"Gay Day" Ruined Our Day at Cedar Point

[kenofken]

It is patently racist to compare African Americans to people who engage in homosexual behavior.

“I do take offense at that particular community paralleling its movement with the civil rights movement in America,” he says, “because they are trying to put a moral issue over against a human issue. And they really are two completely different entities.”

Rev Charles Reese , an African American pastor

Rev. Phil Davis, who has pastored Nations Ford Community Church in Charlotte for 15 years, also says homosexuality is wrong, and takes serious offense at the civil rights comparison. In fact, he says comparing the homosexual movement to the civil rights movement is an “atrocity.”

“That line of reasoning denigrates and throws dirt on the blood of blacks who have suffered through slavery, Jim Crow and bigotry, and have died because of the color of their skin,” Davis says. “That the homosexual radical agenda would use the blood of our ancestors to justify their immoral cause and bring guilt and manipulation upon others is an atrocity.”

“I recognize that what many of us have as African Americans is due to the fact that our fore-parents suffered,” Davis says. “Saying homosexuality is a civil right undercuts the legitimacy of our discussion about racism, segregation, true discrimination, and all that our ancestors have gone through to get to this point.”

Rev Davis-An African American Pastor

vfbaptist.org/articles/articles%20101-200/article00109.htm

So we’ve established that some black folks are homophobes too. No surprise there. They have the same range of human experience and opinion as the rest of us. There is a tragic irony in their blindness to the universal nature of human rights. When we start playing the game of “our rights are real and organic” but “theirs” are just some political contrivance, we are headed away from King’s dream and toward the sort of sectarian nightmare of the Balkans or much of Africa.

Unfortunate, but again hardly unique. The puritans won their religious freedom in this country only to turn around and deny others the same thing. Suffering oppression ought to give one a special insight into its nature and a measure of compassion, but it often does not. African-Americans were some of the most effective hunters of Native Americans. The tribes, for their part, often owned slaves. Africans participated in the slave trade. Black folks in this country have earned the right to a lot of consideration, but they, and these reverends in particular, do not get the unassailable right to authoritatively problaim that their suffering is “the real deal” and oppression of others is not.

At any rate my original point still stands. I don’t maintain that the situation of gay people is the “same” as the experience of African Americans in this country. I do maintain that the tactics and moral reasoning of their respective oppressors are the same

 

[estesbob]

So we’ve established that some black folks are homophobes too. No surprise there. They have the same range of human experience and opinion as the rest of us. There is a tragic irony in their blindness to the universal nature of human rights. When we start playing the game of “our rights are real and organic” but “theirs” are just some political contrivance, we are headed away from King’s dream and toward the sort of sectarian nightmare of the Balkans or much of Africa.

Unfortunate, but again hardly unique. The puritans won their religious freedom in this country only to turn around and deny others the same thing. Suffering oppression ought to give one a special insight into its nature and a measure of compassion, but it often does not. African-Americans were some of the most effective hunters of Native Americans. The tribes, for their part, often owned slaves. Africans participated in the slave trade. Black folks in this country have earned the right to a lot of consideration, but they, and these reverends in particular, do not get the unassailable right to authoritatively problaim that their suffering is “the real deal” and oppression of others is not.

At any rate my original point still stands. I don’t maintain that the situation of gay people is the “same” as the experience of African Americans in this country. I do maintain that the tactics and moral reasoning of their respective oppressors are the same

You have set up a false premise-that practicing sodomy is equivalnet to being an African Amercian. Having stated this false premise you then proceeded to label anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot. It appears you have nothing to add to the discussion other than ignorance presented as fact and stateing you are morally superior to anyone who disagrees with you-with a little racism thrown in on the side.

 

[pnewton]

So we’ve established that some black folks are homophobes too.

One is not a homophobe because of relilgious conviction that homosexuality is deeply disordered or that practicing homosexuality are commiting mortal sin. One is not a bigot because they fight those homosexuals that want to promote their lifestyle as normal, acceptable or alternative.

