Making Civil Rights a Reality

Yes, actions affect people, and we live in a democracy. That doesn't mean that popular opinion is always right, or that ballots cast by a public that is often uninformed or misrepresented should end any discussion on improving our country. And if you're referring to Proposition 8 as the people speaking out against gay marriage, many people voted for it because it was marketed that voting no on prop8 makes citizens give away their religious freedoms. There are multiple youtube videos where many females sign petitions to end women's suffrage, but that doesn't mean they think women shouldn't be able to vote. Political manipulation doesn't prove something is right. If you're going to convince me to vote against gay marriage, you'll need more than "everybody else is doing it".

Also, your comments about pot smoking liberal abortionists reinforces your position as being far from politically moderate and leads me to value your opinions at a level I normally reserve for Sean Hannity or Nancy Pelosi.

I believe there will be a time in the future when the older generations of bigots die out and when gay rights will be recognized. But why does every group of human beings seeking equality have to go through the same struggles and the time being treated as inferior? I'd like to speed up the process and get to the happy ending instead of just waiting for things to get better.

While you make a few arguments based on logic (like the desire to have a male and female support figure in the home), most of your arguments are based on a strong hatred toward gay people. Face it, people that you dislike (for whatever reason) are going to get tax breaks. Democrats marry, people who enjoy 3D movies or the movie "Hot Rod" get married, Tools get married, and they all enjoy tax breaks. You pay taxes to live in America. You can't oversee all weddings and choose which ones you don't want to pay for. Plus, I imagine weddings wouldn't even be visible on a pie chart of government spending.

You say, "They have the same right to obey the law as traditional couples do, but they feel oppressed and thus justified." Gay people aren't breaking the law, they are trying to fix it. It's not like they are sneaking around having weddings or anything. Your argument is that one group should obey the law just as any other group. You could have said black people have the same right to obey the law as white people. The problem comes when the law is different for the two groups.

Now instead of talking about American politics, let's shift over to ethics. You mention multiple times that being gay is "unnatural". If your definition of unnatural is "contrary to what nature intended" or things that don't occur in nature by default, than being gay is as natural as having red hair. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. [ Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999; ISBN 0312192398] (Ok, now this is getting serious. You've got me citing things.)
Plus, Marriage itself is unnatural. Animals don't wear white dresses and have ring ceremonies. Movies, Television, and indoor plumbing are also unnatural, but I don't see you boycotting those.

You're also assuming that gays are extremely promiscuous based off of some stereotype you have of them. I could assume that all strait couples are promiscuous if I got my perception of them from reality tv shows. And what does sexual activity have to do with marriage anyway? Does a virgin have a higher right to marriage than someone who is sexually experienced? It's not like we have limited marriage licences and we need to marry the virgins first so they can finally have sex.

As far as Greece and Rome go, they also had Brunettes. Ergo, Brunettes are the downfall of civilization?

Although marriage and children are often spoken of together, they are not dependent on each other. You can have kids without being married, or be married without having kids. This means that in straight couples the ability to have children has no bearing on whether they should be allowed to marry, but in gay couples it does?
You say #9 is stupid but you use the exact argument that they are mocking earlier in your post about how conservative families are better because the parents are able to reproduce. Couples that can have children very rarely adopt. The very fact that gay couples can't reproduce means they can only help to reduce the number of children in orphanages.
And although your "That's stupid" argument is very strong, I would like to rebuttal with a, "nuh-uh, you're stupid".

You say that no one will tell you that a child is better off without a male and female parent. It all depends on the parents. I think a kid would be raised better by Tom Hanks and U2's Bono than by Paris Hilton and Kanye West.
Who will tell you that a child is better off without two loving parents?

You say homosexuality is a choice. That's a debate in itself. I won't choose sides, but I'll let you know that there are just as many people who insist that homosexuality is not a choice. The American Psychological Association has a statement about homosexuality on its website under the question "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?" that states, "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." [http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html]

Last week in the skyroom you asked if it is racist to not be attracted to people of other ethnicities. Then YOU stated yourself that "it's not my fault, it's not like I can choose who I like". Does this mean that gay people are more powerful than you and somehow they can make choices that are simply beyond your control?

With all that being said, you can't use your opinion that homosexuality is a choice as a fact or basis for other arguments.

And even if being gay were a choice, murdering someone has the direct consequence of depriving another person of their freedoms and their life. Being gay has the consequence of loving another human being. You chose to be a journalism major, can I take away your right to a fair trial or your right to vote yet?

Gay people don't expect special treatment, they expect FAIR treatment.

I see you have another stupid response to number 5. (I am commenting on your use of the word "stupid" as a response, not on the fact that I think your response is stupid.) Gay people currently have less rights than other people, and also have hate crimes committed against them. What's wrong with comparing them to other groups of people who shared those criteria? The fact that a majority of black people voted for proposition 8 doesn't change the fact that gay people deserve the rights that black people have.

"It's true, legalizing gay marriage sets a dangerous precedent. I could make an example but it would appear absurd (but it wouldn't be too far-fetched)."
Um... What???
...It's true, playing the piano leads to impotence. I could make and example, but it would appear insane (but it's not entirely impossible).

Your argument invited a "spirit of contention", and my response wasn't sugar coated either. If you'd like to head toward a more factual debate, I'd be interested in you providing a list of reasons why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.