So you want to attack not racially-black people, but culturally-black people? You’re including the “wiggers” in your anger?

Genetic background is not culture: it is within each person’s power to reject the negative aspects of their culture, or not. There are negative aspects of many cultures, whether they defined by race, geography, religion, or what have you. That a particular culture is defined by race does not make it immune to attack by any means.

There may not be a way to do it, because race isn’t a chosen trait. It’s one thing to be angry with certain religious groups or certan political groups; you do get to choose your politics and religion, and if you choose to be a Catholic Republican, you’re almost certainly going to be giving aid to anti-gay forces even if you are not personally anti-gay. This is not true for race.

Here, let me try:

If _____ as a group voted against gay rights, then I think that group on average did a shitty thing. they should be ashamed, they should question their devotion to liberalism, and they should acknowledge that they did real damage to civil rights. If ______ was a group which had a civil rights agenda, be it disenfranchised voters, family-law-focused MRAs, anti-Guantanamo activists, certain minority groups, elder law folks, or anything else, then ______ should be extra embarrassed and (in my mind) _____’s behavior was extra shitty.

It’s good that you’re fighting homophobia, but your racism does not belong in the movement. I hope that you’ll look at yourself and start thinking about how you can advance our society and our movement to be without racism.

—Myca

Just as a reminder, they are:

Don’t comment unless you accept the basic dignity, equality, and inherent worth of all people.

—Myca

Edited: Never mind, I suppose it was just for example.

Mandolin, I’m sorry if that is what you gathered. That was not my intent.

The problem, Jared, is that, though it wasn’t your intent, it is exactly what you said. That marriage should only be allowed for “your ideal” of strong family units.

That means that, in your ideal, you also GET TO DECIDE FOR EVERYONE ELSE what is and is not ideal.

Do you think that people with emotional problems shouldn’t be able to get married? What about people who are just mean? What about liberals?

Should the mentally or physically challenged be able to get married?

In your ideal world, all of these things would not be allowed for reasons as EQUALLY SPECIOUS as sexual orientation.

So, your argument is not backed by any facts. Just bias. A bias that one can only assume is based more on religion than either law or science (since neither law nor science actually back your argument).

And using religious justifications for stripping people of their rights makes you no different than the other religious tyrants in the world. You know, the same ones that think it’s okay to beat a woman to death with rocks for going outside without her husband.

I’m not surprised that people who are in favor of discrimination are flocking in here in explicit disregard for the rider on who should comment at the end of the post, but today’s a great day to be heartened that their position is growing ever weaker: a third state legalized same-sex marriage today and that number’s just gonna keep going up.

Yeah, I’m interested in hearing the answer to that one, too.

Should our marriage license be taken away?

I need to know what “unique, essential” differences you’re talking about, besides different genitals, so that I can knock them down.

Glad our lives aren’t worth enough to get in your way.