Rhetoric. My point was that for all we know, homosexuality is something that can't be changed (IE: it's the way the person comes out, not a conscious choice they make), just as being of a certain race (whether that be white, black, whatever). The slippery slope there is, if we get enough people that don't like a group of people for a certain reason (like color) what's to stop them from voting to limit the rights of those groups based on that reasoning?

 

heh heh, that reminds me of a quote out of the simpsons,

"Now, We can express our love in its most pure, and unadulterated form: a binding legal contract!"

horsecut, nobody is ever going to take anything you say seriously if you caps everything and tell all to **** off. How can you expect anyone to respect your opinion if you can't do the same to others? Personally, a couple, regardless of orientation should have the right to whatever they want. That being said, I'm not sure if saying that the CA Supreme Court pushed their agenda onto the state is completely accurate. In order for the CA Supreme Court to rule on something, a legal contention of some sort has to be submitted, then passed through the courts before reaching the top court, right?

 

I see this like a lot of other issues, you don't like gay marriage- don't marry someone of your own sex.

I cannot see how this in any way "destroys the institution" or any of the other crap you wing nuts get so worked up over.

A lot of people are gay, if that makes you uncomfortable, I'd say that's your problem, but you shouldn't have any right to make them miserable just because they don't get turned on by the same things you do.

And as for the majority of Californians being backwards thinking bigots, well that is another matter, but this time the court is right, it is unconstitutional for a law to deny rights to anyone based on their preference in consensual relations.

And I would add to that- you guys that buy into Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal fascism" BS need to pick up a dictionary- word do have meanings, just because you string two of them that have no relationship to one another in a row doesn't magically change their meanings.

 

I think homosexuality is disgusting. Nothing worse than seeing a couple ***s in public. Call me a bigot because I don't care. I think most people are lying to themselves when they openly accept homosexuality. I wish I could sit them in a public room next to a couple ***gots necking each otherand then ask them if they still think it's as beautiful as the sacred bond of marriage they sully.

Not saying I'm for Polygamy but it should be allowed without question now.

 

This is where I stand. I hate ***s and the idea that they can get married. But it's obviously out of my hands and I do understand rights. But I say free reign now. **** it... literally. If it has a wet hole you should be able to marry whatever it may be, and in unlimited quantities.

 

Seems irrational to be be bothered by someone else's sexual preference or whom marries whom. Not accepting the concept is one thing, but to openly hate it is something else.

 

Not sure I quite understand your complaint. Could you word it differently?

"Why is it that marriage is the "gateway" to get all of these rights/benefits?"

^^^^

That's how the system is set up. It's not like heterosexuals don't take advantage of this. I've seen this first hand in the military. E-3 getting married to practically strangers to get the housing and allowance benifits from the military.