Denying anyone a service because they are X is discrimination. You're right, gays today are not being oppressed exactly like blacks before civil rights, because those civil rights protect them today. However, this debate is irrefutably similar to one particular thing blacks had to go through: interracial marriage. Many people fought against this marriage, and sure enough, religious entities were on the side to make interracial marriage illegal. Here's an example:

Is the judge right? Of course not, and we see that he clearly drew the wrong conclusion because we have recognized this discrimination as wrong. However, it would sound completely rational and truthful to many of us if we lived in a time where this was still a serious issue in our society. Do we have a special term used for interracial marriage today? No. It's called marriage, as it should be.

The Bible (I believe) does not directly speak out against gay marriage, or say that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. If someone knows a specific passage, please correct me.

I read this as saying marriage is intended for companionship and intimacy, so why should homosexual Christians be denied this? (Don't use the Adam-And-Steve argument unless you also want to explain why interracial marriage is wrong, because it is heavily implied that these two are the same race, and not an interracial couple. Alternatively, find a passage that states that interracial marriage is acceptable.)

It seems like a collective opinion from the church manifesting the disapproval of same-sex marriage is the problem, much like how a collective opinion against interracial couples led some churches to believe it was going against the Bible.

Could you cite your source? As far as I've read, even civil unions for same-sex couples are only allowed in 8 of the fifty states.

Er. Pretty sure churches are allowed to discriminate however they please.

Could you cite your source? As far as I've read, even civil unions for same-sex couples are only allowed in 8 of the fifty states.

but I am going to say that our greasy politicians shouldn't be the people that decide our moral compass.

Just because someone was wrong in the past (slavery, racism, gender inequality) doesn't mean they are wrong about other things (feminism, homosexuality).

A perfect family unit has a father, a mother, and children. Whether you like it or not, having two fathers and no mother is not as good as having a father and mother. And no, husband/wife families aren't perfect and don't raise their children perfectly, but they are better suited to it than husband/husband families, or single parent families.

I'm not sure why you replied to this thread, as what you had to say isn't that relevant to what was being discusses. You also seem to be quite angry; I'm not sure why.

Nah, I'm not really angry. I'm just incredibly caustic. Oh, and how silly of me to bring up a bunch of arguments supporting gay marriage in a thread that's about same sex rights. (Rolls eyes) I'd keep playing along with my usual sarcasm, but I really hope that sooner or later you realize what a silly thing you had said.

First off, who are "they"? The US government? Governments in general? People who are against homosexuality? People who are against homosexual marriage?

I don't believe I have to emphasize that. I'm not quite sure you really didn't understand what I said, I'm more convinced you're just trying to be pretentious in hopes that it'll make you look humorous. Sorry, but being the sarcastic asshole is my job, not yours.

Just because someone was wrong in the past (slavery, racism, gender inequality) doesn't mean they are wrong about other things (feminism, homosexuality).

You're completely right, except I kind of already said that in my post. And they are wrong about homosexuality. Even if it was immoral (which it's not) they still have no right in going about stripping peoples rights.

Have you ever considered that people who say they aren't homophobic may quite simply not be homophobic?

Actions speak louder than words. If you're going on about banning the rights of other people then I would never call you open minded. If you don't believe gay people deserve the rights of all people then you are a homophobe. Just like how believing black people deserve less rights is racist. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe if you go around saying that black people shouldn't get married maybe, just maybe, it won't be considered racist.

Oh, except it fucking is. And I guess we can chalk that up as a double standard - if you think it's racist to take away marriage from black people then clearly it's fair to assume it's homophobic to be against gay marriage.

I'm not sure why these hand movements matter so much to you. Regardless, men were designed to have sex with woman, and vice versa. Men were not designed to have sex with other men. Sure, it's possible to have sex with another man. It's also possible to make a hole in the ground and have sex with that. Woopdeedoo.

Oh, sorry. I never realized you were god. Seriously dude, you're a human, just like me. So maybe it's best you don't try arguing that you know why dicks exist. Oh, and that argument doesn't work, your essentially arguing that our organs are for reproduction only. Well, I suppose you're right on that one, except for the fact that I'm sure you have sex for pleasure most of the time. If you've ever had sex with a condom then clearly your logic has a double standard.

