Straw man - the issue isn't what effect it would have on heterosexual marriage, but that it is usurping an institution which has nothing to do, nor did it ever, with being gay, and also that it represents gays trying to thereby force heterosexuals to look at them in a certain way.
But why does it matter that homosexuals have never been able to marry, in light of the fact that gay people getting married would have no affect on heterosexual marriage, the institution that is supposedly being "ursurped?" If a couple of gay people want to join together in a monogamous union, and they happen to want to call it marriage - why is that, alone, a bad thing? Why can't they call their union whatever they want? Why can't they structure their union however they want?
As for forcing the rest of us to look at them a certain way - it is an attempt at a quick fix to an old and deeply rooted problem. Still, I can't blame them for it - even if I don't think it would really be effective in achieving their goals, at this point in time.
I actually agree, but until they "de-legalize" marriage, I will be opposed to it being misused for political purposes.
The really ironic thing is that deregulation of marriage is an agenda that is entirely bipartisan compatible - if presented in the right light. In fact, it might be the most bipartisan-friendly agenda in modern American politics. Feels strange, doesn't it?
The LAST thing gays should do, if that's what they want, is what they've done.
They're looking to the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s for inspiration. In reality, the last thing they should do is become violent - which, thankfully they haven't. At least so far. Unfortunately, the 60s were a time of greater "cultural innocence" - whereas today's culture is snickety and sarcastic. That, coupled with the fact that color television is no longer a revolutionary advent in terms of presenting information, have impeded the efforts of homosexual rights groups. The time has passed for that kind of organized movement, and frankly I'm not sure what the way of the future is in that regard.
Also the rest of the things they've done - cause a resurgence of AIDS in the US because they don't want to use condoms, and demand special privileges at the expense of others.
I'm going to assume that "special privaleges" pertains to hate crime legislation. I'm undoubtedly leaving something out, so feel free to jump in with whatever it is.
In terms of hate crime legislation - at some point, homosexuals became the focus of specific attacks. It's a measure of intent, meant to stop that intent from becoming violence. While other motivations for crimes - financial and passion being the two most predominant ones - tend to be stronger and less likely to be deterred by laws that are slightly harsher, it was believed that legislating hate crime would help greatly in preventing those crimes from happening - since bigotry isn't as strong a motivation for committing a crime (since it's less personal) as, say, discovering that your wife is sleeping with another man.
Yes - politically, they've been pushy, usurping, and greedy.
They'd like the right to call their unions what they want and structure them the way they want, in a way that is equal to the unions of the rest of the population. They don't want to get beaten up and killed for being what they are. And they'd rather not have to endure society telling them that they're immoral any longer. I don't see that as pushy. In fact, I see that as quintessentially American.
They've been irresponsible with a deadly disease.
Subjective; in many cases, true. AIDS hit the country at a lousy time - just when homosexuals were starting to realize that there is nothing intrinsically immoral about being a homosexual.
They've defamed peoples' religions.
Who hasn't, these days? Look at all the "Islam is Evil" threads we have on this very board. Defamation of the religion of others is frighteningly common.
Does that excuse it? No.
In terms of greater social implications, I've actually met very few homosexuals who are ardently anti-Christianity. What I've found is that many advocates of homosexual rights are anti-Christian (I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I used to be very down on Christianity myself - I still consider myself a critic, but only in the most theoretical fashion - I wouldn't criticize people for practicing their religion, be it harm none, anymore). Most of the homosexuals I know generally regard Christianity from a distance with general indifference.
You don't live here, and don't know how it is.
Where is "here," if you don't mind my asking?
They have political influence WAYYYYYYYYYY beyond their numbers.
Yes and no. Proposition 8 still passed, remember?
Do you EVER get the feeling you shouldn't try to tell people who LIVE in a particular place what prevails there, when you DON'T?
Sometimes. This is how we learn.
If gay marriage became permanently legal, then churches almost certainly COULD be sued under california's Unruh Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act
Interesting. I know churches in Massachusetts are allowed to reject couples for any number of reasons - do you know of any instances where this Unruh Act has been applied to heterosexual marriage before? I doubt an appeal to a law like that on the subject of marriage would carry much weight here, but, as you said, maybe your location is different.
It's not ridiculous at all, you don't know what you're talking about, and it's EXACTLY the kind of thing they'd do, particularly the type of christianity hating pushy gays who live in california.
So, what, all the nice homosexuals wound up in New England?
Lucky me.
No.
Your point woul be - what?
Never mind - I didn't know if you agreed with me on the deregulation of marriage, that's why I asked.
And it also doesn't mean that it was necessary. The american polical ethos is democratic - the people decide. They don't have to give a reason for their decisions or convince anyone that their viewpoint is "necessary".
They don't necessarily need to give a reason, but remember, the universe runs on causality. Voting doesn't involve just picking a solution out of a hat - there is always a reason people vote the way they do. Whether a particular change is necessary or not should be debated - and, as an argument for or against a particular change, saying, "this change has never existed before" has no weight.
The 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination according to race. There is nothing equivalent re homosexuality.
And my point is - why bother preventing discrimination on basis of race? What is the point? I think you'll find the point behind the Equal Protection Clause is similar to the point behind those who argue against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
