David Tyree is a moron

[Dexter Morgan]

History will look down and be ashamed of people like ESTONE6 standing in the way o equality. It's funny, history repeats itself over and over. You're entitled in this country to believe deluded, factually incorrect, misguided, bigoted beliefs. But you are not entitled to push them on others. Don't like gay marriage? well it's pretty simple. Don't marry someone of the same sex. What someone else choses to do with their life should not be up to you, or anyone else.

Oh please. Could you be more dramatic? My opinion is not deluded, but well thought out, I'm not citing incorrect facts, nor am I a bigot. A bigot is someone who is ignorant, uneducated, intolerable of other peoples views or opinions. I respect your opinion in your support of same-sex marriage, I recognize valid points, and understand where homosexual and heterosexual people are coming from. However, you refuse to respect mine. I am not pushing my views on anyone here. I have been calm and tried holding an informed discussion. How come the same-sex marriage supporters are the ones pushing their beliefs on me? Isn't that hypocrisy? I find it fascinating how a lot of you are quick to throw out terms like close-minded, forcing belief systems, etc. in these discussions, when I do no such thing. In actuality, its the opposite. You are the one refusing to understand my point of view/reasons, you are the one being disrespectful, you are the ones forcing your belief system on me, you are the one calling names and becoming hostile.

I believe all humans deserve respect and basic freedoms. No one should have to be called slurs or suffer from some sort of physical or mental degradation. What I find more amazing than anything is people who are actually homosexual, who I am in contact with on nearly a weekly basis, respect my opinions and understand my point of view, more than people I am in contact with just through this forum. At one point I was very much a gay-rights supporter. I still am, but I believe that marriage is something that is different. I think marriage should be more strict for everyone, across the board, regardless of the genders involved.

You damn straight I don't respect your opinion. You don't deserve it. Your opinion and your beliefs effects my families right to live. This isn't just opinion or preferences. This is real f-cking life. We're not asking you to marry anyone. Therefore our beliefs are not being pushed on you, but YOURS IS.

[ESTONES6]

You damn straight I don't respect your opinion. You don't deserve it. Your opinion and your beliefs effects my families right to live. This isn't just opinion or preferences. This is real f-cking life. We're not asking you to marry anyone. Therefore our beliefs are not being pushed on you, but YOURS IS.

So you preach tolerance... but yet you are not tolerant?

Anyway... even though I am saying homosexuals have every right to life, jobs, education, a life free from degradation and insult... I am effecting your right to LIVE? To live? Because I think marriage should be between a man and a woman means that your life, walking our your front door safely, is in jeopardy? I'm sorry if you live in a neighborhood where that is the case... but I would never, ever want to live or be associated with something like that. Never would I befriend someone, or even give someone the time of day, who would beat up or take the life of a homosexual, or anyone for being different. Bite your :censored:ing tongue man. You have no clue what tree you are barking up. You have no clue.

Don't you dare say my opinion on marriage prevents your right to life. You have every right to life, every right to walk out your front door without fear of being beat up, you have every right to play baseball, you have every right to sing in the choir, you have every right to drive a car, get an education, get a well paying job. Don't you dare say my opinion on the definition of marriage infringes on your right to life.

You want to talk about bigotry, close-mindedness, ignorance... look in the mirror. I'm done with you.

[IceCap]

So you preach tolerance... but yet you are not tolerant?

We don't have to be tolerant of intolerant bigots.

[ESTONES6]

So you preach tolerance... but yet you are not tolerant?

We don't have to be tolerant of intolerant bigots.

Educate yourself on tolerance and bigotry before you throw out those words. I am neither intolerant nor a bigot. Read any of my posts and you will see that I am not just tolerant of homosexuality... but I am UNDERSTANDING of homosexuality. Tolerance and understanding are two different things. Bigot? Sorry... gotta laugh at this point. You couldn't be farther from the truth.

An intolerant bigot would say that homosexuality is a choice, not something that could be born with. I have, and continue to, recognize that the majority of homosexuals are born homosexual.

An intolerant bigot would say that homosexuals need to be condemned, "fixed", stripped of their rights, stripped of their human nature, and shown no respect. I have said the opposite numerous times and am actually vehemently opposed to treating homosexuals like they have a disease or like they are second rate citizens.

Please... stop labeling me something that I am not. I believe in a definition of marriage, just as you believe in another definition of marriage. I have been trying to have a calm discussion on the topic, but when people unjustly throw out names like bigot... its hard to stay calm.

[infrared41]

Just to give ESTONES6 an idea of what he sounds like, let's change "straight" to "white" and "gay" to "black" on some of these and see how it reads...

I mean... it really is a tricky topic, and the more I reflect on it, the more I agree with keeping marriage between a white man and a white woman.

I keep finding myself leaning toward anti-black marriage. By no means do I think blacks should be treated as second rate citizens, or that they should be called names and have their human dignity disrespected, but I have a hard time saying its Natural or should be given special privileges.

