I am a bigot!

I’ll say it, I am a bigot. And proud.

• Jews *definately* shouldn’t get free 50″ plasmas.
• Native Americans? Free magic 8 balls, *and* free flying lessons? NO!
• And French? I am absolutely against the French being allowed to kidnap and rape Americans on tuesdays to qualify for free icecream.

You see, I take great pride in eroding other people’s rights. I am sure the Jews are now really pissed that my personal opinion is, that they should not get a free 50″ plasma. As for the French, you can be sure that beneath their cowering white-flag waving, they are whispering ideas of dissent.

LOL, this blog makes even less sense than before! haha. Why am I talking a more refined quality of bullshit today? Because of one self-proclaimed saviour of the liberals: http://cynicpad.wordpress.com/2006/10/27/gay-marriage-why-do-straight-people-care/

Apparently any argument that says gay people shouldn’t be given the right to marriage, makes you a bigot!

I don’t really give a shit either way on the issue, but I love predictable athiests, who align themselves with liberal brain deads and use the anger of sad fundamentalists as ammo for their hollow arguments.

> In reality, how is a gay couple getting married going to effect you?

You have any idea how much money it takes ot make and pass, repeal, pass and maintain a law?

That is a lot of money. What? You didn’t think about that? OMG! haha, and to think you sounded like you had thought your argument through, I do apologise.

Using the stupid misguided judgement of the fundamentalist groups as a basis for a strawman attack on them, and that as an argument FOR your point, is a little stupid, but I don’t imagine most of your readers would be astute to notice that.

> Why do people care?

Why do gay people care about the concept of marriage? What, that question isn’t valid?

Jackenory time:

Meet Bob, he has all the same rights as every other person. One day, he realises he has a penchant for fucking hollowed out watermelons. The next day he realises that his rights are being eroded, and that fundamentalist biggots won’t give him equal rights to marry a watermelon. Sure, it is easier to just say you are liberal and your argument that people shouldn’t care sounds valid, until people realise you haven’t thought shit through.

My point on gay marriage is: EVERY MOTHERFUCKER HAS EQUALS RIGHTS. Every man has the right to marry a woman, and every woman has the right to marry a man.

That is not discriminatory, or biggoted, and I look forward to your argument otherwise. I have gay and bi friends who I am very very close with. But I would tell them to their face in the kindest way that they are misguided in their pursuit of this ambition.

They have equal rights. If they want something *like* marriage, go for it.

Even Sir Elton John said he didn’t like the when people said he was married. unfortunately, the argument is complex, and it wasn’t until he got married did he realise, that is not quite what he wanted.

I am sure homos want to celebrate their love, and non-married heteros too. There are many ways. To argue that gays should be allowed to get married, you either have to:

• remove all legal definition of marriage
• or, apply the same laws to everyone (and perks) married or not.

If I am hugely ugly, and therefore unable to marry, why should my rights for financial status be eroded because I am fugly?

Maybe 35 year old spinster virgin women with cats should also have the right to marry their cats, so they also get the same legal status. Who knows? but, hey, let’s not think for one minute your argument is different, else you are the bigot.

I like to rationalise things, and the way I see it, everyone has equal rights. It costs money for all this crap to go on. If people want to make some kind of legally binding agreement regarding their financials, hell, there are lots of lawyers waiting to take their money.

If they want to affirm their love, have a party! wear a dress, I don’t care. Get ‘married’. I love it! Invite me.

But don’t for one FUCKING ignorant moment believe that the legal definition of marriage, the protections and financial accoutrements have ANY bearing on a non-heterosexual coupling.

Why? Because consensus and years of voting brought about these changes to say that when a couple get married, to start a family, buy a house, increase our society’s numbers, we help them.

Biology states that this is not applicable to a non hetreo marriage, and to respect the laws and why they were made, it shouldn’t be.

Logic prevails, and I am not a bigot. I am just not a mindless fucking liberal who uses weak arguments as a way of venting against an easy target, stupid fundamentalists. I await your respose, you can email me of course, see print.wordpress.com

I’ll reply to your response to my other ‘itchslap.

A point on adoption: It doesn’t have a bearing on this argument. It sounds like it does, but it doesn’t. Whole other wineskin of thermalpaste.