101

So is homosexuality inert or beneficial?
If it is beneficial why don't homosexuals increase their percentage within the population?
Because it is a genetic defect that afflicts a small percentage of the population.

Homosexuals have the same right as anyone to marry someone of the other gender. There is no state in America where same sex marriage is legal for one group and not another.

Polygamy has existed as long as mankind.
Evidently you prefer a system where men father children by multiple women to whom they are not married and to whom they give no support?

Woman could marry multiple husbands as easily as the other way around.

Sexist and ignorant, a very complimentary combination.

102

Danny disagrees.
According to him many people have to do poly and it is unrealistic and cruel to expect them to do otherwise.
Keeping polygamy illegal gives those people no option but to be cheating pieces of shit.
Why do you deny poly folk the right to marry whom they love, you bigoted asshole?

Clearly, some have missed the sarcasm of the 'gay as religion' metaphor. Marriage is a civil matter. Churches and religions don't issue marriage licenses, county governments do. Churches don't collect my taxes, state, local and the federal governments do. The 14th amendment of the Constitution guarantees EQUAL protection under the law for all citizens in the jurisdiction, of which, I am one. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is also the instrument which makes individual states have to follow the edicts of the Bill of Rights, and not just go off the rails and claim that state's rights can trump the federal laws, when it comes to the individual protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

I would never claim that a church HAD to perform a ceremony for a gay couple if that went against the tennents of that particular religion. The issue I have is people using their religious beliefs as the basis for denying others THEIR constitutionally protected rights. I wouldn't (theoretically) have a problem with my state or my country denying me a right, if that right wasn't being extended to other citizens. The thing that seriously pisses me off is that gay and lesbian CITIZENS of this great country, that is ostensibly a bastion of freedom and equality, are being denied equal rights and equal protections, based largely, and somewhat ironically, on religious arguments and dogma, that wouldn't be possible if it weren't for that little document called the Constitution of the United States of America!

So, the gay-as-religion idea was to draw attention to the hypocrisy that is the religious argument against gay marriage. The two things aren't even in the same realm and the issue is being critically obscured (by both sides), with the indulgence of the 'gay is a choice' 'gay is a sin' 'gay is genetic' 'gay is natural', perpetually unprovable and legally irrelevant arguments.

The only 'choice' in this equation, is marriage itself. And I would REALLY like someone to explain to me how I am any less capable (or deserving), of making that choice for myself, as anyone else. Or maybe more aptly put, why ANYONE else is more deserving.

Oh, and the choice to call the hypothetical religion the Church of Ladder Gay Saints, was a sarcastic jab at LDS for a couple of very specific reasons, which seems to have escaped a few of those who have responded/commented.

As one of the largest, financial backers of Prop 8, the proposition that stripped California same sex couples of the constitutional right to marry, using a version of the Mormon Church's name as a gay religion, seemed, well, appropriate.

Further and ironically, the Mormon Church seems like a strange, anti-marriage bedfellow, considering their '100 years of waiting in line' for their own version of marriage.

It is incredibly disingenuous for a group that directly benefits from the constitutional protections, afforded to said group by the 14th Amendment, to pour millions of dollars into a crusade to deny another group, the same protections. But, I can't say I'm terribly surprised. Bigots rarely understand that codifying their bigotry in legal matters has the potential to undermine their own rights. They're just too myopic to extrapolate those kinds of possibilities.

97 - are you keeping up here?

109

It is incredibly disingenuous for Danny to claim to advocate for marriage equality and yet stridently deny polygamists the right to marry those whom they love.
Disingenuous and bad karma.....

107.

Homosexuality. and cannibalism. and rape. and incest. and polygamy.
since way back when.
You seem to pick and choose among natural behaviors to legitimize.

someone who doesn't want to marry a woman shouldn't.
there is nothing that compels anyone to lie or marry a woman.

109

perhaps you are so impressed with your own clever sarcasm you can't see others'...

but you stumble onto a profound truth; homosexuals' claim to same sex sexual attraction is just as nebulous a claim as religionists' claim to have seen or heard or known or felt 'god'.

neither's claim can be independently verified.

the behavior of both calls the legitimacy of what they claim into question. (most 'religious' people behave in very unreligious ways, most homosexuals have a lot of heterosexual behavior on their resume that makes claims of 'innateness' seem laughable...)

and just like we don't want Pat Robertson in public schools peddling his brand of religion we don't want homosexuals preaching their gospel to our children either. or changing our laws to reflect their "beliefs".

also, herman will have to choose to enjoy it, to enjoy the hell out of it, to LOVE sucking your dick.

Bisexuals choose, sort of. So maybe Hermy's bi.

"but you stumble onto a profound truth; homosexuals' claim to same sex sexual attraction is just as nebulous a claim as religionists' claim to have seen or heard or known or felt 'god'.

neither's claim can be independently verified."

And none of that has anything to do with the application of equal treatment under the law. The glaring difference here, is that one group of people are allowed access to the law, while another group is not. I don't have to believe what religious people believe, or even think their beliefs are rational, to stand strong in, and support the position that they have the right to hold any belief they want. People have the right to think whatever they want. These same people do not, however, have the right to enact laws that deny me the same constitutional guarantees that they enjoy. Allowing gay marriage doesn't take away anyone's right to disagree with it. No one's rights are impinged. People who don't agree are still free to do that.

There's also another little thing called 'rational basis.' Bigots are losing their arguments in court because their hateful, fear mongering doesn't hold up under the rational basis standard.

" (most 'religious' people behave in very unreligious ways, most homosexuals have a lot of heterosexual behavior on their resume that makes claims of 'innateness' seem laughable...)"

Again, you miss the point. The laws of our land uphold that a religious person (or non-religious person) has the right to choose religions, change religions, denounce religions or abstain from religion. So, would you advocate that a person who goes from one faith to another, doesn't deserve those protections? What about someone who is married in a religious ceremony, then gets divorced? Are they to be stripped of their rights? I'm wondering how, in your view, the protections of the constitution should be applied? My guess is, only to people who look, think, and act like you.

"and just like we don't want Pat Robertson in public schools peddling his brand of religion we don't want homosexuals preaching their gospel to our children either. or changing our laws to reflect their "beliefs"."

Your final statement (and your screen name), pretty much sums up two things; 1) You have bought hook, line and sinker into the hateful, bigoted rhetoric you've been fed, probably your whole life, without so much as an independent thought or attempt at being rational or fair. 2) You grossly misunderstand the definition of the word "our." "You" don't get to lay claim to the laws of this land, to the exclusion of others. That's your Achilles heel and the weakness in "your" position. And in case you missed the memo, this discussion isn't about public schools...oh, wait...that's right. You can't hold your argument together on its face, so you resort to fear tactics and interject a completely non related topic, as if that will punctuate the voracity of your position. News flash, it doesn't.

I do agree with you on one point, however. People should keep their religion confined to matters that directly affect their ability to excercise it. If they don't, I'll still defend their rights and exercise my own by ignoring them.

I don't ever remember stright or gay,,,,what do I want to be,,,I simply wanted to be me...If being gay is a choice ,than wouldn't stright be a choice too,,,i would like to know ,when did herman cain decide to be stright?

God bless you, Dan Savage. You're just simply the best. That is all.