Latest gay marriage flareup

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, a lot to answer.

Firstly, no one ever called gays "perversions". I was talking about the act - and that society shouldn't recognize it or put it on par with male-female marriage - and shouldn't have to if they don't want to. This is the whole crux of the reason why gay marriage isn't recognized. If you want to bury these types of comments, then how can we have a candid discussion?

Equal protection - only applies if marriage is taken to mean a union between any two people, and not its original meaning of a man and a woman. Marriage is a special institution that recognizes one man and one woman - homosexual couples are free to contract in any other way they see fit. I don't see this as being different to the law that requires the president to be US born or that allows race-based affirmative action.

[ QUOTE ]
And if what you say is true, then why do you think you have a right to stop them using violence or the threat of it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought I did answer this. Nothing is being stopped with violence. Society has a choice whether or not it wants to accept gay marriage as legitimate, if gays want to get married under the religion of their choice, they can do so according to the whims of that religion.

Difference between racial intermarriage: Well, that's clear discrimination based on race. As I said, if the act is defined as one between a man and woman (which I think it is), then gay marriages can't be marriages. I think it's a stretch to suggest that anyone ever intended marriage to mean "between a white man and white woman".

edit: iron just PMed me and said the perversion comment is bigoted and not allowed here. Fair enough. I will stay out of these threads in future, so enjoy your one sided viewpoint and "vigorous debate".

[/ QUOTE ]

Hooray for the thought police! I can sleep soundly tonight knowing that Phil's perverted views on perversions will not have the chance to pervert me.