Don't accuse gay marriage opponents of bigotry -- Page 1 -- Times Union - Albany NY

This is an opinion piece I've read, and I take issue with the author's positions.

1. It can be a form of bigotry to believe that marriage should remain an institution that prohibits same-sex couples from enjoying the same benefits as an opposite sex couple would enjoy. It depends on the issues cited...

Polygamy - Yes Nancy, this is a form of bigotry. To draw the connection that homosexuality and polygamy are linked is a bigoted view. It's heterosexuals who employ the practice of polygamy and accordingly to judge a homosexual institution based upon the practice of heterosexuals is a form of bigotry.

Public School. - Again Nancy, this is a form of bigotry. Hetero-normative language will always be dominate, but there shouldn't be a problem with addressing the issue in school as early as kindergarten. "Yes Billy, Amanda has two daddies." is a perfectly legitimate answer. It is the job of the parents, not the school to teach morality. It is the job of the school to educate, and if the kid wants to know why Amanda has two daddies, the teacher has a responsibility to educate the child at an age sensitive level.

First Amendment Rights - Say what you want, but your actions are different than speech. The first Amendment is designed to provide equality in the law and allow people to speak their mind, but the document is designed to provide equality as a whole. There is no violation here.

State endorsement - They do this for heterosexual couples. As long as the state is in the business of endorsing the coupling of adults, they should do so with equal opportunity and equal rights.

Depriving of mother or father - Gay couples don't do this even in the most extreme of interpretations. Gay couples offer parenting to children who didn't have parents to begin with... And, if the couple chooses to use a surrogate, then that's just a positive reinforcement of the capitalist system we all depend on. In this case, it's heterosexuals who are creating the problem of parentless children and homosexuals who are solving the problem by providing loving homes.

__________________

This issue has confused me for some time. I don't know why a person would care one way or the other except that maybe it is the children that is the underlying concern of an individual who is against gay marriage. I shouldn't say against gay marriage as much as I should say pro changing the constitution to fit their view of the world.
I've stated on here before in so many words that I think the present generations on planet earth are much too stupid to go dickering around with the constitution regardless of their side on the issues.

But that's not enough is it? Rightly I need to come down on one side or the other. Or maybe like abortion I will see it as a different matter altogether.
Still working on it.

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

And this is a reasonable answer. Instead of throwing out meaningless arguments, you admit that you are not yet on one side of the issue or the other. You also see the attempts to modify the Constitution to fit a specific world view as dangerous.

I respect you Saltwn more that I ever let on because you take the time to think about the issue you are posting about. Many of us, myself included, have a set world view and are dedicated to seeing that implemented. I don't believe that the Constitution or the understanding there of merits changing under my world view. This is where I differ than many.

At any rate, your voice of reason is appreciated.

__________________