Hope this didn't post twice. Hope you still took the time to read it if so.<quoted text>
First of all, where are your facts about blacks and Hispanics? Because that's not accurate.
President Obama was never *against* gay people like some of you wackos are. His heart was in the right place. We knew that because we watched the Human Rights Campaign debate which people like you wouldn't have watched. If I were his campaign manager, I would have advised him just the way he played it, more or less. He couldn't support gay marriage the first time he ran. He took the issue off the table by pretty much agreeing with McCain on that. But we knew. He was never hateful or demeaning about it. He had no lack of understanding. He may have had a lack of personal experience, but he doesn't anymore. Again, he's a smart guy. Smart guys get it. Normal guys get it. Weak people fear it.
"Unforeseen consequences" are a joke. The same thing was raised when it came to interracial marriage. "What about the unforeseen consequences of mixed race children? Won't they have a hard life?"
You know what? Equality is more important than imaginary unforeseen circumstances.
You don't get to tell me what definition I can have or not have. We got married. That fact speaks for itself. We define it. You have no say.
This whole discussion is silly at this point. How do you not see you've already lost? It's a matter of time. And knowing that, it's a moral failure to delay our justice and let more good gay citizens die each day without their marriages being recognized.
Some of you are so fake.
From my own observation, more men are averse to homosexuality than women. Even so, most people, both sexes, have become accustomed to this lifestyle in the mainstream whether we all condone it or not. To use a broad brush and paint everyone who is against gay marraige as being against gays is an unfair and inaccurate statement.
Redefining something as stablizing and consistent as marriage in any society sanctioning a man marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman stretches the definition to the point of negating its original intent - the psychological and stablizing factor of children having both a mother and a father.
That certainly doesn't mean all mothers and fathers are good parents any more than gays are not good parents. But adoptive children in a heterosexual relationship is uniquely different in itself. Adoptive children in a homosexual relationship is a rather recent development and it has yet to be determined the long-term social and psychological adjustments.
Children can be as cruel to adoptive children of gay couples as gay children themselves. No matter how many walls have been broken down, it is still considered an alternative and different lifestyle and the number of gay parents are in a small minority.
It would be hard to imagine a child growing up without having any stigma attached to having homosexual parents in contrast to most, if not all, their friends having heterosexual ones.
We have become a society where children are more of an afterthought than the primary consideration. We already see that with the widespread apathy concerning abortion.
We must be very careful or risk unraveling the very fabric of remaining a civilized and structured society. Since we've already become apathetic in preserving human life, once the definition of marriage has no meaning other than a self-serving one as well, the structure and foundation of this last remaining stronghold could easily become a free-for-all mentality and further blur the lines of a civilized society for children. Whitney was right. The children are our future. What we teach them is how they will lead the way.
Any society without boundaries or structure becomes more barbaric than civilized. Rome is the perfect example.
This is where I believe most of us who are against gay marriage stand. I feel fairly safe in speaking for most of them as well.