• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Outspoken gay activist called back to active Army duty

No, what you wrote was that gays are living wonderful, peaceful lives in this country. Don't lie about it. You didn't know what the **** you were talking about and you made an idiot of yourself.My sexual orientation has nothing to do with your distorted world view.

Well let's go ahead and pull my post in its entirety..

MSgt said:
Gays are not murdered and hanged for being gay in America. Gays live quite openly without fear of persecution in America.

Words like "wonderful and peaceful" weren't even there. So allow me to reverse your accusation that I lied and accuse you (with proof) that you are a liar. And my world view is more true than you will ever know civilian.

But, since you did bring up words like "wonderful and peaceful"....consider how good you have it in America as compared to countries where you would be hung as a matter of legal recourse.

It is you that has made an idiot of yourself. Gain control of your emotions. You see, my problem really isn't with gays in the military. It's with you civilian gays who want military gays to go through the hardship for your personal emotional needs. I've brought this up before. Perhaps you missed it.
 
Last edited:
Well let's go ahead and pull my post in its entirety..



Words like "wonderful and peaceful" weren't even there. So allow me to reverse your accusation that I lied and accuse you (with proof) that you are a liar. And my world view is more true than you will ever know civilian.

But, since you did bring up words like "wonderful and peaceful"....consider how good you have it in America as compared to countries where you would be hung as a matter of legal recourse.

It is you that has made an idiot of yourself. Gain control of your emotions. You see, my problem really isn't with gays in the military. It's with you civilian gays who want military gays to go through the hardship for your personal emotional needs. I've brought this up before. Perhaps you missed it.

Meh, military gays don't have to come out just because DADT is repealed. Your reasoning is pretty sketchy at best. Furthermore, if you want to get literal, the words you used were gays can live "without fear of persecution in America." Given that there are gay people who are persecuted and killed in this country just because they are gay, that was a ludicrous statement on your part, but we both know you feel too proud Mr. Military Man, to admit that you were wrong.

The only reason America is where it is with homosexuality now is because of science and the brave actions of gay rights activists over the years. The two forces that that create the strongest animosity towards homosexuality in other countries are Islam and American Evangelical Christianity, the latter of which has made Africa the unfriendliest continent to gays. We only have to look as far as Uganda to see how right wing American influence has affected that country. Three evangelicals who went to that country used the same propaganda that they use here in America to incite that country into creating a death bill for "repeat offender" gays by arguing that gays were out to recruit children and destroy families.

Forgive me if I seem emotional, but I'm not stupid. If conservatives like tex, Baron, and NP had their way, then sodomy would still be on the books as a punishable offense as it was only 7 years ago in most states. Conservatives generally want to see homosexuality criminalized and want to see gays persecuted. Hell, a recent poll found that over 70% of Republicans still want to ban gays and lesbians from being teachers in state schools. The fact that you pretend that gays aren't persecuted in this country, even to this day is just evidence of willful ignorance.
 
Last edited:
So having sex with children is ok with you as long as the kiddies don't hurt. Got it :roll:

Are you dense?

I mean seriously, what the hell are talking about? An adult having sex with a child is not comparable to an adult having sex with another consenting adult. The former is harmful, the latter is not. You are making an irrelevant comparison. If pedophiles aren't out molesting kids, then I could care less what they are doing because they aren't hurting anyone. How does a gay person having sex with a consenting adult hurt you or anyone?

We are. No one is interferring with homosexuals. You want to change the law to go beyond live and let live to equal visibility under the law.. To change the law requires evidence to supporting changing that law. "Live and let live" isn't evidence, its emotion.

What is the evidence that has been used to deny gays equality to begin with? You guys were the ones who created discriminatory laws to begin with that were based on emotion rather than evidence. We are only trying to do away with those faulty policies and laws.

I just did with pedos.

No, you just made yourself look like an idiot by comparing consenting sex between adults to child molestation. As I said, I could care less what people do with their lives as long as they aren't hurting others. That is the principle of live and let live.
 
Your reasoning is pretty sketchy at best.

What reasoning? I reasoned nothing.

Furthermore, if you want to get literal, the words you used were gays can live "without fear of persecution in America." Given that there are gay people who are persecuted and killed in this country just because they are gay, that was a ludicrous statement on your part, but we both know you feel too proud Mr. Military Man, to admit that you were wrong.

