In a comment on marriagedebate.com back in 2004, she wrote, in part:

Homosexuals already have the freedom to marry. They choose not to exercise that freedom in order to live as they choose with whomever–or however many whoevers–they choose.

Like some other donors to Prop8, she was happy to exploit us for profit while secretly working to deny us the same human rights as she enjoys. And like the others, now she’s outraged at being called on it.

On the other hand those churches which are willing to solemnize gay marriages are unequal before the law because although their faith includes the celebration of those unions, the religious ceremony is subsequently ignored and considered invalid by the government and the law does not recognize the couple as married. There seems to me to be a religious equality and freedom of religion issue there.

Thank you Joel, that’s kind of my excuse for being here, though as Tim has equitably requested, we should stay on topic. I’m sure if i wander too far into trolling, he will shut me down. But I really am trying to contribute, though from the other side.

Well put and makes perfect sense to me! Why others can’t come to the same conclusion is beyond reason.

it applies to you as well.

Aaaaaaand we’re back on topic.

Do you have any comments about the argument that because gay persons can marry someone of the opposite sex then they are not subject to discrimination?

0) assume ‘opposite sex couple’ exists. List the characteristics of such relationships.

1) list: why do opposite sex couples marry?

note a: do not restrict this list to the reasons why you would marry.

2) list: who do opposite sex couples marry?

note: you may chose to restrict this to current times and your own society, or take a broader anthropological perspective.

3) is there such a thing as a ’same sex couple’?

3i) if no, explain. Refer to 0) 1) 2). End.
3ii) if yes, explain. Refer to 0) 1) 2). Continue.

4) Halt: compare and contrast: can/do the lists at 1) and 2) also apply to the same sex couples identified at 3)?

4i) if no, explain why not. End.
4ii) if yes, explain. Continue.

5) is it therefore discriminatory (by definition) to permit opposite couples to marry but not same sex couples?

5i) if no, explain why it is not. End.
5ii) if yes, what should be done about the situation and why? End.

Maybe im just young, but it seems to me that we should be focusing on daniel logic and reasoning and less on her perceived trollness. You guys are aware, im sure, that this(or some extension/mutation of it) is the line of reasoning we might actually come up with on the street, at least. And anyways, isnt the essence of this post FOR “Anti-Gay Arguments We Don’t Bother With…” AND SHOULD.

I’m from a place where slippery slopes are used almost everytime gay issues come up.

I honestly want to see how many and which arguments daniel can come up with stemming from slippery slopes and substantiated with reasoning. Fodder if they fail to convince any of us.

Daniel, plz provide your evidence against gay child bearing. Those here have seen the evidence FOR it, not the least of which are the ones preya linn presented. Yet the evidence against it seems to fall short of the evidence FOR it, if this isn’t the case, plz do provide. Maybe then the Arizona mayority vote to ban adoptions or the propaganda used might not seem so bigoted and infused with ignorance.

Adressing Danielg.
“2. I think you entirely miss my use of the polygamy argument – I am not comparing homosexuality to polygamy at all. What I am saying is that (a) the abuse argument against polygamy doesn’t hold, and (b) I’m not sure how you can exclude polygamy while include your own favored intimate arrangement. It seems hypocritical. I am not arguing for or against polygamy, just against your exclusion of it – if you exclude it for medical or ‘abuse’ reasons, I too should be able to exclude gay marriage for similar reasons.”

You ARE trying to compare them through what imo is parallel logic. And like you, i do not actually see the abuse arguments holding water for polygamy, but unlike you, your reasoning on WHY gay relatinships are abuse(BECAUSE it is unnatural) is far-fetched and superfluous – here im assuming natural is that which “reflects the fully functional biological norm”. As for the medical, you did not specify why, is this related to the child-bearing or is this intertwined with the abuse issue? Since, if i’ve followed you correctly, natural=healthy- healthy being of the medical nature.

Are you implicitly asserting that gay relationships, on its sexual nature, is unhealthy on the grounds of medicine?

“>> BEN: Think about the family of the guy who killed his wife and 5 children today. Man. woman. the natural family.

That’s your argument?
”

I believe that was in allusion to the fire and brimstone preaching.