This is nothing more than an appeal to fear. If protect the rights of homosexuals then we HAVE to protect the rights of pedophiles. It is also one of the stupidest arguments around. Even if discrimination against homosexuality was given the highest level of scrutiny, it would not translate into protection of pedophiles. Children cannot consent to sexual activity. We have laws on the books right now that say EVEN IF a 12 year old girl or boy consents to sex, it is a crime. Every state in the union has statutory rape laws, and when children are even younger, we have laws that make those actions even more aggrivated. This argument gets shot down in every constitutional law class in every law school in the country.
Also, if same sex marriages were legal churches would not be required to marry queers. You really have no clue about the law. Churches in this country do indeed discriminate on the basis of race. There are several white supremacist churches that preach racial purity and even hatred that are protected by the first amendment and are recognized by the federal government as bone fide religions. Christian Identity churches come to mind immediately.
Okay, the laws we have regarding minors and consent, are laws man made. Just as we once had laws against sodomy, they can easily be changed. If we are "re-defining" stuff to suit our tastes and preferences, what guarantee do we have that a future court might also change age of accountability/consent laws? NONE! Those can fall as easily as sodomy laws fell, in my opinion.
As for the churches, I don't know why you can't comprehend that churches don't get to violate your constitutional rights, but they simply can't do that. They can preach whatever, they can have rules and guidelines for ministers, but they can't just outright violate your Constitutional rights.
Again, I would be happy to completely remove the government from marriage, other than it's role in settling contractual disputes and ensuring that parties to the contract have the capacity to contract. But until something like passes the state must not be allowed to discriminate. I don't know what problem you are having understanding that.
There is no discrimination. You keep insisting there is, but there is not. States issue marriage licenses, and marriage is the union of a man and woman. It doesn't matter if they are homo or hetero sexual. The state does not discriminate, they will issue a marriage license to anyone who is of legal age, not closely related, and are male and female. What problem are you having with that? The state will not issue an electricians license to a certified plumber, it doesn't mean they discriminate against plumbers, it means the plumber doesn't qualify for an electricians license.
You wouldn't be suggesting it if the momentum for gay marriage was not fully against you. It's going to happen and in my lifetime. The older generations will die off and be replaced with more enlightened voters. Many in the older generations will change their minds as they find that someone they love is negatively effected by such discrimination. The movement on this is all one way traffic.
Don't worry I am sure there will be some dumbass around to claim that it is wrong to blame the homophobes because NOBODY supported gay rights during this period.
I don't care about you fragile, delicate religious fucks who believe the freedom of others somehow violates your rights. All this nonsense about how it is somehow an attack on you. It is not. It's about equality under the law.
But the churches will eventually evolve, as well. Religion is quite resilient in that way and I have no fear that it will survive. Hell, religion will probably claim credit for the gay rights movement someday.
The "momentum" is not against me, in every ballot it's ever been on, gay marriage has been resoundingly defeated by the voters, usually by 70% or more, even in the most liberal areas of our country. It is ignorant and insulting to try and compare homosexuality with race discrimination, they are two completely different things, and not related in ANY aspect. This is nothing more than a strawman you've constructed, because you think it may sway some opinions, and I am sure it probably has among the ignorant. It's just an invalid comparison on every level.
Why would Dixie object to pedophiles marrying? I thought he supported the traditional definition of marriage that allowed men to marry 12 year old girls?
The slippery slope argument is so retarded here when just a little over a generation ago this was perfectly acceptable. If anything the slippery slope to that is on the side of those arguing for some slavish devotion to the habits of dead people.
And again, you codify in law, the criteria of sexual behavior as the basis for 'rights' and you will certainly open the door to ALL sexual behavior being given the same rights. It is the "equal protection" clause in that pesky Constitution thingy, not my personal viewpoint and opinion. Now, I suppose we could modify the Constitution to remove the "equal protection" clause, but I don't suppose that would fly any better than Gay Marriage.
You can say... On, that would never happen, we have this law and that law and kids can't consent... but laws can be changed, things can be 're-defined' based on our sexual preferences, you've established the precedent for that with Gay Marriage, so you have a bit of a problem there. You have effectively paved the way for any perversion to become codified into law, and traditional "meanings" of things, changed to fit our sexual tastes. No one is saying this would happen next year, or in the next decade, but it would eventually happen, because the precedent is set. Polygamists are already pushing for THEIR sexual preferences to be recognized in law, and Sochead has already given us insight into his views regarding marriage of mother and son, as well as polygamy. So don't blow smoke up my ass and tell me this is as far as it would ever go, I don't buy that. If you create a law based on a person's sexual preference, you have to allow other sexual preferences equal protection under the law, it's in the fucking Constitution, dumb asses!
------------------------------------------------------------
Again, for those who have failed to pay attention... My compromise solution which gives everyone what they claim to want, and solves all the problems:
1. Governments no longer issue "Marriage" licenses.
2. They are replaced with a Civil Union contract instead.
3. Churches can continue to "marry" whoever they please.
4. CU contracts would be between two consenting adults regardless of their relationship.
5. Tax breaks, insurance, and other benefits associated with "married" couples, would then apply to any couple with a CU contract.
6. Old "Marriage Licenses" would be recognized as a CU contract.
This solution removes any issue of sexuality, and any issue of religious beliefs. It puts the issue of "gay marriage" to rest forever, and removes our government from the sanctioning of a religious tradition and custom. There is no 'slippery slope' and there is no 'discrimination' and everyone is happy! Problem Solved!
I will ask you one more time... WHY are you opposed to doing THIS?