It's like you have a learning disability. You invent words out of my post and then accuse me of wanting to be literal when I slap you across the face with the post? And on top of this, you seek to dumb down my post to fit your mistake? I was not wrong. You were wrong because you are emotional. My post was clear for all to see just how wrong you were. I'm afraid a few illegal criminal acts in America does not equal gay legal persecution in the Middle East (on any level). And this is exactly what my post meant. But if you insist on pretending that you can't see this to save face on an Internet Site, what am I to conclude about you?


Forgive me if I seem emotional, but I'm not stupid.

...And what happens to be people when they get too emotional?
 
What reasoning? I reasoned nothing.

Clearly.

It's like you have a learning disability. You invent words out of my post and then accuse me of wanting to be literal when I slap you across the face with the post? And on top of this, you seek to dumb down my post to fit your mistake? I was not wrong. You were wrong because you are emotional. My post was clear for all to see just how wrong you were. I'm afraid a few illegal criminal acts in America does not equal gay legal persecution in the Middle East (on any level). And this is exactly what my post meant. But if you insist on pretending that you can't see this to save face on an Internet Site, what am I to conclude about you?

Very well. For the last 7 years, gays have not faced significant legal persecution in America for being gay. Putting aside the fact that only 7 years ago you could go to prison for 5 to 10 years in several states for "sodomy", I would say that if you want people to interpret your post in the legal sense, then you probably should not have included the words, "Gays are not murdered and hanged for being gay in America" which is a blatant lie. Also the fact that you would call dozens of incidents over recent years, "a few" illegal criminal acts demonstrates exactly how ludicrous your point of view is. You accuse me of being emotional, but your own pride keeps you from admitting that America isn't exactly peachy keen on gays. Furthermore, you ignored my point that American social conservative influence has actually perpetuated the animosity towards gays in many other countries.
 
Last edited:
Pedophiles are the one with the problem, not me. As long as they aren't hurting anyone, I could care less what they do.

What about heterophiles? And, let's not act as if there's no such thing.
 
Are you dense?

I'd have to be petrified to reach your level :)

I mean seriously, what the hell are talking about? An adult having sex with a child is not comparable to an adult having sex with another consenting adult. The former is harmful, the latter is not. You are making an irrelevant comparison. If pedophiles aren't out molesting kids, then I could care less what they are doing because they aren't hurting anyone. How does a gay person having sex with a consenting adult hurt you or anyone?

What you and countless others who take your position fail to understand is that you just made a value judgment on a behavior.

First your criteria for behavior was Pedophiles are the one with the problem, not me. As long as they aren't hurting anyone, I could care less what they do.

Remember when you said this?

Then when confronted with this you said: An adult having sex with a child is not comparable to an adult having sex with another consenting adult. The former is harmful, the latter is not.

That is the value judgment. You just judged a behavior because you find it objectionable. There is no difference between your judgment and those who find homosexuality objectionable. Both are made from a moralistic standpoint. That is why your "live and let live" phrase is pure BS. You would interfere with NAMBLA or other sick organizations like this proving your claim to live and let live is pure crap.

What is the evidence that has been used to deny gays equality to begin with? You guys were the ones who created discriminatory laws to begin with that were based on emotion rather than evidence. We are only trying to do away with those faulty policies and laws.

Because homosexuality hasn't been proven to be anything more than a choice. You can scream and holler all you want but the evidence isn't there to put it on equal footing with heterosexuality. Just because your emotions get in the way doesn't take the place of factual evidence.

You can't call it discriminatory practice when you can't even prove it isn't a choice.

No, you just made yourself look like an idiot by comparing consenting sex between adults to child molestation. As I said, I could care less what people do with their lives as long as they aren't hurting others. That is the principle of live and let live.

The only idiocy being spout here is your own when you can't come to terms that the moral choice you made on pedophilia is the same criteria those who are against homosexuality make.

Its amazing no matter how many times this is explained you still don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Dude, I feel sorry for you. But I'm not going to waste my time casting pearls before swine. As I said, I could care less what other do as long as it doesn't hurt me or others. That isn't a value judgment, that is the golden rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Even Jesus Christ said it, as did hundreds of philosophers before him. And that is the basis for live and let live. As long as no one is doing anything to harm me or others then I could care less what they do.