In fact, using your flawless logic I'll even argue it's more despicable to have sex with a woman and purposely prevent birth then be a gay man\ and have sex. Yes, a relationship with two men doesn't have the equipment to procure a child, but if you're going to fuck a girl and consciously take measures to prevent a childbirth then you're\ not just incompetent, you're also a hypocrite.


A perfect family unit has a father, a mother, and children. Whether you like it or not, having two fathers and no mother is not as good as having a father and mother. And no, husband/wife families aren't perfect and don't raise their children perfectly, but they are better suited to it than husband/husband families, or single parent families.

Besides the perfect family unit being complete and utter bull shit it's an incredibly naive belief. Sorry, but every single family is flawed. Some families have alcoholics, some have incompetent parents, some have parents that force their child into being what they want them to be, and most parents indoctrinate their children to follow suit with their own self righteous beliefs. Essentially, this 'perfect family unit' is unlikely at best and poison at worse. Every family works differently.

Oh, right, and how the fuck can you even judge what a perfect family is? Gay parents are less likely to have a mistake than straight people. If gay people want a child, they'll make damn sure they want one. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe all those orphans out there were really from loving, kind families.

And even if your logic was actually right I'm pretty sure a lot of orphans would prefer two guys then an orphanage or being out on the street.

Please, enlighten us as to what these double standards and inconsistencies are.

I already pointed out a few of the double standards and inconsistencies in my earlier post and I pointed out some more here.

This I agree with you on. Politicians shouldn't be able to make so-called hate speech a crime, they shouldn't be able to define who may marry whom, and they shouldn't have to tell us that drinking and driving is a stupid thing to do.

#1 This thread isn't about same-sex rights, it's about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. It's a very small part of the arguments about homosexuality, and most of your posts bear no direct relevance to the subject at hand.

Oh, how stupid of me to assume a thread titled 'Same Sex Rights' wasn't about, well, same sex rights. My joking aside I brought up the marriage issues a ton of times so I disagree with you on it being irrelevent. Seriously, how is anything I said irrelevent? At least five paragraphs blatantly bring up arguments against the Same Sex opposition and the rest are at least relevent because they're counter arguments for irrelevent arguments that are usually brought up against gay marriage. You know, arguments like the parts don't fit, adam and steve, and heaven forbid, maybe even that argument where god made man and woman, not man and man.

Skip this part if you're not interested - These arguments are irrelevent because even if the parts don't fit, even if creationism actually is real, (despite the fact that it contradicts the very science that clothes and feeds you) and even if it actually is morally wrong for a man to be with a man, (which it's not, because I believe I concluded that morality of any decision should be judged through the good results it brings, not through it being moral simply because a book said so.) the arguments are still ultimately completely irrelevent, because the sexual conduct of a couple shouldn't determine whether they're life partners. And if it is relevent, then maybe it's only fair you never wear contraceptives, your girlfriend never takes pills, and you never do anything outside of sticking your unprotected cock in her. - Part over.


Oh, what's that? You used one of those irrelevent arguments? Well, I hope you like the taste of irony, because you're drowning in it. And if you DARE bother saying that my arguments are irrelevent then maybe you should kindly keep your mouth shut and think for a moment that maybe I have to go off on irrelevent arguments because opponents of same sex marriage are always bringing them up in the first place. And regardless of whether they're relevent or not opponents will still continually use them, so I'm basically forced to play their stupid game.

#2 please read posts more carefully. I did not compare gay marriage to drink driving, I never said gay marriage was immoral because it is illegal, I AGREED that politicians should not be allowed to tell us what is moral and what isn't,

Thought you were being sarcastic, like me.

I still don't know who "they" are. It's bad grammar for a reason.

Aaaaand pretty much all your other arguments are about rights. Guess what defines the rights of a people? The law.
In Muslim countries women do not have the right to vote. This isn't necessarily morally correct, but they do not possess that right. In New Zealand, homosexuals are allowed to marry (as far as I know). This isn't necessarily morally correct, but they do possess that right. In many states in the USA, homosexuals are not allowed to marry. This isn't necessarily correct, but they do not possess that right.

Humans do not inherently have a set of properties which define what they can or can't do. Their rights are defined by the law.

Morals are about what humans SHOULD and SHOULDN'T do. And morals unfortunately are subject to what a person thinks about them. Happily, there are unchanging morals, such as those in the Bible.