…Months…Y?

I think not,…BITCH!!

Talk is cheap, ..What’s happening now it TRUE ACTION!!

Oh and we Christians want the rainbow back, but again this was a chance to steal something that belong to another culture, change it from its original meaning and make it your own

That damn rainbow. Will God never stop putting it in the sky to taunt us with His approval of His creation of gays?

First, you totally missed Timothy’s point, which was sarcasm, not assent. then you say this:

“If laws change the definition of marriage then you steal my legal right to be married because it no longer means the same thing. But that is the point of trying to change the meaning right? Its not that you, want something for yourself, but you want to take from someone else.”

I don’t even know where to begin. I am stealing what? By asking for the same rights, the same responsibilities, that you and enjoy and undertake, to have exactly what you have, nothing more, nothing less, is stealing from you? You lose something?

We demand an end to this prejudice against us that denies us equal treatment before the law, and somehow, YOU end up being the victim?

Let’s not let Soc 101 hyjack this thread. (yeah, I was guilty of getting sucked in, too)

The debate between Chapman and Stanton is too important to let it ALL of the threads become the same.

Clearly Soc 101 isn’t here to engage in serious discussion… so let’s not allow ourselves to be tempted to respond.

“The gay agenda is a social term like Republican or Californian or heterosexual, Its seems that you have been in the debate long enough to know that it is a category that represents the thinking of a larger groups agenda.”

So are you saying that the “Gay agenda” represents the monolithic view of all gay people? Please explain. See, I’ve been in this debate long enough to know that when people use the term “gay agenda” it pretty much means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

Please let me know the platform of the “gay agenda” when you locate it. You know, similar to how the Republican Party has a platform and the Democratic Party has a platform. And, what did you mean by your implication that heterosexuals have an agenda? If so, what is the heterosexual agenda?

As for my point about heterosexuals already having marriage, I am sure that someone as well-versed in the field of sociology as you are is familiar with the concept of heterosexual privilege and how that relates to the fact that gay rights organizations limit their activities to advocating for the rights of an oppressed group.

How on earth is expanding a definition to include other consenting adult pairs threatening?

“my or the heterosexual concept of marriage.”

Not all heterosexuals agree with your concept. Not all feel threatened by change.

“You are trying to pass amendments trying to keep heterosexuals out of their definition of marriage.”

That is patently not true. No major gay rights group is fighting to keep heterosexuals out of marriage. This is a boldfaced lie.

“If laws change the definition of marriage then you steal my legal right to be married because it no longer means the same thing. But that is the point of trying to change the meaning right?”

And there we have the crux of the argument: heterosexual privilege.

A boy on the playground with a red ball feels special. He’s the only one with the red ball. He is special. Until another boy on the playground has a red ball. Then the first boy feels threatend, feels it’s unfair, feels his red ball is diminished because he’s no longer the only one with a red ball!

(ben, you always manage to be right about this, don’tcha?)

They object not because they are being threatened, not because actual physical or legal harm, but because they object to gay equality, they object to loosing the special privileges associated with being in the ruling class, the majority. They fear equality because it takes away the cudgel you have to beat upon others. If we have not people below us on which to elevate ourselves, our whole way of life is threatened!

Can not the two variations on marriage coexist?

If you can create an identical institution for the gays that would embody all of the same attributes, responsibilities, and legal recognition, and would not run into the same problems we experienced with “seperate but equal”, we might be inclined to consider it. However if the institutions were exactly identical, except for the gender of the couples participating, it would beg the question “why would we need two?”