You are the one that has some sort of problem with gays. Even though what gays do in the bedrooms harms no one and even though gay marriage has no affect on your marriage, you still obsess yourself with gays and controlling what they do. And that is why I feel sorry for you. You live your life concerning yourself with controlling others when they are doing nothing to hurt you. I find that to be pretty pathetic. Furthermore, to justify it in your own mind, you compare that situation, to one that is inherently harmful, pedophiles molesting children. But however you need to delude yourself to continue your power hungry existence is fine by me. I could care less because it doesn't affect me.
 
You can't call it discriminatory practice when you can't even prove it isn't a choice.

Religion is a choice. Political orientation is a choice. Which hand you usually use is a choice. What types of food you enjoy is a choice. Who you fall in love with is a choice.

Creating laws that restrict people based on any those choices would be discriminatory. Perhaps you should actually read the definition of discriminatory...

Discriminatory: prejudiced: being biased or having a belief or attitude formed beforehand

Nothing in that definition that says you can't be discriminatory against a choice. The question is whether it is rational discrimination or irrational discrimination. And I have yet to hear an argument for rational discrimination against gays and lesbians.
 
You accuse me of being emotional, but your own pride keeps you from admitting that America isn't exactly peachy keen on gays.

Pride? America isn't "peachy keen" (gay term by the way) on many things. It's not even "peachy keen" on military benefits, but you don't see me getting emotional and teary. The absence of utopia has a way of creating imperfection. I never stated that gays have a perfect America.

But if "admitting" this makes you feel better.......Gays do not have a perfect America! ...but they aren't placed on trial and murdered either.


Furthermore, you ignored my point that American social conservative influence has actually perpetuated the animosity towards gays in many other countries.

I "ignored," because there's nothing to argue against. This is like arguing against the fact that Christianity hasn't influenced many countries over the course of history. I bet even Tom Cruise has been a vessel to influence people across the globe into Scientology.

You just have to come to terms. Blacks and women have had to declare their equality also. Why should gays be any different in an alpha male society? And if you think American male civilians are of the "alpha male" stereotype.....imagine the facts of this in the Marine Corps.
 
Dude, I feel sorry for you. But I'm not going to waste my time casting pearls before swine. As I said, I could care less what other do as long as it doesn't hurt me or others.

But you obviously do or you would accept ALL alternative lifestyles and clearly you do not which is why your live and let live statement is so incredibly hypocritical.

That isn't a value judgment, that is the golden rule.

LOL You're still doing it just using a different name for it. Unbelievable.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Even Jesus Christ said it, as did hundreds of philosophers before him. And that is the basis for live and let live. As long as no one is doing anything to harm me or others then I could care less what they do.

But thats already been exposed as a lie because you clearly object to certain alternative lifestyles. I wish you would actually stop and think just for a second.

You are the one that has some sort of problem with gays. Even though what gays do in the bedrooms harms no one and even though gay marriage has no affect on your marriage, you still obsess yourself with gays and controlling what they do. And that is why I feel sorry for you. You live your life concerning yourself with controlling others when they are doing nothing to hurt you.

and now here come the lies. I don't care what they do in the bedroom. But when emotional zealouts like yourself want to change LAW to make their lifestyle equal to what the societial norm is, I want evidence not emotion to justifiy that change in the law. You however don't seem to care about that. You only want what your emotions want, and to tell with proving homosexuality isn't a choice and therefore unequal to heterosexuiality.

If you had done even the smallest amount of research you would have found that I fully support civil unions for homosexuality but you are too busy with your narcissistic rant to actually evaluate the facts.

Not that I'm surprised though.

I find that to be pretty pathetic. Furthermore, to justify it in your own mind, you compare that situation, to one that is inherently harmful, pedophiles molesting children. But however you need to delude yourself to continue your power hungry existence is fine by me. I could care less because it doesn't affect me.

If you don't want to debate just say so.

I grow weary of people too pompous and self righteous to really stop and think about what they are saying.

You made a foolish mistake with your live and let live BS answer and I called you on it to point out the incredible hypocritical nature of that claim.

Live and let live never holds up to scrutiny because someone will always find something that the person who made the claim will object to and want to stop which is why is it just a simpleton phrase devoid of any real meaning.
 
