[eeky]

>You are not supporting a thing, you are supporting keeping that thing from someone else.

Here lies the crux of the debate. You think straight people are keeping something away from gays. But I think its gays trying to take something from straight people.

Let's say I lived in a country that banned marriage entirely. I would still get married and it would be enough for me and my family to recognize that we are married. Gays can do the same thing - they're not restricted at all in what they can do these days. But they want something more - they want everyone to be forced to recognize their marriage. They get infuriated when straight people don't want to recognize them. So they are taking something - our freedom to interpret our own reality. This is a kind of rabbit hole type revelation that spans many other issues and underpins my fundamental opposition to statism/slavery.

[Karunamon]

>But I think its gays trying to take something from straight people.

A gay couple getting married does not in any way, shape, or form impact another striaght person's marriage, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

You arguments are taken nearly VERBATIM from the anti-miscegenation movements of a few decades ago. Blacks marrying whites impacts the sanctity of traditional marriage and will harm children" and on and on and on.

There is almost no argument that marriage equality opponents use that wasn't also used against that back then. That alone should cause you to seriously think twice about the rhetoric you're using, here.

A few decades ago it was race mixing, now it's homosexuals. Same players, same arguments, same justifications.

This isn't really relevant to the point on any logical level beyond trivia, but still, think on it.

>They get infuriated when straight people don't want to recognize them.

The fact that you think this is very telling. It's completely wrong. It's that simple. This has nothing to do with what people think, it has nothing to do with feelings or emotions. It's about actions and causes and effects. Concrete, observable things.

I couldn't give two shits what you think of my relationships - that is your concern. Where I do care is when I am unconstitutionally denied rights for no good reason.

You are telling me that getting the same tax breaks a married couple does, the ability to see my partner in the hospital, that kind of thing, somehow, is SO deleterious to you in some fashion, so negative, that I should be denied those rights.

Fair enough. We're all adults here. Objectively define that negative impact and then we'll talk.

>So they are taking something - our freedom to interpret our own reality.

You can interpret your own reality however you wish.

You can not, however, violate the equal protection clause of the constitution to deny certain people rights just because you feel that it's icky (and I must point out that you haven't brought forward any argument yet that doesn't stem from your personal feelings).

[Karunamon]

8 hours later, no response. Somehow I'm not surprised.

[dragonwriter]

> You think straight people are keeping something away from gays.

I don't think anyone thinks straight people are keeping something away from gays. After all, the proportion of the population that supports marriage equality is much greater than the proportion that is gay.

> But I think its gays trying to take something from straight people.

As someone in a stable, opposite-sex marriage, I'd like to know what it is that gays are trying to take away from me. What that I had before equal marriage came to my state have I lost? Because I don't see it.

> they want everyone to be forced to recognize their marriage.

What they want is for their committed life partnerships to be treated the same way under the law as those of people who happen to prefer a life partner of the opposite gender.

> So they are taking something - our freedom to interpret our own reality.

You are free to "interpret your own reality", and I doubt any equal marriage supporter will argue against your right to do so. Your freedom to do so, however, does not give you the right to deny others equal protection under the law. The concepts aren't even related.

> This is a kind of rabbit hole type revelation that spans many other issues and underpins my fundamental opposition to statism/slavery.

And that is the kind of sentence that doesn't even begin to make sense in context. WTF are you talking about, seriously?