Let decent Americans know that there really is no stopping point in your incessant demands to be priviledged citizens with the right to force others to your minority agenda. Yesterday marriage, today the thought police (albeit in flamboyant dress with a silly lisp...)
What privileges do homosexuals currently enjoy, and/or what privileges are they requesting, that you and I do not currently enjoy? Please be specific, coherent, and prepared to respond cogently to would-be refutations.
Keep up your spirits, ma'am! Nom and all the other groups of good and decent Americans will give you moral and financial support as you fight the good fight against the perverts and deviants.
Moral, perhaps, given that such a thing can only be subjectively defined. Financial, probably need. NOM and groups of its kind have essentially bankrupted themselves in recent years fighting a losing cultural battle.
They do choose the behavior which alone makes them different from anyone else. Granted such behavior hurts only them and those who care about them, so it isn't a matter for the criminal law.
You actually cannot demonstrate that it does. Thus your mention of this "damage" is simply an attempt to enter speculation and subjective judgment as if it satisfied rules of evidence.
What I don't now and never will support is the right of fags and dykes to dictate legal and social terms for the 97% of their fellow citizens who aren't fags or dykes.
No terms are being dictated. Your marriage means exactly what it did before the vote last November. Worth noting, also, that the vote could not have passed if the measure was relying entirely or even primarily on the gay vote.
First, I have no quarrel with what sex these men were born, just that two men born male seek to tell everyone else what marriage means.
That two men can marry has no more bearing on what marriage means than any of the many features that distinguish my heterosexual marriage from yours. That is, the "definition of marriage" has always applied to the socio-spiritual aspect of marriage, not the legal contract.
Fag so called marriage seeks to redefine marriage in such broad terms as to make the term meaningless.
I'm sorry the meaning you assign to your marriage is so weak and ill-founded that one of which you disapprove threatens it. My marriage retains its meaning not only in the face of same-sex marriage, but even in the face of whatever sorry excuse for a union would be so sick and sad as to allow you to be a party to it.
And you may love another guy, and have every right to express that love so long as you don't ask everyone else to give you legal and social approval.
Again: Allowing access to a civic contract does not amount to social approval. Legal approval doesn't amount to anymore than Mormons tolerating the existence of liquor stores or Seventh Day Adventist tolerating the legal consumption of meat.
Prior to the attacks on family, morality, marriage and so on in the last election, I would never use words like that.
So your principles are a matter of convenience? Interesting stance for someone who presents himself as something of a moral philosopher (through a proclivity for making moral pronouncements rather than through any demonstrated aptitude).
But if fags and dykes want to declare war on everything that makes our culture worthwhile, even that makes it work, then I feel no compunction in treating them with the contempt they deserve.
On what have they declared war, and in what way? Please be specific.
There simply isn't a stopping point for 'fags and dykes are citizens with more rights than others' movement.
Again: What rights do they have or seek that you or I currently lack?
Today a florist doesn't get to decide on grounds of principle whether she wants to sell her product to a pair of perverts.
Is it your opinion that I, as a theater artist and personal trainer, should be allowed to refuse to sell a ticket, teach a class, or offer training services to an individual who believed in the Five Solas, or, being a Buddhist, to refuse such services to someone who I believed had "slandered" the Mystic Law?
Tomorrow a church will be sued to force them to host a fag so called marriage.
If they're renting the space as a commercial service, yeah. Otherwise, no. How many non-Jews have synagogues been forced to marry?