Religion is a choice. Political orientation is a choice. Which hand you usually use is a choice. What types of food you enjoy is a choice. Who you fall in love with is a choice.

Creating laws that restrict people based on any those choices would be discriminatory. Perhaps you should actually read the definition of discriminatory...

Discriminatory: prejudiced: being biased or having a belief or attitude formed beforehand

Not when it comes to law and sexual preference. Do you think you can actually stay within the context of the argument just for a little while?

Nothing in that definition that says you can't be discriminatory against a choice. The question is whether it is rational discrimination or irrational discrimination. And I have yet to hear an argument for rational discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Using your defintiion once again you display your incredible ignorance of using that argument since it would apply to any and all alternative lifestyles. Aren't they all a "choice" too? If you use choice as an excuse to change the law nothing can be excluded. But that would of course force you to actually think about what you are proposing and we certainly cannot have that.
 
But you obviously do or you would accept ALL alternative lifestyles and clearly you do not which is why your live and let live statement is so incredibly hypocritical.

I accept anyone who isn't hurting me or anyone else. They can do whatever they want with their life and I'll live my own. It's as simple as that. I can't imagine how you find that to be hypocritical, but I have found you aren't exactly the most rational person.

You are trying to get me to say I object to pedophilia. I don't. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. What I object to is the behavior of adults having sex with children. That is harmful, and therefore not comparable to consenting adults having sex.

If you can't understand something so simple, then you truly are deluded and there is no help for you.
 
Last edited:
Using your defintiion once again you display your incredible ignorance of using that argument since it would apply to any and all alternative lifestyles. Aren't they all a "choice" too? If you use choice as an excuse to change the law nothing can be excluded. But that would of course force you to actually think about what you are proposing and we certainly cannot have that.

That is why laws should be based on rational. There was no rational behind sodomy laws so they were overturned. There is no rational behind denying two people of the same sex the right to a civil marriage. Whether or not it is a choice doesn't even come into play.
 
I accept anyone who isn't hurting me or anyone else. They can do whatever they want with their life and I'll live my own. It's as simple as that. I can't imagine how you find that to be hypocritical, but I have found you aren't exactly the most rational person.

You are trying to get me to say I object to pedophilia. I don't. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. What I object to is the behavior of adults having sex with children. That is harmful, and therefore not comparable to consenting adults having sex.


You really are rich. That is like saying you don't object to homosexuality but you do object to two men having sex.

Congratulations. You just demonstrated the textbook definition of hypocrisy.

BTW, homosexuality was and is to some people still a mental disorder. But that doesn't matter right? Only YOUR moral choice matters and any hypocrisy in clinging to that choice to apply to everyone is just acceptable to you. LOL Talk about arrogant.


If you can't understand something so simple, then you truly are deluded and there is no help for you.

And I can't believe you are still having trouble with the basic concept of moral judgment.

You think adults having sex with children is wrong. Thats a moral choice. Some people object to two men having sex with each other. That is ALSO a moral choice. Please for the love of God see the connection here. I can't make it any plainer.
 
That is why laws should be based on rational.

Rational according to who?

Can't you see the hypocrisy and uncharted narcissism in that statement?

There was no rational behind sodomy laws so they were overturned. There is no rational behind denying two people of the same sex the right to a civil marriage. Whether or not it is a choice doesn't even come into play.

You really are hopeless. Until you can understand your ideas of morality are not universal to all people you will never come to grips that your "live and let live" bs answer is based on YOUR morality nothing more.

The arrogance is you pretending your morality is something everyone agrees with or that its the only "rational" point of view.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
 
You really are hopeless. Until you can understand your ideas of morality are not universal to all people you will never come to grips that your "live and let live" bs answer is based on YOUR morality nothing more.

The arrogance is you pretending your morality is something everyone agrees with or that its the only "rational" point of view.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

I'm not saying it is universal. I'm saying I don't care how others live their lives.. As far as I'm concerned, you are perfectly free to be a controlling tyrant all you want as long as you aren't doing anything to hurt me or others. I'll live my life the way I choose, and as far as I am concerned, as long as I'm not hurting anyone or you, you have no basis to interfere in my life.

