Gay people's opinion should not be taken into account in the marriage debate

Those "longstanding" state policies are changing....state by state. Soon there will be little to "preserve". DOMA will be gone before this ever happens, however.

 

Republicans care about women's dignity, that's something that Femi-nazis don't understand.

 

Not even close. They want to dictate what a woman can do with her body. They would love to go back to the "pregnant and barefoot" days when women knew their place and men made all the rules.

Ain't happening, Ducky!!!

 

In that case, straight people's opinions should not be taken into account in the gay marriage debate, as straight people have no first hand experience in gay marriage or why its significant to the homosexual xpmmunity, therefore their opinions should be ignored because they don't have the centuries of experience with gay marriage that homosexual people do.

 

It's comments like these that remind me how failing our school systems are... Because anyone who is this categorically stupid clearly has been failed by their parents, their school systems, and society at large.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. Read a book and knock off the BS

 

All of it. Because it lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians NO MORE than it lessen the status and human dignity of the single mother and grandmother down the street for nearly 10 years raising their children and granchildren together. No more for gays than ANY TWO PEOPLE who choose to form a household together. Nothing special about "gays and lesbians" that could warrant such treatment. Stable households are important to the formation of families. Men and women becoming husbands and wives and fathers and mothers to their children. Providing and caring for them together in the home as opposed to the alternative of only one or none of their parents present. Stable households are nice for somewhere comfortable to rub genitals with your chosen sex partner, but thats not why government has long been invoved in marriage. It is for the well being of the children heterosexual couples create.

The status and dignity of heterosexual couples is elevated in society, not because they refrain from engaging in homosexual behavior but instead because they are responsible for perpetuating the human species.

 

The obligations of marriage imposed upon men, to provide and care for both his children and the mother of his children, has nothing to do with what a woman can do with her body, but instead holding a man responsible for what he has done to her body. Impregnated her.

 

The law has been found unconstitutional. The defenders of the law were the same people who paid millions to have the law passed.

The trail was presided over by a judge who happened to be gay (if you're saying a person cannot render a fair judgement because of their sexual orientation then I would challenge you to find an asexual judge) but the three jdge panel upheld the verdict.

Again, my challenge to you:

Present the constitutional argument in favor of these laws.

 

Correct, a right to murder your child has nothing to do with your own body - but the pro-death crowd tries to skirt around this biological fact.

 

Certainly it seems that you gay idealogues will not rest until youve eliminated every preference in the law, for the men and women who created the children, providing and caring for those children together. Eliminated any recognition of the nuclear family as the ideal. ALL because it offends gays to do so.

 

And even more courts have found the law to be constitutional. And the defenders were the same people who raised millions from thousands of donaters to promote having the law passed. Their motivations are irrelevant. The law exists because millions of californians voted for it to exist, as it had always existed.

 

That is one bigoted, narrow and intransigent view. It seems that you are well on the way to marginalizing yourself.

 

It's not wrong for people to fight for 'rights'.

 

I think Republicans on the whole have more respect and admiration for the natural sexual polarities of masculine and feminine. Liberal feminists don't quite understand these concepts and are thus offended by them and want to make everybody some kind of grey androgynous mush in the middle.

See, arguments like this are made out of pure ignorance of what Republicans actually stand for. There isn't a single kernel of truth to any of this. This is a funhouse mirror distortion of Republicanism as seen from a liberal perspective. I challenge you to open your mind a little and honestly try to see the issue through Republican eyes before disagreeing with it. I think you'll find that it's very different from the way you perceive it right now.

If you really want to see how little Republicans give a crap about what women do with their bodies, go out and get a big gaudy Mike Tyson face tattoo and see how many Republicans even notice.

 

Gay/Straight surely isn't the same thing as masculine/feminine. (Do you understand the differences?)

The so-called "natural sexual polarities", aren't as 'digital' as some expect or perceive them to be.

 

Exactly. Were you confused or something?
BTW, my 25th wedding anniversary is this fall. Isn't that nice?

 

If gay marriage is legalized, any man and woman can form a nuclear family unit together as easily as they could before. If the number of nuclear families go down that is on them, not gay people.

 

Yes, it is. Congratulations!

 

I was talking about male/female. I thought the part about feminists would have given that way. And my point still stands. They don't like the idea of masculine men and feminine women.

 

I think that's an unrealistic view. Not all men are "masculine" and not all women are "feminine" (despite traditions and societal expectations).

Many Republicans are just better 'fakers', it seems.

 

I think it's more like, they don't like the idea that man/woman have to stick to their masculine/feminine gender roles even if the particular person isn't feelin' their gender role. I agree. I am not gay, but I'm not very masculine at all either and I was made fun of a lot in school, and even by my own family, for that. To imply that you are not acting like your gender just because your personality strays from what your gender usually acts like kind of hurts, it's a blow to the self-esteem.

 

Yep, you're right. I'm very 'masculine'; didn't make me any less gay though.

 

Only just dawned on me this is PARODY on your part.

Yep, very funny. Parodying misogynistic attitudes in 2012 is a really funny thing to do.

 

Well, with divorce rates around 50%, perhaps heterosexuals shouldn't have a say, either.

 

LOL!! No kidding!!