Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually before that had everything to do with how whites precieved blacks. My views are indifferent to the sexual orentaiton - it has to do with gender.
I boggle at the clueless things some people say. Sexual orientation in the current discussion is about - wait for it - gender.
You cannot argue how you are against same-gender marriage and then say your opinion has nothing to do with sexual gender orientation. You can try, an look silly; again.
You're completely lacking in any argument, throwing out irrelevant side issues, with only the following gobbledygook to try to articulate denying rights to fellow citizens:
Yin-Yang, or dichotomy of two differences coming togather and forming a single unit.
They are two human beings, who are made differently than you by falling in love with their own gender, who have the same needs for love, compansionship, etc.
You are so blinded by ideology that you are wanting to deny them the same basic right you have to marry.
Sigh...they do have the right to marry. Where does it say anywhere - that some can not get married?
You are unaware that in 49 of 50 states, there are laws on the books saying that marriage is restricted to opposite genders? What kind of question did you post?
You can't even see how absurd you sound with the attempt to address this extraordinarily serious issue with 'Yin-Yang' pulled freshly out of *your* orafice.
Its not a new concept, be around for thousands of years - maybe expand your horizons a little bit. Two halves making a whole - been in both eastern and western thought for some time.
But it is also reinforcement of thousands of years of civilation and millions of years of evolution. Male and female.
It's always amusing when the ignorant attempt condescension. Annoying, irritating, but a bit amusing.
Your utterly ignorant attempt to put lipstick on the pig of your bigotry by name-dropping the phrase 'Yin-Yang' over it received my criticism, which was not based on lack of familiarity with Yin-Yang, but rather familiarity and pointing out how terrible your application of it was.
Since you need it spelled out, I'll do some spelling.
Human nature is more complicated than black and white qualities. Yin Yang is a useful concept for all kinds of complementary qualities - and it does not prove a thing on gay marriage, because YOU fail to grasp the human qualities involved. There are people who are mentally one gender and physically another (check the science), there are masculine and feminine gay men, there are masculine and feminine gay women, there are asexual people, and many other things needing more consideration than your 8-letter argument.
Gay relationships can *have* a masculine and feminine yin-yang, for example. You just embarrass yourself when you say 'yin yang' as your whole argument.
And there was no name calling. Name-calling is without substance. Calling Nixon an abuser of power, calling Clinton a cheater - these are not 'name-calling'.
So its okay to name call then? Dully noted. Since you displayed ignorce on where simple things such as the concept of yin-yang and couldn't even find the correct % of gay people in the united states - i guess it wouldn't be name calling to call you:
ignorant.
or maybe piss-poor google skillz - drat, but thas not a name
[/quote]
No, you would simple be saying something false because of your own ignorance. You mistook a criticism of your terrible misuse of the phrase Yin-Yang and made a wtong assumption from the criticism; and now you make an attack with nothing to support it about he percent of gays in America. I don't know where that came from, but I'll bet I've done a lot more research on the topic than you have - and one thing you would know, if you did a little more research, is how widely the estimates vary.
You're wrong, and looking foolish the more you try to attack out of your errors.
I'm ignorang on countless things, and have no shame to say so, but not the things you are wrongly spewing.
Calling people who demanded 'seperate but equal', who demanded 'white and black' drinking fountains, is not name-calling.
And calling someone who denies equal rights to a group for no reason other than an irrational view of that group a bigot is not name-calling, either.
Wait equal rights or new rights? Last time i checked no one has had the right to marry the same sex. I don't have the right to marry a man (i'm male btw), so how are you claiming equal rights?
If you want something new, why not be honest and ask for it.
Just wow. Are you that confused? The ban on slavery gave former slaves a new right, and it gave them equality. The two are not exclusive.
The current law has unjustified discrimination. Removing that discrimination would give gays equality on marriage, and the new equal right to marry.
What is confusing for you?
Yes, the word bigot can be name-calling. Saying that if you oppose reperations you're automatically a bigot, if the thought of gay sex digsusts you you're a bigot - name-calling.
Those are not the case with your immoral harming of other people who are gay.
Too old people banging away - isn't exactly appealing, same with fat people sex. Does that make me a bigot against those people? honestly i don't care what people do, or who they do it with. And just becaus i don't want to know the details, makes me a bigot? you are very strange.
As I said, there's no problem with your being disgusted by gay sex. That may make you bigoted or not, I'm unsure; I'm a bigot too, if it does.
However, choosing to prevent them from the equal right to marry certainly is an acto of bigotry, and it is immoral.
Why you are so confused that you respond to the issue of denying equal marital rights with not wanting to watch fat people have sex, well, watching you argue is like fat sex.
Facebook
Twitter