Yeah, one of the reasons I don't hang around here as often as I used to is the way you and others treat other members. So I don't care much to respond to your objections because they are objections based on
awful (and likely intentional) misunderstandings of what I said. Plus, your tone is insufferably condescending. But I'll respond for the sake of clearing up some misunderstanding.
Except it wouldn't make too much sense for a homosexual to "marry" someone of the opposite sex, would it? So they do not have the ability to marry in effect.
It's been mentioned that people with homosexual preferences often marry someone of the opposite sex. And of course, it's also been mentioned that marriage doesn't need to be about the sexual relationship. Marriage can be about enriching the life of the person you're married to - even a person who is 100% homosexual has full access to this kind of marriage. So it does make sense for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.
This is just utterly bizarre. By the exact same logic, gay marriage should be allowed for the exact same fucking reasons.
All I'm saying is that it's not unreasonable in every case for a homosexual to marry a person of the opposite sex (whether he be a full-on homosexual or one partially inclined to homosexuality).
EDIT: Some of the things that have been said in this thread truly shock me. By bosk's and H's logic, it must be not be a civil rights issue to have separate restrooms/water fountains/seating areas for whites and blacks. After all, we're not denying any of these rights to any individual group, right?
On first impulse, I think that while segregation (in principle) is definitely an issue, it is not properly classified as a "civil rights" issue. Of course, historically we know that while blacks and whites were separate, they were certainly not equal.
Go tell this to historians. They should probably stop calling it "The Civil Rights Movement."
Are you serious? I
blatantly referred to segregation in American history as a civil rights issue. Understand that when I spoke of "segregation", I meant it in the idealist sense. In the ideal, segregation is
not a civil rights issue.
Homosexuals are not a different group than heterosexuals?
Read: In modern America, homosexuals and heterosexuals are granted the same set of liberties - each group can and can't do the same things. Contrast to the Reconstruction Era - blacks and whites are granted different sets of liberties...one group can do something the other can't.
In Saudi Arabia, all people have the same religious rights. They're all allowed to form Muslim churches, and no others. See? No infringement of rights there!
I would define a "Civil Rights Issue" in America as something that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Jim Crow laws violated the EPC, so Jim Crow laws were a civil rights issue. Segregation violated the EPC, so segregation was a civil rights issue. The present refraining from giving persons the right to marry someone of the same sex does
not violate the EPC, so it is not a civil rights issue.
But what are "rights"? Simple question - in America, as a democracy, "rights" are what the people say they are. If America says that there is no right to marry someone of the same sex, then there is no right to marry someone of the same sex. It is
wrong to claim that you have rights that don't exist.