It seems that those that push for homosexual tolerance have no tolerance for the religious convictions of others.

 

[ContegoFides]

I feel that you degrade the act of sex by morally reducing it primarily and nearly exclusively to the biological fact of conception–nothing better than the animal purpose. Pleasure for pleasure’s sharing sake is nearly an exclusively human activity; sex for reproduction is ubiquitous, and adds to the teeming hordes of nature. I, for one, so no noble distinguishing feature in that fact.

And I do not degrade nor devalue sex in my relationship. You use a lot of “we” here, but I want to dissociate myself from your generalizations. I think that you should primarily speak for yourself, and let that be the example for persuasion.

Once again, you twist my words in an unjust attempt to make me look bad. This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which is logically not compelling. Frankly, it is quite characteristic of the arguments used by homosexual activits to attempt to unjustly quell dissent.

Before you complain about injustice, you should be more just yourself. :tsktsk: If you are going to disagree, at least address the argument that has been presented, rather than your strawman.

I have stated that, and maintain, that sex has two primary purposes so intertwined as to be inseparable. The first is reproduction. The second is union between the spouses. If you break one, you will break the other to a greater or lesser degree. Some disordered sexual acts break both intrinsically.

Sexual acts between two people of the same gender inherently break both. The act is intrinsically barren, and is never ordered towards reproduction - and thus breaks the purpose of reproduction. The act cannot be between spouses, because people of the same gender cannot be married regardless of how you, the State, or anyone else wants to twist language to define a same sex relationship. Without being ordered towards reproduction (regardless of fertility), no relationship can be a marriage, because marriage is intimately related to sex and sex has two primary and intertwined purposes - both of which are broken by homosexual acts.

 

[ContegoFides]

There is not a single argument mustered against gay people which is novel or any more dignified than those used to justify segregation and Jim Crow culture. Then too, hate was declared an act of tough love, as the Klan and their supporters were simply enforcing “God’s natural order of things.” I used to get drawn into the day to day progress of this cultural war until I realized something. Time is on the side of justice. Simple demographics will dictate the outcome. The war of attrition being fought by homophobes is an act of futility because almost no new bigots are coming off the assembly lines in our society. Virtually no one under the age of 30 actively opposes gay marriage or civil unions. It’s simply a waiting game, and not a very long one at that…

Indeed, time is on the side of justice. Sadly, the country will suffer as we go down the road towards disordered sexual arrangments such as legalally recognized same sex unions. Every society in history that has lost its moral compass in the area of sexuality has degenerated and decayed - and the U.S. will be no different.

Comparing race to same sex attraction is incorrect and unjust. First, one of the lies you are perpetrating is that those of us that are pro-marriage and against legally recognized same sex unions are motivated by hate. Not so. This is not about hate, it is about Truth - about social justice. I harbor no ill will towards anyone - especially not people struggling with same sex attraction. There is no urge to keep people down, but rather to maintain the correct social order. In fact, I have had very close relationships with people who struggle with same sex attraction, and even call some friends.

Even YOU will argue that some behaviors that “don’t hurt anyone else” should be kept illegal for the public good. This is my argument as well.

These lies about hate and comparison of same sex identity to race have one purpose: to belittle those who oppose you and to unjustly quell argument. Frankly, it is telling of the source of the homosexual agenda.

 

[estesbob]

Indeed, time is on the side of justice. Sadly, the country will suffer as we go down the road towards disordered sexual arrangments such as legalally recognized same sex unions. Every society in history that has lost its moral compass in the area of sexuality has degenerated and decayed - and the U.S. will be no different.

Comparing race to same sex attraction is incorrect and unjust. First, one of the lies you are perpetrating is that those of us that are pro-marriage and against legally recognized same sex unions are motivated by hate. Not so. This is not about hate, it is about Truth - about social justice. I harbor no ill will towards anyone - especially not people struggling with same sex attraction. There is no urge to keep people down, but rather to maintain the correct social order. In fact, I have had very close relationships with people who struggle with same sex attraction, and even call some friends.

