Malcolm wrote:Marriage is a govt. sanctioned institution. It confers certain rights onto people who marry (that's why you need a license to do it) to that unmarried people do not enjoy. Since gay people who are in long term committed relationships are denied those same rights as heterosexuals because they are denied the right of marriage, this amounts to civil rights discrimination.
Civil rights discrimination as a problem is entirely a subjective opinion. Your point here doesn't make your argument any more rational.
Since you have famously declared you don't believe in "rights" (though why a Canadian monk imagines he will be invited into the elite to help rule the world is beyond anyone's imagination), I imagine that this point will, as it has in the past, fall on deaf ears.
Misrepresentation of me and my statements. I have neither stated I want to gain access to the elite nor do I.
Secondly, there is no evidence that heterosexual parents are any better at raising children then gay parents.
It hasn't been widespread long enough to make that judgment call yet.
So in the end, your arguments against gay marriage are biased and irrational, which is why they make you a bigot in this respect.
No. I've constantly pointed to the fact a legal precedent is set by virtue of sanctioning gay marriage. This can and will be used by fringe groups which many find presently detestable to further their own goals.
This is neither biased nor irrational.
Certainly, you can find a sanctuary safe from gay marriage in Uganda or Kenya where they routinely slaughter people for their gender preference, but I don't think you really want to live in such countries where they will probably mistake you for being gay as well.
As I keep noting, there are plenty of civil and well-developed industrial societies like Japan which have neither gay marriage nor overly liberal social policies, and arguably never will in the foreseeable future.