I thought of a retort to an anti-gay talking point.

[Deep13]

One argument that anti-guy activits use when arguing against gay marriage is that hetero-only marriage is non-discriminatory because a gay man has the exact same right to marry a woman as a hetero man. I'm sure most of you have heard that. The problem I find with most RW talking points is that they can be expressed in a sound-bite in such a way that they make sense to a lot of people. The counter argument--being based in reality--is usually a lot more complicated and tends to lose people's attention.

Anyway, I thought of what I think is a perfect come-back to the above example.

"When gay marriage is allowed, you'll have the exact same right to marry someone of your own sex as a gay person will. That's not 'special rights,' because it applies to everyone."

Just a thought.

[polmaven]

1. I have actually used that

with some of the homophobes I have run into for a while now. LOL....The looks on their faces can be absolutely hilarious! :rofl:

[Deep13]

2. The claim of nondiscrimination of the status quo has always bugged me...

...because simply from a linguistic point of view, it seems to be true. Of course, a moment of thought on the actual facts of the issue reveal how idiotic it really is.

[polmaven]

3. I have also been asking

for an explanation of exactly how "traditional" marriage is jeopardized by gay marriage. So far, I have heard only crickets.

[Deep13]

4. Yeah, that's another one.

First, it isn't traditional as women work outside the house, own property, vote, have an equal say in raising any children, may decide not to have children and have a right not to be beaten. Also residing with ones extended family is no longer the norm an remarriage after divorce is common. It's not the Biblical definition of marriage because it does not include poligamy.

The explanation for the threat to traditional marriage thing is usually something like: well that's just not what marriage means. Then they go on to talk about how the nuclear family is the foundation of this country (which is bullshit), as if no other culture on earth has ever heard of marriage. Well we know it's not what marriage means. Obviously, the whole point of this is to change the definition. Saying we can't do it differently because it would be different is moronic. What they really want to say is that god won't like it and will punish us for allowing it. But then the likely response is either "there is no god" or "my god thinks it's just fine."

[polmaven]

6. Exactly.

My God is just fine with it.

[pgodbold]

5. The response is short and direct. "Yeah, but you get to marry someone you love."

[Gormy Cuss]

7. You think like a lawyer.

Just sayin' :yourock:

[FreeState]

8. This was addressed in the Prop 8 trial also

I tried to look up the citation but cant find it in the thousands of PDFs from the trial. ANyway it was brought up that in the past the argument was that Blacks and Whites had the same equal rights - because both could marry inside their own race. Its the same convoluted thinking.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

9. Wish we could find the clip from Bill Mahers show from a couple years back

He had a guest on and they discussed the issue pretty much like you did.

She said Gay Marriage was a (buzz word) Special Right.

Bill came back '.. but you'd have the same right to marry a woman or a man too'.

She said '.. but I don't want to marry a woman.'

Bill just looked at her ... waiting for her to catch on to what she had just said.

She didn't.

He moved along.

[Deep13]

10. They're not too sharp, are they? nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. Nope

the hypocrisy and often unintentional irony of their various pronouncements never seem to even get close to penetrating their cerebral cortex.
:silly:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Good one

:thumbsup:

Of course, gays and lesbians CAN technically marry- just not that one person of the same-sex that they REALLY love and want to be with. :banghead: Is that what anti-gay bigots really want for the institution of marriage in this country: a whole lot of people entering into passionless, unfulfilling civil arrangements just to be able to be "married" and enjoy the benefits thereof? :shrug: Do they realize (or care) that there are other people (and children) involved whom will ultimately suffer because their spouse and/or parent will be unable to be completely fulfilled and satisfied in what is essentially a sham marriage because of how they really are inside? I've come to the inescapable conclusion that most (all?) anti-gay bigots (and fundies in general) must be pretty unhappy people because they seem so determined to make everybody else's lives miserable.

[Deep13]

14. Yeah, I think that pretty much sums up a RW marriage. nt

[VMI Dem]

13. How about people that argue that opposition to gay marriage just isn't bigoted?

What do you say to them?

[Deep13]

15. I say they're insisting that everyone else live by their religious prejudices...

They call them "values," same thing. They have no right to insist others suffer because of their religious beliefs. If they insist it isn't because of religion, then I ask them to give one public policy reason against gay marriage and go from there. Invariably any reason they give is going to be that homosexuality is just plain wrong because it goes against their preconceived idea of the natural order of things. THAT is a religious prejudice.