Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

Abeness wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>>> target of hatred
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are ya sure? A lot of voters seem to hold the opposite view.
>>
>>
>>
>> What is the evidence of this?
>
>
> Uh, try the fact that voters in 11 states passed resolutions against gay
> marriage. I guess they forgot that all Americans, including gays and
> lesbians, are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit
> of happiness. Why these people think they can impose their religious
> convictions on everyone is beyond me, but there we are.

That hardly means they hate homosexuals. Many states have helmet laws
also. I don't however go around saying that such states HATE
motorcycles. This is a pretty big stretch...


Matt

Abeness wrote:

<snip>

> Uh, try the fact that voters in 11 states passed resolutions against gay
> marriage. I guess they forgot that all Americans, including gays and
> lesbians, are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit
> of happiness.

The government has a long history of protecting us from doing stupid
things, like driving without seat belts, riding a motorcycle without a
helmet, smoking crack etc. The ban on gay marriage is just one of those
things, I see this ban as an unfair privilege for gays. Why should the
government protect them from marriage when heteros have no such
protection?

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Randolph wrote:

> The government has a long history of protecting us from doing stupid
> things, like driving without seat belts, riding a motorcycle without a
> helmet, smoking crack etc. The ban on gay marriage is just one of those
> things, I see this ban as an unfair privilege for gays. Why should the
> government protect them from marriage when heteros have no such
> protection?

*guffaw!*

Matt Whiting wrote:
> That hardly means they hate homosexuals. Many states have helmet laws
> also. I don't however go around saying that such states HATE
> motorcycles. This is a pretty big stretch...

I don't wish to argue the semantics of "hate": that isn't the point. You
clearly aren't gay, or you wouldn't be comparing helmet laws that
protect folks to a ban on gay marriage that prevents people from
entering into the same social contracts with the same obligations and
protections afforded heterosexuals by the institution of marriage. I
don't happen to be gay, but I do recognize the injustice of imposing
one's religious ideals on the American people. And the fact is that
large numbers of those folks do hate gays: just observe the rhetoric and
it's hard to miss.

"Abeness" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> >>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
> >>> target of hatred
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Are ya sure? A lot of voters seem to hold the opposite view.
> >
> >
> > What is the evidence of this?
>
> Uh, try the fact that voters in 11 states passed resolutions against gay
> marriage. I guess they forgot that all Americans, including gays and
> lesbians, are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit
> of happiness. Why these people think they can impose their religious
> convictions on everyone is beyond me, but there we are.

Why should they legitimize an aberration?
H

Randolph wrote:
> The government has a long history of protecting us from doing stupid
> things, like driving without seat belts, riding a motorcycle without a
> helmet, smoking crack etc. The ban on gay marriage is just one of those
> things, I see this ban as an unfair privilege for gays. Why should the
> government protect them from marriage when heteros have no such
> protection?

LOL! Actually, this very theme was addressed in an episode of the West
Wing I saw recently. Very funny. Honestly, if this is such a devisive
issue, it may be best to leave marriage out of the hands of the State...

PEOPLE PLEASE, UNLESS YOU HAVE A HONDA, KEEP THE POLITICS OUT OF HERE! DON'T
TRY FIGHTING IGNORANCE WITH IGNORANCE. REMEMBER THAT EVERYTIME THE US HAS
ISSUES, OUR CANADIAN DOLLAR GOES UP. I THINK THE SAME WITH THE AMOUNT OF
AMERICANS THAT DECIDED TO MIGRATE HERE.




"Peter" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, WindsorFox[SS] wrote:
>>
>>> Shut up Daniel, I know a number of gays that supported Bush.
>>
>> And this proves...what, now?
>>
>> DS
>
> That gays can be just as illogical as straights of course.
>
> Peter
>

Abeness wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> That hardly means they hate homosexuals. Many states have helmet laws
>> also. I don't however go around saying that such states HATE
>> motorcycles. This is a pretty big stretch...
>
>
> I don't wish to argue the semantics of "hate": that isn't the point. You
> clearly aren't gay, or you wouldn't be comparing helmet laws that
> protect folks to a ban on gay marriage that prevents people from
> entering into the same social contracts with the same obligations and
> protections afforded heterosexuals by the institution of marriage. I
> don't happen to be gay, but I do recognize the injustice of imposing
> one's religious ideals on the American people. And the fact is that
> large numbers of those folks do hate gays: just observe the rhetoric and
> it's hard to miss.

I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was
just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone
who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply
rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree are
worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization, but I
don't hate homosexuals.


Matt

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Abeness wrote:

> > The government has a long history of protecting us from doing stupid
> > things, like driving without seat belts, riding a motorcycle without a
> > helmet, smoking crack etc. The ban on gay marriage is just one of
> > those things, I see this ban as an unfair privilege for gays. Why
> > should the government protect them from marriage when heteros have no
> > such protection?

> LOL! Actually, this very theme was addressed in an episode of the West
> Wing I saw recently.

"Law and Order", too.

> Very funny. Honestly, if this is such a devisive issue, it may be best
> to leave marriage out of the hands of the State...

Civil Unions for everyone, as far as the state is concerned -- religions
free to promulgate whatever definition of marriage they wish within their
own membership. Liberty and justice for all. What a concept.

DS

Matt Whiting wrote:
> I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was
> just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone
> who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply
> rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree are
> worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization, but I
> don't hate homosexuals.

The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
"disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? Live and let live.
It's fine if you don't want to live like someone else does, you have
freedom of choice, but why do you feel it necessary to prevent them from
doing so?

Seems fairly simple to me. But then I have gay friends who are perfectly
nice, kind, caring citizens out to make the world a better place just
like other folks I respect, and I cannot imagine telling them that they
can't get married if they so choose. Think of some aspect of your
lifestyle that you take seriously. How'd you like it if the majority of
citizens in your state decided they didn't like your lifestyle and
passed a law against it?