If you haven't already, you really should read this piece by Cathie, who explains (quite correctly, I might add) that if you're opposed to same-sex marriage, you're not being thoughtful and taking a different position, or engaging in civil discourse, or anything of the sort. You're being a bigot. Deal with it.
To say that you think there should be a public discussion on the subject is like saying you want a public discussion on, say, whether blacks or aboriginals should be allowed to vote. Or whether Catholic priests sexually abusing altar boys has both benefits and drawbacks. Stuff like that. But the obsession surrounding the issue of SSM inspires a couple of technical questions.
If wingnuts are opposed to "same-sex" marriage, are they OK with marriage between an openly gay man and an openly gay woman? (Technically, that's not "same sex," is it?) Perhaps these two want the official status of marriage for, say, tax purposes. Or so they can adopt in places where that's available only to married couples. Or whatever. The question remains -- would the wingnut wankers be all right with that as a "marriage"?
Or what about between a couple where the "woman" used to be a man before the "operation"? OK? Not OK? Reasons? What if both partners had sex-change operations so that they're still, technically, of different sexes? Fine? Not so fine? Totally abhorrent?
OH, MY ... so much illogic, so little time to drag it outside and beat it to death with an ax handle. But ... what the heck. In the comments, "Anonymous" scribbles:
So if you don't support gay marriage, you're a bigotted homophobe.
I never wrote "bigotted homophobe," I wrote simply "bigot." Nice try at a strawman. (And it's "bigoted." We here at CC HQ are big fans of literacy.) In any event, fabricating someone's words is dishonest and sleazy. Please don't do it again. Onward.
Alright, so what about all the gays who don't want gay marriage to be legal? They do exist. (Look for information on Canada's own "Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism.") Are they bigotted homophobes, too?
Now that's an interesting bit of logic. Without even looking that group up, I find it fascinating that their existence could be used as a counter-argument.
So there are gays who oppose SSM, and their opinions should be considered? Using the same logic, there are numerous women who feel quite strongly (not surprisingly based on their religious beliefs) that women should stay home, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Does this mean their opinions should be enforced on other women who don't agree with them? That certainly seems to be what you're saying.
In fact, there are an increasing number of Christians who are questioning the divinity of Jesus. Perhaps their opinions should be inflicted on other Christians who don't agree with them. I trust you can appreciate the absurdity of your position, yes?
You're being a bigot against conservative Christians and are trying to force YOUR beliefs down their throats ...
You are, of course, utterly deluded, since no one is forcing any beliefs down any conservative Christian throats. But I'm pretty sure that argument is a complete non-starter with you so I won't even bother to flesh it out. Even I recognize when I'm wasting my time.
BY THE WAY, Anonymous, if I went looking for this "HOPE" group, please tell me that it wouldn't be based on fundamentalist Christianity. That would kind of blow your entire argument out of the water, wouldn't it?
ABOUT THAT "HOPE" GROUP: No, I couldn't resist. A quick invocation of Google and we have, for example, this:
Canada should not be changing its marriage laws just to accommodate a "tiny, self-anointed" minority within a minority, says the head of a national homosexual group.
Only between 2-4% of Canadians are gay or lesbian, Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism (HOPE) executive director of John McKellar told the Calgary Herald. And of those, he said, "less than 1% are interested in same-sex marriage or even domestic partnership legislation. In other words, federal and provincial laws are being changed and traditional values are being compromised just to appease a tiny, self-anointed clique."
Well, now, that's an interesting position. See, on the one hand, we're told that the existence of SSM will result in the "wiping out an entire society in just one generation." Whoa. Powerful stuff, that SSM. And yet, at the same time, we're told that the number of gays that want to marry is so insignificant as to make SSM a waste of everyone's time.
Just once, I'd like to hear an anti-SSM argument that doesn't make its speaker seem like the world's biggest dumbfuck. Just once.