Tito wrote:bluejeangirl76 wrote:Tito wrote:bluejeangirl76 wrote:Tito wrote:Why is it ok to be bigoted against rapists, child molesters, and incestuous people but not ok to be bigoted (as you say) against homos.
You have seriously got to be fucking kidding me.
No. Explain your logic. Answer the question or can't you.
Hating gays just for being gay is the same has hating blacks for being black, mexicans for being mexicans, italians for being italian, etc. If a black guy walks past you, do you hate him just because he's black even though he's done nothing to you? If you have a friend, and you find out 2 years after becoming his friend that he's GAYYYYYYYYYY are you going to cease being his friend JUSt on that basis?
What they're doing in their homes, or with their lives, or who they're in a relationship with in NO way affects you. Unless they enter your home and blow each other on your coffee table while you're sitting in your Barco lounger eating a bowl of Frosted Flakes and watching Wheel of Fortune, it's got nothing to do with you.
It is NOT the same as a child molester or a rapist. Those are violent criminal acts. Let's say you one day have a wife and daughter... who would you rather have as your neighbor, a gay couple or a registered sex offender/child molester/paroled rapist?
Jesus.
You are correct about the child molester and rapist. However, I did not include that in my question. The actual question was: Why is homosexuality ok but not incestuous or polygamy? If the adults are consenting, why isn't their act ok?
Both of those acts are against the law, and homosexuality is not. Incest is wrong and is a crime (in most countries, actually) - I may need to see if this is the root of why it's illegal but my assumption has always been it is a criminal act because of inbreeding leading to congenital birth defects. But that you'd even argue why homosexuality is ok while INCEST is not is just insane.
Polygamy is more or less the same issue as gay marriage... I don't particularly care if a guy wants two wives, it's doesn't affect me... but they damn well better make that fair on both sides and allow a woman to have two husbands then.
But that fact is, polygamists can't have the marriage rights they want for the same reason gays can't, because of all the running around trying to get marriage legally defined as a union between one man and one woman". I don't have a particular stance on polygamy, but I suppose I have to stand by what I argue for gay marriage rights - if they aren't doing anything criminal, breaking laws, or harming others, then who fucking cares what's going on in their bedroom?
The only difference between the two is that polygamy actually is illegal and punishable (as I understand it), and gay marriage isn't. Gays have been having "weddings" and civil unions for a long time, and they are in the same boat as the polygamists - it isn't legal but they do it ceremonially anyway. So you either punish both or you allow both. But again, unless there is a
criminal act going on, I don't see the problem with allowing either.
People act as if allowing such things will flatten society and cause chaos when in reality, where most of us reside, these groups are relatively small, and guess what... the mormons who choose to live the polygamist lyfestyle
are already doing it in hiding. If it became legal tomorrow, you would not see every person of the mormon faith up and marry 12 people. The majority don't subscribe to that lifestyle.
And the same with gays. They're already here, they're already doing their thing, and they're already partered up. Letting them marry isn't going to change anything or collapse a whole society. It's just going to leave them eligible for family health coverage, and maybe the orphanages would be less crowded because like it or not, most just want what we all want, a spouse and a family, and they'd be able to adopt. Gee... what a terrible thing that would be, giving lonely abandoned kids some homes.
LOL!!!! 
