I disagree.

I pay taxes.  I don't carpool.   Did I somehow contribute less to building that road than the hippie who makes $200 a week selling pot and his 3 unemployed buddies who just like to ride?    Major discrimination. 

Some people believe homosexuality will kill society.   I could be argued, if everyone decided to go gay, that the human race will die out.  That's way worse than me driving in the HOV solo.

We're definitely going backwards.

Allowing homosexuals to get married will not lead to people "deciding to go gay."

I don't understand your road analogy. Your drive to work is now better because there is less traffic on the road.  You benefit.

Mike's a ******* retard. You're better off giving up burnsy.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/10/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):
We're definitely going backwards.

Allowing homosexuals to get married will not lead to people "deciding to go gay."

I don't understand your road analogy. Your drive to work is now better because there is less traffic on the road.  You benefit.

Of course it won't.  Just saying that some people view homosexuality as a possible extinction of mankind.    Of course, think back a hundred years.   Do you think the percentage of people in gay relationships was higher or lower?

My drive to work would be better if it was legal for me to use whatever ******* lane I want.   I paid my taxes.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/10/2013 2:05:00 PM (view original):
I feel like we're going backwards with this conversation.

If you don't pass a driver's test, you can't get a license to drive. You don't get a license because you're a danger to other people on the road.  It's not discrimination against people who can't drive.

The high occupancy lanes were built as a way to alleviate traffic, get more cars off the road, and help with pollution.  It's not discrimination against people who don't carpool.  It's a way to help society as a whole.

Not allowing gays to marry each other has no bearing on anyone else.  It does not hurt others, we're not protecting anyone by not allowing it.  It's done because we feel marrying someone is a "straight thing."  That's discrimination.

Not allowing gays to marry each other has no bearing on anyone else.  It does not hurt others, we're not protecting anyone by not allowing it.

Who are you to decide that it "has no bearing on anybody else"?  Many people have extremely strong and deeply felt opposition to the concept of gay marriage.  Why do you insist that it "does not hurt others"?

America has become a bizarre touchy-feely over-sensitive society where we HAVE to cater to the wants and alleged needs of special interest groups, such as gays.  Yet apparently it's OK to completely disregard the deeply felt beliefs and feelings of those who oppose the agenda of the liberals.

Hypocrisy of the left at it's finest.

 

Who are you to decide that it "has no bearing on anybody else"?  Many people have extremely strong and deeply felt opposition to the concept of women's rights.  Why do you insist that it "does not hurt others"?

America has become a bizarre touchy-feely over-sensitive society where we HAVE to cater to the wants and alleged needs of special interest groups, such as women.  Yet apparently it's OK to completely disregard the deeply felt beliefs and feelings of those who oppose the agenda of the liberals.

If you keep saying "It doesn't hurt anyone", it must be true, right?

So you're calling gays "women"?

Bet that goes over well at your next LBGT meeting.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/10/2013 2:27:00 PM (view original):
So you're calling gays "women"?

Bet that goes over well at your next LBGT meeting.

Says the guy who called wanting to get married "gay."

Yeah but I'm not a bleeding heart, do-gooder so I don't care if I'm not PC. 

That sort of thing is important to you.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/10/2013 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Yeah but I'm not a bleeding heart, do-gooder so I don't care if I'm not PC. 

That sort of thing is important to you.

So what do you care if I'm PC or not?

Just poking at you with a stick when you're not because it bothers you.

You also can't compare homosexuals to women in terms of status.

Someone's gender is not something under their control (we'll ignore the whole transgender thing here), so to discriminate against them for being of a particular gender - such as women - would be to do so based on a factor out of their control.

However, the homosexual lifestyle is a choice, and there is not only precedent for laws to govern choices, but many laws exist EXPLICITLY for that purpose (i.e. theft is illegal to keep you from CHOOSING to steal).

That's one of the reasons why I find no problem with a law preventing gay marriage.

I also believe marriage is already equal because anyone can already marry someone of the opposite gender.

Ha. OK.

I know you understand I was making an analogy.

Posted by bistiza on 4/10/2013 2:41:00 PM (view original):
You also can't compare homosexuals to women in terms of status.

Someone's gender is not something under their control (we'll ignore the whole transgender thing here), so to discriminate against them for being of a particular gender - such as women - would be to do so based on a factor out of their control.

However, the homosexual lifestyle is a choice, and there is not only precedent for laws to govern choices, but many laws exist EXPLICITLY for that purpose (i.e. theft is illegal to keep you from CHOOSING to steal).

That's one of the reasons why I find no problem with a law preventing gay marriage.

I also believe marriage is already equal because anyone can already marry someone of the opposite gender.

I'm not having the "choice" discussion with you again.

But are you suggesting there are laws prohibiting gay marriage to persuade people not to be gay?

Why would someone CHOOSE to be gay?