Well you know us right-wingers. Always fighting against laissez-faire. Failing to embace good old fashioned American libertarianism.
CB 66, from everything I've seen of you, there seem to be a lot of things that are off your radar of understanding...first and foremost among them, ORDINARY COMMON SENSE.
Nice to see our oh-so-liberal and tolerant friend be oh-so-tolerant of those who have different religious and social viewpoints than his. And for the record, I have no problem with homosexuals enjoying completely equal rights under the Constitution. But the Constitution says nothing about marriage. Marriage is purely the domain of the states. That's why I'm also against the FMA. Massachusetts has a problem with gay marriage and activist judges, let the people of Massachusetts fix it. But no other state should be bound to recognize this "brave new frontier" of "progressivism."
I'm no expert on the situation, but from what I understand all of this is about simple rights . . . for example: If two gay men are in a relationship similar to marriage, and one of the men gets sick and has to go to the hospitol, then the other gay man can visit him. Before, he couldn't because he wasn't considered a family relation. Why would anyone have a problem with something like that. Not being gay I have no idea what these people go through, if they want something as simple as being able to visit a sick lover or be able to share their wealth together, I don't have a problem with that. As long as they are not having full on sex in the streets, it shouldn't bother anybody. If I have this wrong, or I mixed something up let me know . . . I would like to know what the big deal is with this issue. I guess I should stay more on top of the news.
This is a red herring, the hospital sob story. And what obstacles that might exist is no different than any unmarried couple's overstated problem with hospital administrators. Two homos can contract for practically anything and everything they want to contract for in a partnership arrangement just like a business partnership. mr. martin stumbled upon what this is really about, it is about destroying the institution of marriage in a legal sense. In other words, the real impetus surrounding this movement is to get the state out of the marriage business. I disagree with him, but that is what this is really about at its core. And your point about you don't know what it feels like to be gay comes mighty close to the you don't know what it feels like to be black thing. That is what sickens me the most is when gays and their advocates try to put themselves in the loafers of black Americans. There is no comparison, although the rhetoric is purposely similar If you so choose, you can feel exactly what it feels like to be gay. Go to a gay bar and it won't take you very long to hook up. But, of course, you can't know what it feels like to be black or another minority that has everything to do with biology and/or genetics unless you are actually born black or of a particular race or sex. Tremendous efforts have been made to find a genetic link to gayness. The human genome project was much anticipated with gay groups and their media advocates practically begging the scientists to find some link. Alas, it failed, because its not genetic. its a choice.
That is pretty much the same way I see it also. I just don't understand why people are so worked up about this.
