RegularJoe wrote:And then the Supreme Court of Mass. said civil unions weren't good enough. It became clear to me that whatever is offered, gay rights activists will just want more. Now it's full gay marriage or nothing.
RegularJoe: to put it bluntly, you're full of shite. The civil rights movement of the 1960s is analagous to the movement for complete
equality for gays today. In both cases the bigots want(ed) to deny basic human rights to people simply for who they are(were).
Concerns about children raised by same-sex parents are valid, but the key here is that they will be in the minority, and so the perhaps less than ideal conditions under which they are raised are far outweighed by the less than ideal conditions under which are raised childen in broken homes. Clearly, far, far more children are living in homes commandeered by hair-raisingly unqualified hetero parents, singular or plural, than will be by homo parents.
Andrew Sullivan put it about right: Britney Spears got married in Vegas on a lark. The marriage lasted a few days, and then it was annulled. She made a mockery of marriage. But two gay people in a committed relationship cannot enjoy the right that she so frivolously makes a mockery of? Ridiculous.
RegularJoe wrote:As far as NAMBLA goes, it's a secondary issue but it shows what will happen when the civil rights argument is hijacked (as it has been for gay marriage) to support other groups.
Perhaps you don't read too good. Let me spell it out for you:
By the way, this