly different as racial struggle dealt strictly with physical differences, whereas the homosexual struggle deals strictly with sexual behavior.

So here is my question purely for discussion: "If there is a genetic cause for a change in behavior that differs from the norm, should there be legislation that limits such behavior?"

Now I realize that what I stated as "the norm" will be central to the issue, but I would like to see more of a discussion on the aspects of genetically driven behavior rather than a defintion of what is normal.

Clarifiaction: And No, I do not believe that what is normal is right--so don't go there.

My big question - Why is this such a big issue? People are shooting each other in the name of their respective gods, we have a worldwide economic crisis, drug traffic is more profitable and deadly than ever and the lunatic fringe latches on to this as if it were important. Let people marry who they will and aim your energy at the real problems. Jeez.

Because it's a restrict on civil freedom. Without that ehy would we have democracy?

Because it's a restrict on civil freedom. Without that ehy would we have democracy?

My point (and, as Ellen would say, I do have one) is that same-sex marriage should be a non-issue. People should be able to marry as they please. The controversy has been created by people who have dismissed real problems in favor of manufactured problems.

My question, I repeat, is why have we permitted a small, loud-mouthed group of apparently insecure homophobes turn this into an issue when there are real, life-and-death issues, like a stupid war, people starving, children being abused, women being denied basic rights - I could go on ad nauseam.

Hell, even my hyper-conservative, Palin-supporting son thinks same-sex marriage shouldn't be denied.

My question, I repeat, is why have we permitted a small, loud-mouthed group of apparently insecure homophobes turn this into an issue when there are real, life-and-death issues, like a stupid war, people starving, children being abused, women being denied basic rights - I could go on ad nauseam.

Because it is about genetically driven beahavior, not physical characteristics.

I have said this in other threads here (to no avail): It is much easier to fight for individual rights for the disenfranchised than to force the ignorant to legislate acceptance of a behavior. Focus more on the human rights attached to marriage than on homsexual liberation. Once the rights have been secured everyone else will eventually come around, as it will be a non-issue at that point.

We can define sentience, but the debate would revolve around whether what the AI possessed was truly sentience or just remarkably sophisticated programming. They could appear to possess consciousness and self-awareness, but demonstrating that it was truly those things and not just incredibly complex code would be the crux of the controversy.

But the manufacturers of AIs would have a vested interest in preventing their products from gaining full legal rights. Might their coding not be considered proprietary information, and might this prove to be an obstacle?

I don't think so, because if a company did so, it could be easily argued that they were not truly sentient, and would therefore be denied the right to vote.

Well, okay. Rather than programmed, they could be educated and raised by the company, as children would be, to be, almost brainwashed, as children have been, into voting for the "parents" preferred party. Just create sentient, but gullable/stupid robots, so you can easily manipulate them into voting for who you want them to. It happens with people all the time, so, for equality, it should still legally be able to happen with sentient robots.

I happen to belive that homosexuality is genetic. Therefore they should not be denied basic rights assigned to human beings...I personally beleive we would all be better off by excluding "marriage" altogether from legal terminaology and simply redifine it as civil unions, thus leaving the label of marriage to religious instiutions and the legal rights of a civli unions up to the state.

Okay, so I ask you - why should the state give up the word marriage? Why shouldn't religious come up with their own word? I mean, the word has been around for many centuries and used by many religious, to the point where it is accepted as a state thing. So why should the state abandon a perfectly good word, just so the religious nuts can get their way? If religious want their own religious civil unions, they can come up with their own word.

Plenty.

Q: If we allow this then won't the schools start teaching this to kids and showing why they should be getting married to the same gender?

Q: Since gay people decide to become gay, if they really wan't to be married can't they marry someone of the opposite gender?

Q: But forbidden of same-sex marriage isn't discrimination at all. After all gays can marry other people of the opposite gender and non-gays can't marry people of the same gender as well. How does this treatment of everyone equally be classed as discrimination?

Just a few questions you missed out on. Don't start attacking me for it people

A: Schools ideally don't tell kids that they should be a different religion, and yet kids learn about how religions have gotten started and how they have progressed throughout history. And have you ever tried telling a kid to do something s/he doesn't want to do? If a kid has no inclination whatsoever to be or to "become" gay, s/he's not gonna do it.

A: Jury's out on how much homosexuality is "chosen." But even if it is 100 percent chosen, so is religion, which does far more social damage (as well as social benefit--I'm not an atheist, people) and yet is protected by the Constitution.

