Lamest Anti-Homosexual argument ever

The question is, "can a homosexual union be called 'marriage'.

Of course people have a right to love and join with another. It's the word 'marriage' that some people object to.

It's kind of like saying people have a right to be called what they want, therefore we should start allowing white people to be called black people if they want to be.

Okay, but that doesn't really make sense, does it? And it could be confusing. Just like "gay marriage". It isn't exactly "marriage" in the traditional sense. Even the dictionary I just checked says that gay marriage is the EXPANDED definition of hetero marriage.

Just like whites can be blacks in a new and expanded definition of black.

 

I agree, the only problem I have is with kinds of subsidization. It shouldn't be there for any marriage, but if it's going to there, it should be there for specific reasons, which should be more narrow than it currently is, not more open.

Two people, regardless of their gender or orientation, are free to love and marry who they want to - assuming they're over 18, both of sound mind, not related...

 

They insist that we all waste a ton of time going through this whole charade of pretending that two guys or two girls can be married. I guess that is not technically throwing anything in someones face, but it sure is annoying.

Can homosexuals be in some sort of state recoginzed partnership or union, sure. And they should continue to pursue that goal. But a marriage has a wife and a husband. It just does, and everyone knows it. They should come up with a word that means "homosexual union" and call it that. But "marriage," is taken.

 

I do not have a problem with that

 

How terrible.

 

Not according to Merriam-Webster

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

 

Are you being forced to participate or attend a Gay Parade?

 

marriage is just a word , there are so many other things wrong in this country to worry about that one word!!

 

You can throw things in my face. It's rude no matter what you're throwing in my face.

For example, you can throw your kids in my face. If I say I'm not interested, I'm not. If we're not talking about that topic and you insist on bringing it up, that's throwing it in my face. If you bring up kids when we aren't talking about that, you're throwing it in my face. Context, context, context.

For example, if we're talking about dating, plans for later on (which could reasonably include a date or SO), it's OK to bring up your gay partner. If we're talking about something completely unrelated, or if I'm not talking to you, you bringing it up is rude. A kiss is fine, groping shouldn't be done in public no matter the genders involved. There's ways to be publicly gay, even open without literally throwing it in my face. It's all about context. If I'm talking about work, sports, or politics (not gay related) and you insist on bringing up sex, that's throwing it in my face. If we're talking about gayness, relationships, plans after work, or the like, bringing it up in that context and talking about it is cool. The trick is not to be so dense as to not realize that the conversation is not about sex, dating or relationships and not talking about it. Social skills apply to everyone.

 

Well put. Very well put.

The only way I normally find out someone I know is gay is when through conversation I find out that they are romantically involved with someone of the same gender- pretty much the same way anyone else talks about their wife or boyfriend.

- - - Updated - - -

What problem of homosexuality?

 

The real question should be: "Can there be equality under the law if two separate terms are used for heterosexual and gay unions?"

History clearly shows us the answer is "no". It's not important what term you use under the law to define such unions, but it must be the same term for straights and gays, or we're just going down the "separate but equal" road again, and we know that road is a dead-end.

 

Like I said, it all seemed to stop once the law was past in Canada.

 

No - any other moot points that would kill your argument if taken and applied literally to both sides?

 

Are you really comparing gay relationships with drug addiction and prostitution?

Tells you how much you know!

Obviously, if you REALLY think it is the same thing. . . or causes the same problems to society, Gays should be a LOT MORE In your face so that you can learn the REALITY of gay relationships instead of listening to bigoted propaganda about it!

 

The funny thing is these hypocritical so-called Christian bible-thumping homophobes don't realize the gay "deviants" perform exactly the same sex practices as breeders. Sodomy, anal sex, so on...Exactly.

I guess that makes them deviants too, huh?

 

Sure I am. Homosexuality is abnormal.

 

No its not. You are confusing low percentage with abnormal. People were made to use either hand.

 

You are free to have your opinion about the use of the Left Hand.

 

First you need to define what is "normal."

You might find out that "normal" comes from "norm" which basically means that it is what the "average" person is used to.

Homosexuality may not be "normal" for you, but it is obviously very normal for the homosexual community.

A real definition of what is "normal" and "abnormal" might help you:

By the way. . .Homosexuality is NOT considered ABNORMAL in the DSMIV. . .it is NOT a mental disorder.

You may also have to consider that, only about 50 years ago, a Black person sitting in the front of a bus wasn't "normal," in the South, and that a mixed race couple was "not normal!"

Face it. . .there is NO LAW to force anyone to be "normal!"

 

I just turned to another channel.

 

Again, how does that picture throw it in your face?