Even YOU will argue that some behaviors that “don’t hurt anyone else” should be kept illegal for the public good. This is my argument as well.

These lies about hate and comparison of same sex identity to race have one purpose: to belittle those who oppose you and to unjustly quell argument. Frankly, it is telling of the source of the homosexual agenda.

Well said!

 

[ContegoFides]

So we’ve established that some black folks are homophobes too. No surprise there. They have the same range of human experience and opinion as the rest of us. There is a tragic irony in their blindness to the universal nature of human rights. When we start playing the game of “our rights are real and organic” but “theirs” are just some political contrivance, we are headed away from King’s dream and toward the sort of sectarian nightmare of the Balkans or much of Africa.

Unfortunate, but again hardly unique. The puritans won their religious freedom in this country only to turn around and deny others the same thing. Suffering oppression ought to give one a special insight into its nature and a measure of compassion, but it often does not. African-Americans were some of the most effective hunters of Native Americans. The tribes, for their part, often owned slaves. Africans participated in the slave trade. Black folks in this country have earned the right to a lot of consideration, but they, and these reverends in particular, do not get the unassailable right to authoritatively problaim that their suffering is “the real deal” and oppression of others is not.

At any rate my original point still stands. I don’t maintain that the situation of gay people is the “same” as the experience of African Americans in this country. I do maintain that the tactics and moral reasoning of their respective oppressors are the same

Objectively false. We do not use the same tactics, or the same moral reasoning; that is an absolute lie (objectively speaking, even if you objectively believe it) and I’m calling you on it. Nobody of integrity here would deprive you of your right to vote, would lynch you, would use dehumanizing words (like the “n” word or the “f” word) - and we specifically advocate that all unjust discrimation against those struggling with same sex attraction is wrong. Not the same, not by a longshot.

The first intense irony here is that the homosexual activists would deny us our freedom. For example, we be forced to recognize same sex marriages in the context of employment in religious institutions. PRIVATE companies engaging in private actions not only can - but have been - forced to aid or assist homosexual “unions” or face severe sanctions under the law for practicing “discrimination.” These activists would deprive US of our freedom of conscience - I say no, that’s wrong.

The second intense irony is that you, yourself, will argue that some acts that are based in choice and “don’t hurt anyone else” should be made illegal because they are “not good for society.” That is our argument, and it’s based on reason not bigotry.

 

[ContegoFides]

One is not a homophobe because of relilgious conviction that homosexuality is deeply disordered or that practicing homosexuality are commiting mortal sin. One is not a bigot because they fight those homosexuals that want to promote their lifestyle as normal, acceptable or alternative.

It seems that those that push for homosexual tolerance have no tolerance for the religious convictions of others.

Precisely correct.

 

[kenofken]

Objectively false. We do not use the same tactics, or the same moral reasoning; that is an absolute lie (objectively speaking, even if you objectively believe it) and I’m calling you on it. Nobody of integrity here would deprive you of your right to vote, would lynch you, would use dehumanizing words (like the “n” word or the “f” word) - and we specifically advocate that all unjust discrimation against those struggling with same sex attraction is wrong. Not the same, not by a longshot.

It’s a difference of degree, not substance. You would (and do) create a segregated second-class form of citizenship and body of law which denies people basic legal rights. Rights to have their loved ones have access as family to them in hospitals. To share each other’s medical rights and government benefits, to enjoy any of the rights straight married couples have taken for granted for centuries. The fact that many of you, or at least some, are gracious enough not to lynch people or call them nasty names is beside the point. Benevolent oppression is still oppression. In the old South, many whites, even Klan members, were very civil toward black folk, and in fact showed a real affection for them, up until the point that they got “uppity” and started demanding “special rights.” For most of anti-Semitism’s ugly history in Europe, Jews were not being physically assaulted, but they still had to be locked inside their gates at night and didn’t enjoy the normal rights of law as other folk. Would you agree to live under such a status so long as the rest of us were “nice” to you?

