[some edits made by moderator]

Isn’t that special! Poor you.

if one small town on the tip of Cape Cod gets to display bumper stickers that say they resent the President of the United States wanting to alter the Constitution to exclude gays and lesbians from marrying and marginalizing them to second class citizenship I think it’s not really too much for you heterosexuals to simply shut up up and bear.

Here’s an idea: Allow people to be the people they are THROUGHOUT the land and there will be no need for the extremes you seem to think exist (or what you’re deeming intolerance) in Provincetown. From what I see in the town the only people causing REAL TROUBLE are the out of town AND RESIDENT heterosexuals who come there specifically to voyeuristically sight-see and ridicule the homosexuals. Can’t you go bowling or something?

Provincetown = one microscopic bit of these United States
The remainder of the USA = a place where the rest of you intolerant S.O.B.s can raise your children as proper little bigots.

The Boston Globe is a running joke. Oh those poor trod-upon heterosexuals who have to tolerate all that intolerance in Provincetown. STAY HOME … and here’s a newsflash: THERE ARE AS MANY INTOLERANT HOMOSEXUALS PER CAPITA AS THERE ARE INTOLERANT AND BIGOTED HETEROSEXUALS. The rules apply to all or to none. No exceptions.

Get over yourselves. You’re whining.

Nemokat :: I see all your points, and you articulate yourself very well and logically. I wasn’t trying to equate animals and gays by any means… and you aren’t the first to point that out. I wanted to use beastiality because - for now - we can all agree that it is completely wrong… it is the extreme. My point would be that there was a time when things that are more moderate today were considered “extreme” and “completely wrong” previously. That’s not to say we should go back to that time… it’s just to say that without a firm boundary things will shift without limit.

For instance, when you say that marrying an animal is prohibitive because the animal can’t sign the marriage license… I would contend that someone could have made the same argument for gay marriage, because the license has a signature block for “husband” and for “wife” (I think). Those in favor of gay marriage would say that allowances need to be made on those forms (or just change the forms) for gay marriage. NAMBLA would then say that the form should be changed again so that either a young boy could sign the marriage license legally or that a parent/guardian could sign for them. Then the crazy beasties could contend that if NAMBLA can have young boys get a guardian to sign, then beasties should be able to sign as the guardian of their pet.

This is all crazy absurdity, I know, but it’s not a completely unforseeable progression considering that there already is a population who want to legalize child-marriage.

When I contend that allowing gay marriage would mean we’d also have to allow any number of people to marry in any gender combination, a response I get back is that my contention is unfounded because polygomy is illegal. Well so is gay marriage (mostly), but the argument I hear for gay marriage is this simple principle: if consenting adults love each other and want to marry they should be able to. I understand that principle, but the inevitable consequence of that principle is any number of people in any gender combination should be allowed to marry. And when I ask a supporter of gay marriage why a given number of people in any gender combo should NOT be allowed to marry… I hear silence.

Oh, and I agree about the extremes on both sides. Both are equally ugly and gay-bashing is wrong.

I guess they hate the military more than they hate churches.

Well Steve:
You have done a good job highlighting the Tartuffe like hypocrisy of these jerks. And just as they are hateful and employing hateful techniques to intimidate people, Westboro Baptist Church is just as hypocritical because they champion hatred, which is antiChristian!

You know, I have lived and spent a lot of time in San Francisco and I find it to be classist and racist as well. Sure that type of behavior exists everywhere, but again, they are supposed to be a city that is a bastion of tolerance. Yeah Right!$%! Hmph, I am sorry to hear that we just cannot seem to get along as human beings. I am starting to wonder, however, if conflict is necessary for human development. Hmmm…

Regarding your question about arguments that legitimize gay marriage being used to support polyamories, you are certainly correct about that. And one reason that is compelling to support such unions is that they are with consenting ADULTS and who is the government to disallow adults from doing what they wish? But if any of the polygamists havta go on welfare, well we have to pay the cost of their folly! Now some who champion such marriage rights are totally against child adult relationships, not because it is plain out sick and wrong; but because of the power differential between adult and child and that the child cannot really give consent. The same logic can be applied to human animal marriages. Geesh, this stuff is kinda gross. But living in SF sorta forced me to interact with all of these different types of people and hear the way they think, for that I am glad. At least I know the place where they are coming from. Disturbing…

The question of gay marriage as it relates to the storyis a moot one… the idea is that those who claim tolerance are indeed, themselves, intolerant. And the “no-hate” community is actually hate numero-uno.

Now… I don’t approve of the lifestyle (i.e. I’m not okay with homosexuality), therefore I wouldn’t be for same-sex marriage. However, I am opposed to anyone treating gays (and when I say gays I’m actually referring to the whole cornacopia listed at the top of the post… much like “guys” is used… except this is “gays”) like they’re outcasts or whatever. I know some people who won’t go into their homes and won’t associate in any way with them, and that’s not right, either. Even if you’re like me and you treat it as a “sin” or whatever… would you treat them differently from someone else you thought was caught in a cycle of wrong - and who is so perfect themselves that they can look down their nose at someone else?

What I can call someone on is their open hypocritical behavior and intolerant actions, though.

Interesting point: I have never heard an argument FOR same-sex marriage that couldn’t be used FOR three-way marriage… or FOR man-boy marriage… or FOR five-way-sibling-parent marriage. Any takers?

to reiterate:
- they’re already together. wouldn’t be my choice, but hey it’s their lives
- marriage grants a few financial benefits
- no impact on heterosexuals

There is, however, in many peoples’ eyes, on both sides of the argument, a legitimization provided by marriage. To me it seems silly, but there it is. Now the opponents of gay marriage fall into two categories in my book:
1. those who oppose homosexuality openly and therefore oppose the legitimacy marriage gives. At least these people I can respect for being truthful with themselves, even if I disagree with their views.
2. those who say that they’re okay with homosexuality but that gay marriage undermines the institution in some insidious way. That just pisses me off. An analogous position- ‘Negroes are okay but they need to use separate bathrooms, eat at different lunch counters, and ride at the back of the bus.’