Your analogy is fallacious, if you were to do it correctly you would be noting that heterosexual cats and dogs can go to all the shows and heterosexual men and women can use each others bathrooms now under the law--AND IT IS ONLY HOMOSEXUAL CATS, DOGS, AND PEOPLE WHO ARE DENIED THESE RIGHTS BY LAW. The current law is based on religious bigotry not on any rational basis.
You're missing the point, Mare.
I'm not attempting to analogize humans with animals.
I'm presenting easy-to-grasp unrelated examples of obvious definitive propriety, where proposed violation of definitive propriety is equally obvious, and because these obvious unrelated examples are thereby not emotionally charged, it makes it easier for us to all see and agree and thus more likely make the relevant application to the topic matter.
Surely you get that it's definitively inappropriate for cats to be in a dog show, don't you?
Surely you get that it's definitively inappropriate for a man to shower and dress in the women's dressing room at the gym, don't you?
I'm presenting examples of long-standing, time-honored, cross-cultural, traditional definitive propriety, and how definitive propriety must
first be test-passed before screams of "discrimination!" could ever be applied.
It is obviously
not "discrimination!" to exclude cats from a dog show.
It is obviously
not "discrimination!" to exclude men from showering and dressing in the women's locker room at the gym.
And, with respect to definitive propriety, it is not "discrimination!" to exclude men from marrying men and women from marrying men, as the long-standing, time-honored, cross-cultural, traditional definition of marriage is "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".
It really is
that simple, Mare.
Your response to Dawks question about your sexual orientation is not irrelevant as you said it was. You have said that you are a counselor, if that is more true than Siho's claim to a major in biology then you will know that self-hate can make a person lash out viciously at others like themselves.
Wrong.
My sexual orientation is irrelevant.
Until you can argue against the winning definitive propriety point that I've made, your irrelevant divertive digressions remain ... irrelevant.
And just because you may have suffered from self-hate in the past, doesn't mean others
you disagree with suffer similarly.
You may want to keep your projection in check ... and stick to the subject matter.
So far, you have no rational answer to the reality of the definition of marriage and its definitive propriety application that I present.
I'm waiting.
Some of the most relentless slave trackers were slaves themselves. Some of the worst gay haters are actually repressing homosexual feelings (Ted Haggard comes to mind), and even a casual acquaintance with MtF transsexuals will show you that in an attempt to deny our femininity we take up the most violent and masculine jobs and sports: the military (particularly the Special Forces), construction, logging, all the traditionally "male" dominated careers. In sports we tend to the extreme again: martial arts, boxing, power lifting, motorcycle racing, and fighting. All of this is done in an attempt to deny to ourselves and to pretend to others that we are something which in reality we are not.
Very revealing about you ... but, topically irrelevant ... though it does speak to your historic inability to distinguish personal reality from fear-based fantasy and thus can render your arguments suspect on those grounds alone.
Again, you would do well to return to the topic matter and a more rational, conventional argument.
People who are secure in themselves and in their own sexuality don't need to regulate the sexuality of others. Fear drives gay hate and repression, just like it does the treatment of blacks, latinos, Jews, or any other group that does no inherent harm.
All which is topically irrelvant to the reality of the time-honored, long-standing, cross-cultural, traditional definition held by the overwhelming vast majority that the accurate definition of marriage participation is "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".
Certainly you aren't calling nearly every six year-old child a "sexually insecure hate bigot", are you???
Again, projection and transference and displacement from your past are topically irrelevant to the present subject matter, and they don't serve you well in presenting your case.
So, unless you want to continue to receive back the ad hominems
you initiate, you'd do well to drop the inferred character assassination, Mare, as not only does it not apply to me ... you're doing battle with an empty gun.