The first intense irony here is that the homosexual activists would deny us our freedom. For example, we be forced to recognize same sex marriages in the context of employment in religious institutions. PRIVATE companies engaging in private actions not only can - but have been - forced to aid or assist homosexual “unions” or face severe sanctions under the law for practicing “discrimination.” These activists would deprive US of our freedom of conscience - I say no, that’s wrong.

**Here we get to the crux of what’s driving much of the anti-gay hysteria: the fear that pre-emptive war is the only way to prevent “them” from doing what we’ve done to them for so long. It’s the same fear that kept apartheid in place in South Africa long after most people really believed in racial superiority.

No gay marriage/civil union proposal that I have ever seen would require churches to perform gay marriages or recognize them within their church. There are, and would continue to be, laws that allow a certain amount of discrimination in hiring based on belief within churches themselves ie a parish or archdiocese. I don’t know that those exceptions extend to, say any business entity operated by a religious organization such as a health care system.

Private businesses would not face any greater intrusion than they do for race-based discrimination. You can’t put out a sign saying “no service to colored” or “Japs need not apply.” Why should you get a different “right” to do that to gay people (or people you just think may be gay)? There are people who express religious reasons for discrimination against blacks and Jews. We don’t let their “freedom of conscience” trump civil rights, so why should your distaste of gays prevail in such a way?

If you think pre-emptive war is a Christian way of doing business, you ought to read up on some of Catholicism’s just war theory… or even the example of Christ’s work on Earth. The Church and various extensions of it are spending tens of millions of dollars to manipulate the political system to actively deny a class of people access to basic justice. Money which could have been used on, say, a kid in Africa who just died for want of $20 in medical care and a bus ride to get it. I suspect the people who have made “anti-gay marriage” their ministry are going to face a, shall we say “interesting” hearing before the admissions committee on judgement day. **

The second intense irony is that you, yourself, will argue that some acts that are based in choice and “don’t hurt anyone else” should be made illegal because they are “not good for society.” That is our argument, and it’s based on reason not bigotry.

**As to this last part, ya lost me. I’m not sure what sort of double standard or logical fallacy you think I may be hiding here. Not to say I may not have any, but you got ahead of me a bit. **

 

[estesbob]

**As to this last part, ya lost me. I’m not sure what sort of double standard or logical fallacy you think I may be hiding here. Not to say I may not have any, but you got ahead of me a bit. **

Until you learn to use the “quote” function don’t be surprised if people don’t reply to the mess like you posted above

 

[larkin31]

Once again, you twist my words in an unjust attempt to make me look bad. This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which is logically not compelling. Frankly, it is quite characteristic of the arguments used by homosexual activits to attempt to unjustly quell dissent.

All I am doing is disagreeing and telling you exactly why. There is not attempt at “quelling dissent.” Stop whining about false wrongs to you. You and I are not the issues here.

Before you complain about injustice, you should be more just yourself. :tsktsk: If you are going to disagree, at least address the argument that has been presented, rather than your strawman

. I am directly addressing the point. Directly.

I have stated that, and maintain, that sex has two primary purposes so intertwined as to be inseparable. The first is reproduction. The second is union between the spouses. If you break one, you will break the other to a greater or lesser degree. Some disordered sexual acts break both intrinsically.

My point is that to LIMIT sex ONLY to both these purposes, TOGETHER, every time, as an overly restrictive and false point of view toward it, and to call it based on “Natural Moral Law” is another projection of a human idea onto nature, where this law does not exist.

Sexual acts between two people of the same gender inherently break both. The act is intrinsically barren, and is never ordered towards reproduction - and thus breaks the purpose of reproduction.

well, yeah, the purpose of “reproduction” is to “reproduce.” But human sexuality is about much more than reproduction, and always has been, and always will be. There is no wrong in sex for pleasure and bonding without reproduction. Most sex, thankfully, does not result in reproduction! What a mess the world would be if it did!