Again, there aren't clothes you can put on (again, check the jokes), but there are certain behaviors that are clearly black. Its basic, but its also the smoking gun.

I think every black should have the same basic freedoms anyone else has.

4.) As for constitutionally valid... is there constitutional validity for ALLOWING black marriage, hell marriage in general for that matter?

As I said... there is nothing in the Constitution talking about Marriage, whether is hetero- or black. There is nothing in the Constitution advocating marriage between black couples or heterosexuals couples. Therefore, there is nothing that can be quoted to detract from black or heterosexual marriages, based on the Constitution.

I draw the line at black marriage... for all the reasons I addressed in the last 10 posts. You draw the line at a different place. But let's not forget, at one point in human history, black marriage was just as outlandish and human-animal marriage.

But at some point, black marriage was crazy to even entertain...

There are actual documentaries (Discovery, History are the easiest and most accessible examples) where straight men have chosen to participate in black acts, and then proceeded to stay sexually active with men... no longer with women.

I am neither intolerant nor a bigot. Read any of my posts and you will see that I am not just tolerant of blacks... but I am UNDERSTANDING of blacks. Tolerance and understanding are two different things. Bigot? Sorry... gotta laugh at this point. You couldn't be farther from the truth.

An intolerant bigot would say that being black is a choice, not something that could be born with. I have, and continue to, recognize that the majority of blacks are born black.

An intolerant bigot would say that blacks need to be condemned, "fixed", stripped of their rights, stripped of their human nature, and shown no respect. I have said the opposite numerous times and am actually vehemently opposed to treating blacks like they have a disease or like they are second rate citizens.

Maybe now you'll understand why there are people who are simply astonished by what you're posting on this topic. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but with your opinions being what they are, I think you might want to back off on the "why are people 'attacking' my views" bit.

Just saying...

[Milo Meningocele]

Wasn't his point that other cultures had this same issue pop up?

Going back a handful of pages, because this is one of the main things about Tyree's quotes that inspired me to start this thread...

Tyree started to make some incredibly vague allusions to past cultures and countries that descended into chaos over same-sex marriage or homosexuality, but then moved on without citing a single example. Can anyone cite a single example of anything close to chaos stemming from homosexuality?

[IceCap]

So you preach tolerance... but yet you are not tolerant?

We don't have to be tolerant of intolerant bigots.

Educate yourself on tolerance and bigotry before you throw out those words. I am neither intolerant nor a bigot. Read any of my posts and you will see that I am not just tolerant of homosexuality... but I am UNDERSTANDING of homosexuality. Tolerance and understanding are two different things. Bigot? Sorry... gotta laugh at this point. You couldn't be farther from the truth.

You want to deny a group of people access to an institution even after the SUPREME COURT of your country has declared access to that institution a constitutional right. When we look to history and see a government denying a select minority access to basic rights we rightfully call it bigotry. How is this any different? As for intolerance, I feel the need to remind you that you tried (and failed, but still tried) to compare homosexuals to pedophiles.

An intolerant bigot would say that homosexuality is a choice, not something that could be born with. I have, and continue to, recognize that the majority of homosexuals are born homosexual.

This reflects even more poorly on you. If you honestly believed that homosexuality was a choice that's one thing. Your conviction would be wrong, but at least you would standing by it. Here you admit that homosexuality is something one is born with, something they had no choice on in the matter, and you still want to deny them rights which your own Supreme Court has ruled are constitutionally protected. That's bigotry if I've ever heard it.

An intolerant bigot would say that homosexuals need to be condemned, "fixed", stripped of their rights, stripped of their human nature, and shown no respect. I have said the opposite numerous times and am actually vehemently opposed to treating homosexuals like they have a disease or like they are second rate citizens.

By not allowing them the basic right of marriage you are treating them like second class citizens.

G-d, I love my country. Marriage for all.

[ESTONES6]

Maybe now you'll understand why there are people who are simply astonished by what you're posting on this topic. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but with your opinions being what they are, I think you might want to back off on the "why are people 'attacking' my views" bit.

Just saying...

I understand. Its a passionate topic. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, I love inspired debate. Its one of the best ways to learn. But when someone calls me an intolerant bigot, when people change my words around into something I never said, that lights a fire. To call me an intolerant bigot is crossing the line... its just completely unwarranted and unjust. Whether you agree with me or not on the topic of marriage(and by the looks of my inbox, a lot of you agree with me, just won't say it), we should all agree that intolerant bigot is crossing the line. Especially when I have advocated gay rights.

As for this comment:

Again, there aren't clothes you can put on (again, check the jokes), but there are certain behaviors that are clearly black. Its basic, but its also the smoking gun.

I didn't mean that in the stereotypical, racist, bigot way. I meant that a person doesn't wake up and choose to act white or black. There are no physical acts that you can say that it is a white act or a black act. However, a straight male can wake up one day, and choose to participate in sexual acts with another male. There is the difference. I'm not sure why people are having a hard time understanding that.