See how that works. I'm only responsible for my own choices. I could give a **** how you live your life, because I don't think like you. I don't have to control others to be happy. I can be happy living my own life.
 
I'm not saying it is universal. I'm saying I don't care how others live their lives.. As far as I'm concerned, you are perfectly free to be a controlling tyrant all you want as long as you aren't doing anything to hurt me or others. I'll live my life the way I choose, and as far as I am concerned, as long as I'm not hurting anyone or you, you have no basis to interfere in my life.

See how that works. I'm only responsible for my own choices. I could give a **** how you live your life, because I don't think like you. I don't have to control others to be happy. I can be happy living my own life.

You just lied because you've already said you support changing the law for EVERYONE.

You can't fall back on that when you want to change the law for everyone based on your interpretation of morality and most importantly, without being able to prove factual backing to your standpoint.


You don't have a "live and let live" policy. You have a "live and let live the way I want it" policy towards the law.

And your doubletake on pedophilia was truly classic. I've never seen anyone say they are for it and against it in the same breath. I take it thats why you didn't respond when I called you on it.
 
Last edited:
You just lied because you've already said you support changing the law for EVERYONE.

When did I say that? I only said I supported changing laws and policies that were harmful towards me. I'm not some sort of dictator who can push laws on other people. It takes elections and law makers to change the law. All I can do is vote for who I want to represent me. And that means it takes many, many people to change the law, not just me.

You don't have a "live and let live" policy. You have a "live and let live the way I want it" policy towards the law.

No, I advocate to change only laws that harmful to me or others. You don't listen very well.

And your doubletake on pedophilia was truly classic. I've never seen anyone say they are for it and against it in the same breath. I take it thats why you didn't respond when I called you on it.

Some people are comfortable in living in ambiguity and some are not. I don't know how many times I've met Christians who say they love homosexuals but hate the sin of homosexual behavior. I have a very similar stance to pedophilia because I consider it harmful, but as long a pedophile isn't acting on it, then I don't care.
 
When did I say that? I only said I supported changing laws and policies that were harmful towards me.

If that were true then you would not be supporting changing the law for homosexuals which you clearly do. Don't make me look up your own quotes on this.

I'm not some sort of dictator who can push laws on other people. It takes elections and law makers to change the law. All I can do is vote for who I want to represent me. And that means it takes many, many people to change the law, not just me.

Bull****. You support changing the LAW. To change a law requires and argument and it requires facts to go along with that argument. Your personal moral viewpoint on homosexuals is not ground for changing law under your own philosophy.

No, I advocate to change only laws that harmful to me or others. You don't listen very well.

I listen fine. You just can't get your head around the fact that your definition of harmful is for you alone. When you change law it effects everyone so you cannot use your own moral judgment as an argument to change law. How is this so hard for you to understand?

Some people are comfortable in living in ambiguity and some are not. I don't know how many times I've met Christians who say they love homosexuals but hate the sin of homosexual behavior. I have a very similar stance to pedophilia because I consider it harmful, but as long a pedophile isn't acting on it, then I don't care.

Thats the whole damn point. You can't claim you support or are indifferent or whatever you want to call it about pedophilia then turn around and say if they act on it that is against the law. That is hardly "live and let live"

The hypocrisy you are displaying is truly amazing. How you think you can support pedos but not the action of pedos is really a sight to be seen.

Again, the entire point of that example is to prove your "live and let live" philosophy is a sham because you would impose laws against pedos who perform the act and your argument to justify this claim is based solely on your own moral judgment so you do not have a "live and let live" philosophy. You have a "live and let live under my moral code" philosophy which is exactly what you use for your argument on homosexuality.
 
Last edited:
If that were true then you would not be supporting changing the law for homosexuals which you clearly do. Don't make me look up your own quotes on this.

Please do. It's amusing how you are still trying to distort my words.

Bull****. You support changing the LAW. To change a law requires and argument and it requires facts to go along with that argument. Your personal moral viewpoint on homosexuals is not ground for changing law under your own philosophy.

I vote for officials who I feel will change laws that are harmful to me or others as I would hope you vote for officials who change laws you feel are harmful to you and others. That is what a citizen is suppose to do, and expanding anyone's freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on another man's freedom, increases the freedom of everyone.