 

[pnewton]

** It’s a difference of degree, not substance. You would (and do) create a segregated second-class form of citizenship and body of law which denies people basic legal rights. Rights to have their loved ones have access as family to them in hospitals. To share each other’s medical rights and government benefits, to enjoy any of the rights straight married couples have taken for granted for centuries. . **

Then let us look at another degree. Do you think pedophiles also deserve the same protections that homosexuals do? Polygamists? One who wants to marry a sheep?

 

[sharmin]

Then let us look at another degree. Do you think pedophiles also deserve the same protections that homosexuals do? Polygamists? One who wants to marry a sheep?

I’m not sure if this is a serious question or not, but I’ll bite.

Do you think pedophiles also deserve the same protections that homosexuals do?

Um, no. Pedophilia is a violation on a CHILD…an abuse on a child. There is an obvious victim here. So, regardless as to whether our church views homosexuality and pedophilia as disordered, if two non-Christian people believe otherwise and become involved in a consentual adult relationship, that is their business. However, if an adult victimizes and an innocent child then they deserve no protection. I would have thought that was obvious…

Polygamists?

I have no problem with polygamists having legal rights…espcially if it’s for religious reasons. Again, two consenting adults. God will deal with them if He sees fit.

on who wants to marry a sheep

Um, well, I would say no to this one as animals are not humans and have no legal rights to property, child custody, etc. Again, would seem obvious to me…is this a serious question? LOL

 

[estesbob]

I’m not sure if this is a serious question or not, but I’ll bite.

I have no problem with polygamists having legal rights…espcially if it’s for religious reasons. Again, two consenting adults. God will deal with them if He sees fit.

? LOL

Why do you limit it to just two? If marriage is just an artificial construct should it be open to as many consenting adults as want to enter into it?

And given inbreeding isn’t possible between homosexuals shouldn’t a Father be allowed to marry his Son. Do you believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on what constitutes a marriage as long as it is between any number
of consenting adults? I would think you would since all the arguments you have provided for same sex marriage support this view.

 

[pnewton]

Um, no. Pedophilia is a violation on a CHILD…an abuse on a child. There is an obvious victim here. So, regardless as to whether our church views homosexuality and pedophilia as disordered, if two non-Christian people believe otherwise and become involved in a consentual adult relationship, that is their business. However, if an adult victimizes and an innocent child then they deserve no protection. I would have thought that was obvious.

I am not speaking of victimizing a child, but a willing older child, whose parents are also willing. This is abuse as defined by law. The child is a victim because this is a crime. Not every society has done this.

So yes, I am serious. This is not an issue for me because I have no problem criminalizing perverted behavior. I see legalization of pedophilia the next logical step to the direction America is heading, as does NAMBLA.

Um, well, I would say no to this one as animals are not humans and have no legal rights to property, child custody, etc. Again, would seem obvious to me…is this a serious question? LOL

Okay, this wasn’t too serious. Let me not say “marry”, but rather live in an on-going sexual relationship with one or more animals. Obviously, many of the issues, like insurance, would not apply in these cases.

Let us also throw in incest. Should a parent be allowed to marry his adult child? Two siblings get married?

 

[kenofken]

*"I am not speaking of victimizing a child, but a willing older child, whose parents are also willing. This is abuse as defined by law. The child is a victim because this is a crime. Not every society has done this.

So yes, I am serious. This is not an issue for me because I have no problem criminalizing perverted behavior. I see legalization of pedophilia the next logical step to the direction America is heading, as does NAMBLA.

Quote:
Um, well, I would say no to this one as animals are not humans and have no legal rights to property, child custody, etc. Again, would seem obvious to me…is this a serious question? LOL

Okay, this wasn’t too serious. Let me not say “marry”, but rather live in an on-going sexual relationship with one or more animals. Obviously, many of the issues, like insurance, would not apply in these cases.

