America was started by a group of people who wanted to come together to worship God separately. They left countries that persecuted them and then they persecuted the locals (Native Americans) so that as more and more people arrived here, they could tell the newcombers, "Welcome. Go worship over there..., far away from me."
Gays can do the same thing. How awesome is that ;)
It would be really awesome. Although a big mess. Unfortunately, most homosexuals (repeating, MOST, not all) just thinks in sex, and that's what causes the stereotype. However, I disagree with the part of cure for homophobia. There's no cure for homophobia. The only way to open homophobes' eyes is showing them that there's nothing wrong in being homosexual. No need of science to do this (although scientific studies that explain the homosexuality would be useful).
There's a certain demographic of militant gays who have no desire to assimilate. They see themselves as a separate culture that deserve to be preserved, like they're oppressed Native Americans or some shit. I'm sure some of those gays would already have struck out on their own if they had jobs.
No, they would recruit more and more people from all over the world. Also, a gay and a lesbian couple could come together to procreate. The child would end up with 2 mothers AND 2 fathers. This would double their birthday presents. ;)
That does happen sometimes. A gay couple who want babies and a lesbian couple who want babies get together and swap seeds, then take turns raising the kid. A better objection is that not all the kids they raised would turn out gay, but they could just deport those ones off of Gay Island for treason.
Or they could have one of those places where they tell those kids that heterosexuality is a choice and that it is a sin in an attempt to turn them gay. ;)
You are just a bigot who is trying to deny gays their own country. They are entitled to their own country. Who are you to deny them that? What difference does it make to you? It doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form. It wouldn't hurt you or any one for them to start their own country. You are just plain mean. You big meanie. I hope a dog bites you on the weanie ;)
You probably wouldn't have disputed me if that's really what you thought I meant, especially if you found it true and funny.
What I meant is that born-again Republicans are, from what I've seen, the greatest and most frequent source of homophobia in my own country, and without them around homosexuals wouldn't even need to start their own country, flag or no fag.
If gays were able to create their own country, then maybe they would be able to create their own race. And since you are against them creating their own country, you're the racist! So now you're a racist, homophobe ;)
No, I'm implying that zealously religious, right-wing nutjobs are the main source of homophobia in the US, and without their influence the gays wouldn't need to do something like start their own country to escape this persecution.
And I'm a liberal, and I like women waaaaayyyy too much to be gay. So I would never imply something like that.
I also think that the "zealously religious, right-wing nut jobs" wouldn't care about gay marriage if it was called something else..., like..., "civil union."
I don't think "persecution" is too strong, I think it's perfectly applicable in this context; they're denied equal treatment and are the subject of a substantial portion of the hate crime in my country.
And no, someone who is zealously religious would have a problem with gay marriage and with civil unions and with homosexuality in general because it is an "abomination." In any case, it's not like the US, or Republicans, or Christians have claim on inventing marriage as a term or as a concept. Who are they to define and regulate marriage for everyone just because their religion, like many, includes marital practices? Marriage as an idea isn't theirs to police and control; if gays want to call their "union" a "marriage" (perhaps they are religious themselves?) who are born-again Republicans to say they aren't allowed to? They are free to feel as offended as they like, but their opinions regarding other peoples marriage shouldn't be considered any more valid than other people's opinion of Christian marriage, and they shouldn't be allowed to regulate and enforce the marriages of others any more than others should regulate Christian marriages.
if gays want to call their "union" a "marriage" (perhaps they are religious themselves?) who are born-again Republicans to say they aren't allowed to? Gays can call their union a marriage. Trust me, they won't go to jail. Name one gay couple who has ended up in jail for calling their union a marriage. Just one.
As far as the government defining the word "marriage" .... Think of it this way. Does it make sense that every gas station define what a gallon is or should the government step in and set a fixed standard? Under your argument, who are the Republicans and Democrats to say that gas stations are not allowed to define what constitutes a gallon? And why do they do that? They do that so that everyone knows what the heck we are talking about.
So..., if you don't want the government to regulate your marriage, then all you have to do is NOT register for a marriage license and tell people you are married. Trust me, you won't go to jail.
It just occurred to me that you may not know what my position is on gay marriage.
My position on gay marriage is that as long as the gay community continues the fight to modify the definition of the word "marriage," they are going to have an uphill battle because they are going to be fighting 2 groups, the religious right AND the government. That's 2 fronts. The gay community would fare better if they only had to deal with one front. Hitler tried to fight multiple fronts. Look where that got him ;)
Now..., the question is, which front should they focus on? Which front is [weaker]/[more reasonable]? I'll give you a hint..., it's NOT the religious right ;)
Another good military strategy is to get one of your opponents to switch sides and join you in your fight against the other opponent. Now, the question is, which side is more likely to switch sides? I'll give you a hint..., it's not the government ;)
I know, I know..., it doesn't make sense..., but please hear me out.
If the gay community were to petition the government to stop using the word, "marriage" [because of its religious connotations and separation of church and state] then the religious right might join in because they would love to own the word, "marriage" outright. Then..., once that's done..., you petition the government to use the term, "Civil Union" for every domestic partnership, gay or hetero.
I know, I know..., brilliant, right? But that's what I do. Think outside the box ;)
When you think about it, my idea is crazy enough that it might work ;)
Even if the gay community decides not to implement my idea, it is a hell of a lot more entertaining, and original, than anything else either side has to offer ;)
Gays can call their union a marriage. Trust me, they won't go to jail. Name one gay couple who has ended up in jail for calling their union a marriage. Just one.
Well yes, and you can call your marriage a "Fonfon Ru" if you'd like, and probably not go to jail for that, either.
As far as the government defining the word "marriage" .... Think of it this way.
I'm not against the government defining something that the government regulates; I'm against Christians using their religion as an excuse for bigotry and unequal treatment.
In any case, your example with gas stations would work better like this: Chevron has a massive chip on it's shoulder and thinks all other gas stations should not be allowed to sell gallons of gas because they sell gallons of gas.
So..., if you don't want the government to regulate your marriage, then all you have to do is NOT register for a marriage license and tell people you are married. Trust me, you won't go to jail.
So all you have to do is not get legally married? This sounds like it defeats the point.
I'm against Christians using their religion as an excuse for bigotry and unequal treatment.
How do Christians treat gays differently in any meaningful way? By voicing their opinion? Gays voice their opinion. Are you saying that only gays should voice their opinion? Isn't being anti-Christian a form of bigotry? Isn't trying to silence the Christian point of view taking away one of their constitutional rights? When you ask, "Why should Christians get to define the meaning of the word marriage?" You might as well ask, "Why should gays get to re-define the word marriage? Why don't they just come up with a new word?"
What I am saying is that both positions [gays and religious] sound unreasonable. However, to me, the gay position sounds even more unreasonable because there exists a way for them to break the dead-lock by simply creating a new word.
No, they would recruit more and more people from all over the world. Also, a gay and a lesbian couple could come together to procreate. The child would end up with 2 mothers AND 2 fathers. This would double their birthday presents. ;)