I listen fine. You just can't get your head around the fact that your definition of harmful is for you alone. When you change law it effects everyone so you cannot use your own moral judgment as an argument to change law. How is this so hard for you to understand?

I know very well what hurts me and what doesn't hurt me is my own subjective experience. I never denied it. But what hurts you and doesn't hurt you is your subjective experience. It is the same for everyone. But neither one of us can change the law alone. It is only when several people agree that a law is harmful to us or others that we are able to change it. So I'm not sure why you are accusing me of "changing the law'. I have no such power. I only have the power to vote and if no one else agrees with me, then my vote is useless.

Thats the whole damn point. You can't claim you support or are indifferent or whatever you want to call it about pedophilia then turn around and say if they act on it that is against the law. That is hardly "live and let live"

Let me break it down for you. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. A person does not have to molest children to be diagnosed as a pedophile. Look it up in the DSM. I have no problem with a pedophile who does not molest children. His issues are his own to deal with and hopefully he seeks help for them. Where I draw the line is when he acts in such a way that is harmful to others. That is why I have said, over and over again, that as long as someone is not hurting someone else or me, I could care less how they live their lives.

The hypocrisy you are displaying is truly amazing. How you think you can support pedos but not the action of pedos is really a sight to be seen.

I don't really "support" pedos. I just don't care what pedos do as long as they aren't molesting children and effectively harming people. That is this thing called "tolerance". I know that somehow you don't have that capability, but that is really your problem, not mine.

Again, the entire point of that example is to prove your "live and let live" philosophy is a sham because you would impose laws against pedos who perform the act and your argument to justify this claim is based solely on your own moral judgment so you do not have a "live and let live" philosophy. You have a "live and let live under my moral code" philosophy which is exactly what you use for your argument on homosexuality.

I don't impose laws on anyone. I'm one man. I can't create or enforce laws by myself. I only offer my input on what I consider harmful and what I don't consider harmful by voting just like everyone else does. For some sad reason, you believe that homosexuality and gay marriage are harmful even though you can't provide much of an explaination for why. Whereas I can provide a detailed rational explaination for why pedophilia is harmful, supported by evidence. But alas, something tells me you wouldn't understand it anyways.

But hey, it is amusing that are so uncomfortable with my ability to live without trying to control others that you are desperately trying to put me in the same box as you. Are you feeling a bit guilty? Sounds like a personal problem.
 
Last edited:
If that were true then you would not be supporting changing the law for homosexuals which you clearly do. Don't make me look up your own quotes on this.



Bull****. You support changing the LAW. To change a law requires and argument and it requires facts to go along with that argument. Your personal moral viewpoint on homosexuals is not ground for changing law under your own philosophy.



I listen fine. You just can't get your head around the fact that your definition of harmful is for you alone. When you change law it effects everyone so you cannot use your own moral judgment as an argument to change law. How is this so hard for you to understand?



Thats the whole damn point. You can't claim you support or are indifferent or whatever you want to call it about pedophilia then turn around and say if they act on it that is against the law. That is hardly "live and let live"

The hypocrisy you are displaying is truly amazing. How you think you can support pedos but not the action of pedos is really a sight to be seen.

Again, the entire point of that example is to prove your "live and let live" philosophy is a sham because you would impose laws against pedos who perform the act and your argument to justify this claim is based solely on your own moral judgment so you do not have a "live and let live" philosophy. You have a "live and let live under my moral code" philosophy which is exactly what you use for your argument on homosexuality.

HUGE difference between the two points you guys are arguing:

Your interpretation (i.e. current law and the constitutional amendments many are passing) restrict rights.

To alter the laws to allow gays to serve in the military or to marry civilly doesn't restrict your rights or anyone else's.

The Supreme Court (especially when it overturned Colorado's Amendment 2) specifically stated that to legally discriminate you MUST have rational proof that it is society's interest to do so.

In other words - regardless of the moral back and forth the two of you have been taking part in - (a fair discussion; but irrelevant to the larger point) - legally, its imparted upon you to uphold the discrimination. You MUST provide rationale as to why you would restrict the rights of others, especially in light of the fact that your rights would not be altered in any way, shape, or form.

You talk about the law being "imposed on everyone" - if the law were to require people to be gay; if the law forced people into same-sex marriages - you would have a point.

No one is proposing that that I'm aware of.
 
Back
Top Bottom