Let us also throw in incest. Should a parent be allowed to marry his adult child? Two siblings get married? "*

The “slippery slope” argument is a mile-high billboard advertising the fact that you have no logical substantive basis for your position. It’s simply an appeal to fear in hopes of short-circuiting people’s reason. (To your credit, it often works). And again, it’s the same argument used not so long ago against the “mixing of the races.” Who knows what sort of perversions we will unleash once we tamper with “God’s order of things.”?

This logic says that because you’re not capable of drawing distinctions between hugely different situations, no one else must be capable of doing so, so justice is just too dangerous a thing to even play with. Any reasonable action is off limits if you judge it by absurd flights of fancy rather than realistic cause and effect. The church’s relaxation of meatless Fridays? If we give folks that sort of license, how long before they think canabalism is OK?

If you truly think pedophilia is the next logical progression to giving consenting adults legal rights, well that says a lot more about the state of your mind and soul than it does gay folks or American jurisprudence. The only nation state in modern times which has de-stigmatized pedophilia through culture and law, if not explicitly in word is the Vatican.

The bestiality argument is patently absurd. Entering a contract such as marriage requires that parties have sentient understanding of the terms and standing before the law as persons. You’re counting on your audience to be dumber than animals if you were really hoping to get this one off the runway. You’re also conflating a legal relationship with sexual acts. The fact is some people do, unfortunately practice bestiality. Good money says they have no interest in the state’s attention or blessing, and the other 99.9 % of us aren’t going to be casting around for four-legged partners if gay people’s civil rights are recognized, or for that matter, even if bestiality is somehow legalized.

Likewise with incest. I just don’t know a lot of brother-sister couples waiting with baited breath for gay marriage to open the legal floodgate that will bless their unions. Perhaps I move in slower social circles than some of you.

Back to the sex act vs relationship issue: the “perverted” sex acts that consume your fevered imaginations are not the issue in gay marriage. The right to practice “sodomy” is now well established by the Supreme Court. The question in law is whether people should have a right to exist in a legally recognized relationship where sex, and the other 99% of human activity can take a healthy direction. Your crusade will not eliminate or recriminalize homosexual activity nor will gay marriage encourage others to have gay sex. You know this full well. Your actions are nothing more than acts of retribution aimed at dehumanizing and punishing people for who they are

If we’re going to run the thing to absurd ends, why stop where you have? Gay marriage would surely open the door to unions between people and space aliens, sooner or later. And what of android-human unions? Do we really want to risk going there? We’d better just nip this in the bud and keep gay people in their place…

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Thanks.

However, it is effective only if it is convincing.

The aim of all apologetics is not to prove that you are right, or smarter, or whatever - but rather to win hearts and minds for Christ and just obedience to His Church.

Sometimes it takes a while. And in an age that rushes into relativism’s embrace, telling the truth is the only way.

 

[pnewton]

The “slippery slope” argument is a mile-high billboard advertising the fact that you have no logical substantive basis for your position. …This logic says that because you’re not capable of drawing distinctions between hugely different situations, no one else must be capable of doing so, so justice is just too dangerous a thing to even play with.

Speaking about no being able to move in logical circles, it was you that said:

It’s a difference of degree, not substance.

I was giving examples, in hope that someone would respond with reasons why these arguements are differences of substance, not degree. I was not giving a slippery slope argument.

Yet I get a post full of insults and not substance. I am not on a crusade. However, I can see no substantial difference between what homosexuals are wanting today and some of these other issues. Yes, as someone pointed out before you, the beastiality issue does not compare in legal matters. However, the others do. And if, as you point out, that no civilized nation would allow voluntary, consentual, pedophilia, with a child old enough for a parent to grant permission, then there is precedent for regulating of marriage on the basis of sexual deviancy. Incest is not allowed in any civilized country so there is a precedent for allowing prohibitions between adults. Polygamy too should be totally permissible. It should not be unusual for a whole family to stay together as they grow and keep marrying each other.