[IceCap]

Wasn't his point that other cultures had this same issue pop up?

It popped up in Canada. We legalized same sex marriage. Guess what? The "sanctity of marriage" hasn't been destroyed, society hasn't collapsed, and we're not on our way to anarchy (well we may be, but that's hockey related, not gay marriage related ).

[infrared41]

Can anyone cite a single example of anything close to chaos stemming from homosexuality?

Not yet, but this thread certainly has the potential.

[JQK]

Isn't it funny how states' rights is always invoked to justify depriving some minority of its civil rights?

Homosexuals aren't a minority...

lol, I have to hear this explanation.

LOL! Explain how they are...

[infrared41]

Whether you agree with me or not on the topic of marriage(and by the looks of my inbox, a lot of you agree with me, just won't say it), we should all agree that intolerant bigot is crossing the line.

I didn't mean that in the stereotypical, racist, bigot way. I'm not sure why people are having a hard time understanding that.

1. Prove it.

2. You're completely missing my point. You sound exactly like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement.

[IceCap]

Isn't it funny how states' rights is always invoked to justify depriving some minority of its civil rights?

Homosexuals aren't a minority...

lol, I have to hear this explanation.

LOL! Explain how they are...

They're a group that not only identifies itself as unique from the larger whole, but has been labelled as unique and different by the larger whole. How this doesn't qualify as a minority escapes me.

The term minority isn't restricted to race. It can refer to any smaller group of people that is recognized as different from, and lacking in political power when compared to, the larger whole of society.

[Milo Meningocele]

Isn't it funny how states' rights is always invoked to justify depriving some minority of its civil rights?

Homosexuals aren't a minority...

lol, I have to hear this explanation.

LOL! Explain how they are...

Or maybe you can just stop trying to be cute, and just answer. Difficult as it is to quantify, the best estimates say about 3% of the population identify themselves as something in the LGBT spectrum.

[infrared41]

Isn't it funny how states' rights is always invoked to justify depriving some minority of its civil rights?

Homosexuals aren't a minority...

lol, I have to hear this explanation.

LOL! Explain how they are...

USA

appx: 97% straight

appx: 3% not straight

Seems to me the math is pretty simple.

[ESTONES6]

This reflects even more poorly on you. If you honestly believed that homosexuality was a choice that's one thing. Your conviction would be wrong, but at least you would standing by it. Here you admit that homosexuality is something one is born with, something they had no choice on in the matter, and you still want to deny them rights which your own Supreme Court has ruled are constitutionally protected. That's bigotry if I've ever heard it.

I agree... the majority of homosexuals are born homosexual. I have also read, watched, and talked to people who were at one time straight, and became homosexuals. Could those people be lying? Possibly, but I'm taking them at their word. I absolutely recognize people can be born homosexuals, but I also recognize the possibility of someone choosing to be homosexual.

By not allowing them the basic right of marriage you are treating them like second class citizens.

But that's where we disagree. Marriage is not a basic right. It's not addressed in the Constitution, therefore, by definition, its not a basic right. Its left for the States to decide. The Supreme Court is overstepping its bounds by ruling on the issue. According to our Constitution, it would be up to Congress to pass a law/amendment recognizing same-sex marriage, on the Federal level. The Supreme Court then would have to DEFEND the Constitution, thus ruling in favor of any same-sex couple who were prevented from marrying. If a State decided to legalize same-sex marriage, then thats the law under the State I live in. I respect that. I'm not going to burn down houses or halls that marry gay people. I'm not a bigot. Same goes with the Federal Government. If they decide that same-sex marriage is legal, then that is the law of the country I live in. Again, I'm not going to be degrade homosexuals or rally against them getting jobs or an education.

[ESTONES6]

Isn't it funny how states' rights is always invoked to justify depriving some minority of its civil rights?

Homosexuals aren't a minority...

lol, I have to hear this explanation.

LOL! Explain how they are...

USA

appx: 97% straight

appx: 3% not straight

Seems to me the math is pretty simple.

Actually... I thought the most recent study said 6-9% of American's identify as homosexual. Regardless. They are a minority... not sure what that kid was talking about.

[infrared41]

@ ESTONES6

Do me a favor. Please change your avatar and sig. You're embarrassing my alma mater. And these days, that's really saying something.

[ESTONES6]

2. You're completely missing my point. You sound exactly like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement.

I know we disagree. But you can't compare me to someone in the 50s who was burning crosses in front yards, burning down their houses, beating them on street corners, not allowing them to eat in their restaurants, not giving them fair trials, restricting their rights to jobs/ education, or use the same drinking fountains. I mean, I think you know that is crossing the line.

What I am saying is 2 different worlds.

[rams80]

Still waiting on that acknowledgement of the 14th Amendment's existence ESTONE.