A: And the old argument about "miscegenation" was that blacks could always marry other blacks and whites could marry other whites. If you really think it's no big deal to marry against your inclinations then wow, let's ban heterosexual marriage and make gay marriage compulsory for fifty years or so and see how you like it.

And personally, I'm appalled that in the so-called "land of the free" we are still allowed to legislate human rights by majority vote. But at least if the Constitution is actually followed, they can't outlaw the legal marriages that have already taken place--the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws being passed by states. I'm not clear if the rule extends to state constitutions but I would imagine it does. And one of these days people will actually wake up and go, "Oh yeah! Fourteenth Amendment! Everybody's supposed to have equal protection under the law! Duh!"

My point (and, as Ellen would say, I do have one) is that same-sex marriage should be a non-issue. People should be able to marry as they please. The controversy has been created by people who have dismissed real problems in favor of manufactured problems.

My question, I repeat, is why have we permitted a small, loud-mouthed group of apparently insecure homophobes turn this into an issue when there are real, life-and-death issues, like a stupid war, people starving, children being abused, women being denied basic rights - I could go on ad nauseam.

Hell, even my hyper-conservative, Palin-supporting son thinks same-sex marriage shouldn't be denied.

Some Muslims, who have a reputation for being frothing-at-the-mouth homophobes thanks to Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia executing gays, have come out (sorry) against Proposition 8. Maybe it's that we get more of the reasonable ones here in the States, but they make a convincing argument that social justice is more important here and besides, the Qur'an says there is to be no compulsion in religion in the first place, presumably including compelling people to follow religious dictates about sexual and relationship behavior. (I've seen that verse, it does exist. Usually says some variation of "There is no compulsion in religion" as translated to English.)

Because it is about genetically driven beahavior, not physical characteristics.

I have said this in other threads here (to no avail): It is much easier to fight for individual rights for the disenfranchised than to force the ignorant to legislate acceptance of a behavior. Focus more on the human rights attached to marriage than on homsexual liberation. Once the rights have been secured everyone else will eventually come around, as it will be a non-issue at that point.

Nobody is trying to enshrine "homosexual liberation" into law. What they're trying to do is what's Constitutionally required in the first place, to make the law apply equally to everyone unless there's a compelling state interest in not allowing it. Like, there's certainly a compelling interest in not legalizing incest or pedophilia, which often are brandished as dire consequences threatened if we start treating gays like human beings. But there isn't any compelling interest in treating gays like second-class citizens; the only arguments you can make against gayness, gay adoption, gay marriage, etc. are religious. That's not enough.

I don't care what people think about this. The law is not meant to make people think differently. It sets guidelines for behavior and consequences for law-breaking. That's it. Nobody can make anybody think anything. Even hate-crime laws are more about punishing someone for engaging in terroristic behavior than anything that person might be thinking. (We already gauged crime by what motivates it; hate crime legislation just expands on that.)

You know, I have my own issues with gay people, although they're not consistent across the board--I am suspicious that some men, for instance, are "gay" because they hate women, and because men have more political power, that bothers me. I used to know of a gay man who had a license plate on his car that said NO FISH. That word's code for certain female body parts. I mean, that's just gross. I can prefer guys with long hair without hating or being disgusted by guys with short hair. But if he wants to go marry another guy that's his business and it doesn't bother me. And I don't think all gay guys are about teh wimmin hatin.

And I'm tired of seeing political wags droning on about us having to wait for equal rights until society comes around. You can't make people think something they don't want to think. But you can make them obey the law, or punish them if they don't. It took three white anti-racism activists being murdered by white supremacists down in Mississippi before the Civil Rights Act was signed into law. I hope it is not going to take straight gay-rights activists being slaughtered by Mormons or Catholics to make people wake up and think this time around.

I have said this in other threads here (to no avail): It is much easier to fight for individual rights for the disenfranchised than to force the ignorant to legislate acceptance of a behavior.

Um, that's exactly what the marriage equality movement has been doing. "Whatever you think of marriage, it's wrong to discriminate" and so forth.

Once the rights have been secured everyone else will eventually come around, as it will be a non-issue at that point.

Do you honestly believe that?

Basically what you just suggested is the equivalent of saying that Catholics have large families only for the purpose of creating more Catholics. It doesn't end up happening that way
Often, it does.