Re: Race vs. Homo***uality: One You Are Born With, The Other Is An Action

On 17 Nov 2008 13:59:01 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:44:49 -0600, Mike Smith <mws@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 16 Nov 2008 07:17:16 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:37:50 -0800 (PST), Tracey-Rush-Savage-Hannity
<tracey12_12@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 15, 5:54 am, Boston Blackie <bblac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-11-14 04:18:17 -0600, Tracey-Rush-Savage-Hannity
>>>>> <tracey12...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>>>
>>>>> > How can we compared a race and the rights we give those of a race
vs.
>>>>> > an action which any two same *** people can engage in whether they
are
>>>>> > actually gay or not?
>>>>>
>>>>> > Equality for an action?
>>>>>
>>>>> > Should any 3 people be recognized as equal to hetero***ual
couples?
>>>>>
>>>>> > Should 6 people who want to marry each other?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>> --
>>>>> "I've always felt that a person's intelligence is directly reflected
by
>>>>> the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain
>>>>> simultaneously on the same topic."
>>>>>
>>>>> Abigail Adams.
>>>>
>>>> WHY DO HOMO***UALS CARE ABOUT GETTING MARRIED AND BEING RECOGNIZED BY
>>>> THE GOVERNMENT AS SOME KIND OF MINORITY TO BE GIVEN SPECIAL RIGHTS?
>>>
>>>What special rights?  They're asking for equal rights:  straights can
marry
>>>the non-related consenting adult of their choice, while homo***uals
can't.
>>
>> Are you intentionally lying or are you just ignorant?
>
>Maybe you should ask that of yourself.  Prop 8 is likely going to be
swatted
>down after the precedent set by Loving.  You're advocating unequal
rights,
>which is not what the Constitution prescribes.

Explain yourself. Exactly what unequal rights do normal people have
that homos do not have? I know of none.

>
>> Normal people can marry the non-related consenting adult of their
choice
>> as long as that adult is a member of the opposite ***. That is the
>> qualification for marriage. In that respect, homos do have equal
rights.
>
>So why is it such a threat to you?  It hasn't devalued (or otherwise
>adversely affected) my marriage.  

It is no threat at all. Why would you "think" it was a threat?
Marriage is what it is.

Mike Smith