When you made the comparison with the civil right movement, substance was what you got. I was looking for substance, but instead I got:

This logic says that because you’re not capable of drawing distinctions between hugely different situations

*If you truly think pedophilia is the next logical progression to giving consenting adults legal rights, well that says a lot more about the state of your mind *

*The only nation state in modern times which has de-stigmatized pedophilia through culture and law, if not explicitly in word is the Vatican. *

*I just don’t know a lot of brother-sister couples waiting with baited breath for gay marriage to open the legal floodgate that will bless their unions. Perhaps I move in slower social circles than some of you. *

…the “perverted” sex acts that consume your fevered imaginations
*

Your actions are nothing more than acts of retribution aimed at dehumanizing and punishing people for who they are

I just do not want specialized attention for what people do, not who they are.

 

[pnewton]

*"I am not speaking of victimizing a child, but a willing older child, whose parents are also willing. This is abuse as defined by law. The child is a victim because this is a crime. Not every society has done this. *

*So yes, I am serious. This is not an issue for me because I have no problem criminalizing perverted behavior. I see legalization of pedophilia the next logical step to the direction America is heading, as does NAMBLA. *

Quote:
*Um, well, I would say no to this one as animals are not humans and have no legal rights to property, child custody, etc. Again, would seem obvious to me…is this a serious question? LOL *

Okay, this wasn’t too serious. Let me not say “marry”, but rather live in an on-going sexual relationship with one or more animals. Obviously, many of the issues, like insurance, would not apply in these cases.

Let us also throw in incest. Should a parent be allowed to marry his adult child? Two siblings get married? "

The “slippery slope” argument is a mile-high billboard advertising the fact that you have no logical substantive basis for your position. It’s simply an appeal to fear in hopes of short-circuiting people’s reason. (To your credit, it often works). And again, it’s the same argument used not so long ago against the “mixing of the races.” Who knows what sort of perversions we will unleash once we tamper with “God’s order of things.”?

This logic says that because you’re not capable of drawing distinctions between hugely different situations, no one else must be capable of doing so, so justice is just too dangerous a thing to even play with. Any reasonable action is off limits if you judge it by absurd flights of fancy rather than realistic cause and effect. The church’s relaxation of meatless Fridays? If we give folks that sort of license, how long before they think canabalism is OK?

If you truly think pedophilia is the next logical progression to giving consenting adults legal rights, well that says a lot more about the state of your mind and soul than it does gay folks or American jurisprudence. The only nation state in modern times which has de-stigmatized pedophilia through culture and law, if not explicitly in word is the Vatican.

The bestiality argument is patently absurd. Entering a contract such as marriage requires that parties have sentient understanding of the terms and standing before the law as persons. You’re counting on your audience to be dumber than animals if you were really hoping to get this one off the runway. You’re also conflating a legal relationship with sexual acts. The fact is some people do, unfortunately practice bestiality. Good money says they have no interest in the state’s attention or blessing, and the other 99.9 % of us aren’t going to be casting around for four-legged partners if gay people’s civil rights are recognized, or for that matter, even if bestiality is somehow legalized.

Likewise with incest. I just don’t know a lot of brother-sister couples waiting with baited breath for gay marriage to open the legal floodgate that will bless their unions. Perhaps I move in slower social circles than some of you.

Back to the sex act vs relationship issue: the “perverted” sex acts that consume your fevered imaginations are not the issue in gay marriage. The right to practice “sodomy” is now well established by the Supreme Court. The question in law is whether people should have a right to exist in a legally recognized relationship where sex, and the other 99% of human activity can take a healthy direction. Your crusade will not eliminate or recriminalize homosexual activity nor will gay marriage encourage others to have gay sex. You know this full well. Your actions are nothing more than acts of retribution aimed at dehumanizing and punishing people for who they are

If we’re going to run the thing to absurd ends, why stop where you have? Gay marriage would surely open the door to unions between people and space aliens, sooner or later. And what of android-human unions? Do we really want to risk going there? We’d better just nip this in the bud and keep gay people in their place…

 

[Zelie_Louis]

Since this thread has reached the level of insulting remarks and taking the topic itself to an entirely different direction, it’s now finished.