You are completely wrong. I understand your line of argument; it is flawed. It is a violation of decency to make such fallacious arguments.

A) groups such as the KKK work to establish their rights AT THE EXPENSE of others. KKK, Aryan Nation, Hale, etc...wish to exclude, not include -- gay marriage advocates are fighting to get themselves included; not fighting to exclude others.

it is a civil rights question, by nature and definition. Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is a contractual agreement; thus, it is civic in nature. Our government is and should be wary about legislating who can and cannot enter into contracts in the private sector; likewise, the government is and should be wary of legislating the types, natures, and make-up of contracts.

C) Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man for roughly one billion reasons; however, the thrust of his actual work was for the rights of black Americans. His rhetoric, sure, was aimed at a wider inclusion. However, you will never see any pictures of MLK leading a march of Peruvian immigrants on Washington demanding the government lower American farm subsidies to strengthen the global agricultural market. Point is...there's only so much activism to go around; it makes sense that people focus on their own interests.

D) You are engaging in a false argument because you lack facts, lack insight, and lack the ability to explain your interests. What you have done is known, oh so very scientifically, as 'name calling'. When your argument fails, you insinuate evil intentions by calling gay activists equivalent to the KKK. This is disgusting.

E) No, I'm not gay. I'm just rational, and sick and tired of hearing this type of discourse.

F) For your information...second cousins can legally marry in every state of the Union; first cousins can in most. Equating a marriage betwee a close family member and a homosexual union is ridiculous -- you are dealing with two different types of agreement sets. Is this about property or sex? You have no idea.

Happy Day.

D

Dylarama is absolutely right, your argument is completely ill-conceived and, furthermore, your heart is in the wrong place. There is no one out there arguing that homosexuals not be allowed to marry for any other reason than there imminent disapproval, loathing, and hatred towards homosexuals. You wish to deny these human beings rights that should be granted to all. Homosexual marriage is a peaceful act, an act of love, and most importantly, none of your business. I am no advocate of marriage for anyone, hetero or homo, but I am not pushing for the erection legal barriers to marriage. I distrust your ability to make decisions for anyone but yourself. You have no legitimate interest in what kinds of loving associations people freely agree to enter into. I am an advocate of liberty, freedom, and privacy. I have nothing to gain personally from homosexuals acquiring the specific right to marry one another. So what you say is wrong. I want equal rights for all and gay marriage just happens to be today's fight.

"However, even though marriage is forbidden to many others of different lifestyles besides homosexuals, you'll never hear about gay marriage advocates protesting or fighting for the rights of these others."

I happen to believe in equal rights for EVERYONE...but the war has to be won battle by battle, and the current battle just happens to be involving homosexuals. Perhaps if you stopped making generalized, stereotyped comments, and looked at individuals, you might find something totally different. Just something to think about.

Legal Polygamy? Yeah, I'm for that, and for more than just the visceral hormonal reasons. I mean, if a man loves two women equally, and they love him, or if two men love one woman, sure, why not. The thing is, in polygamous relationships it is often not about love, but one man's control over multiple women. Most Homosexual relationships, like most heterosexual ones, are about love. Relationships about love should be sanctified regardless by what sex or how many partners there are.

Cheers

A) groups such as the KKK work to establish their rights AT THE EXPENSE of others. KKK, Aryan Nation, Hale, etc...wish to exclude, not include -- gay marriage advocates are fighting to get themselves included; not fighting to exclude others.

According to you.

C) Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man for roughly one billion reasons; however, the thrust of his actual work was for the rights of black Americans. His rhetoric, sure, was aimed at a wider inclusion. However, you will never see any pictures of MLK leading a march of Peruvian immigrants on Washington demanding the government lower American farm subsidies to strengthen the global agricultural market. Point is...there's only so much activism to go around; it makes sense that people focus on their own interests.

Point is, MLK, Jr. just didn't focus on his own interests. The KKK, however, does. Really, is it that hard for a mayor to allow polygamous couples to marry and brothers and sisters to marry while he's allowing gays to marry?

D) You are engaging in a false argument because you lack facts, lack insight, and lack the ability to explain your interests. What you have done is known, oh so very scientifically, as 'name calling'. When your argument fails, you insinuate evil intentions by calling gay activists equivalent to the KKK. This is disgusting.

So comparing people who are against gay marriage to the racists of the South is ok, but not comparing gay marriage advocates who fight only for their own interests just like the KKK does to the KKK is wrong. I gotcha.

E) No, I'm not gay. I'm just rational, and sick and tired of hearing this type of discourse.

And I happen to be tired of gay marriage advocates comparing themselves to great civil rights activists who fought for more than their own agendas.

F) For your information...second cousins can legally marry in every state of the Union; first cousins can in most. Equating a marriage betwee a close family member and a homosexual union is ridiculous -- you are dealing with two different types of agreement sets. Is this about property or sex? You have no idea.

So there's a difference between a man and a woman being in love (even if they're related) and two members of the same sex? Or a difference between that and five men and ten womenb being in love? I thought this was about love! Also, please note that cousins are not the only relatives.

So what you say is wrong. I want equal rights for all and gay marriage just happens to be today's fight.

I happen to believe in equal rights for EVERYONE...but the war has to be won battle by battle, and the current battle just happens to be involving homosexuals.

So it's ok to put other people's interests, which happen to be the same as the homosexuals who want to wed, on the backburner? Will gay marriage advocates immediately start fighting for the rights of polygamists and incestuous lovers after they legalize gay marriage? I honestly doubt it. It's possible I'm wrong though.

Also, if it was supposed to be won battle by battle, then why don't homosexuals accept civil unions with the same exact rights as marriage? That sounds like a win to me. Then they could gradually get people to accept gay marriage in general. It seems that they want to win the entire war in one battle.

I'll be honest. I'm not against gay marriages for any other reason except the attitudes of gay marriage advocates. I'm with jeblackstar, and I think that everybody should be allowed to marry whomever they want. It's just the fact that gay marriage advocates are only speaking out against the fact that gays can't be married and say nothing for those other groups that can't be married. Maybe those who fought for women's right to vote should have first fought for white women's right to vote, and gradually fought for other races with less and less momentum after each one though.

Also, why must it be fought battle by battle? It's not as if this is about gaining public support for the cause. This is about getting a court to declare it all right.

How fun... Now we have one group of conservatives lashing out at gay marriage because they are affraid it will lead to the legalization of polygamy, dog marriage, child marriage, and object marriage, and another group of conservatives lashing out at gay marriage because they are afraid that advocates aren't doing enough to promote the legalization of polygamy, dog marriage, child marriage, and object marriage. It's refreshing to see how dedicated people are to moving into the final frontier of irrationality in defence of 'tradition'.

All I want is for gay marriage advocates to be consistant. How the Hell is consistency in one's beliefs irrational?

All I want is for gay marriage advocates to be consistant. How the Hell is consistency in one's beliefs irrational?

Are you kidding me? Gay marriage advocates have been extremely consistent in their view that marriage should be an institution of union between two consenting adults. Your argument is as squirrelly as a live oak in August. It is consistent with arguments I've read that bash groups with special interests for being specialized rather than generalized, when history has shown specialized interest groups to be more effective in political arenas. As with the rest, your argument is just a thinly veiled attack at the particular special interest for not disolving itself from its purpose by pursuing humanistic and idealistic vagueries. In your case, the argument is particularly screwy and manipulative because it assumes that gay marriage advocates have some secret and unspoken interest in advancing the causes of sexual revolution, while most gays would tell you that they are dying to get off that particular bandwagon and enjoy normal, conservative lives in which they are accepted within the community as married couples with families.

How would they stray from their original purpose by supporting all types of marriages between consenting adults?