Now, you say that the Gay Rights movement suffers the same problems as NAMBLA. This is patently ridiculous. You say you have many gay friends, how many pedophile friends do you have? If your neighbor was a pedophile, would you invite him over for dinner? The Gay Rights movement has gained tremendous social acceptance, and you will see gay marriage legalized in the majority of states, in your lifetime. Believe me.

But even if you don't, it doesn't matter. Opinions are slow to change, and oftentimes a change in a society's belief is not so much the reflection in the change of values of its population, but the the replacement of the old generation with the new. Gay Marriage has significantly more acceptance among younger people, and their tolerance for homosexuals is much higher than, say, the 65+ category. Its a matter of demographics that homosexuality will eventually be legal. And when it happens, you'll even see Republicans drop the “Straight Marriage” focus from their platform to become competitive in elections again.

All I am doing here is tearing at the ridiculous logic people use to oppose gay marriage. Fact is, opposition to gay marriage is frequently (though not always), based on anti-Gay bias. People dislike gays, they dislike the concept of gays getting married, but since that type of bigotry is no longer acceptable in public discourse, they morph their argument to other, ridiculous scenarios: gay marriage leads to men marrying turtles, gay marriage leads to pedophilia, gay marriage leads to the death of society.

By destroying these ridiculous arguments that have become so popular in far-right circles, people will be forced to confront the fact that they are not explaining their beliefs, they are merely rationalizing their biases, and when they come eye to eye with that fact, you will see more and more people leave their old biases behind. Maybe even you, maybe not.

As for convincing the people first. I would prefer if the people stood up together and advocated gay rights with one another, but if they don't, there's no reason why people should wait an extra 2 decades. If people waited for each state to allow black people to vote (protect State's Rights!), you would still have states where bigotry and racism ran rampant, and people were denied their essential rights. (I don't care to compare the civil rights movement with the gay rights movement, its a logical example.) When people take decisive action to move forward, a rift occurs, and people eventually heal. If people can win at the ballot box, great. But if people have to win via Congress, or the Supreme Court, thats fine by me too. Just because society is too slow to let go of its biases doesn't mean millions should wait and suffer.

As for your arguments on racism. This is just ridiculous, it is not a “white male power” thing, especially when you consider that white power males tend to hate homosexuals and act out hate crimes against them. In fact, the white power males, or the 'former white power' males, who have since pretended to moderate their views and served several decades in congress or the senate, have always actively been opposed to gay rights. To slur the gay rights movement with white power is just another of the many unfounded attacks you are using to rationalize your biases against gays.

There is nothing in the gay rights movement founded upon racism. The Gay Rights movement is a near universal phenomenon, happening in every country, it is not based, in any way, on racism. You have given no examples to support that gay rights intersect with racism.

You only give one argument and, as usual, its based on misinterpretation. You say “their movement is rooted in American racism that anyone ought to have rights before black people.” This is absolutely ridiculous, and you give no evidence to support this claim.

When people in the Gay Rights movement draw parallels to Civil Rights, they don't do it in a negative way. They don't say, “you gave it to Blacks before us?” They say, “you've stood against progress before, don't do it again.” They draw parallels to previous groups that were oppressed to make it clear to people that in the grand history of this country, the gay rights movement will eventually be accepted. Society moves forward. The argument is not, “if you think Black people deserve to vote, then you should obviously support our movement,” its saying: take a stand for equality.

So stop misrepresenting the views of the LGBTQ community, it is not founded on racism, it does not employ racist rhetoric. They are using many past movements for equality (and not just civil rights), to show that this nation has been slow to give equality to its citizens, but that eventually, the old laws must go.

Its a movement for equality, not for giving rights to them before others.

If you are so concerned about the spread of AIDS, then you should want to encourage homosexuals to be in loving, monogamous relationships with one another. Married couples have significantly fewer sexual partners than unmarried couples. Giving gay couples the incentive to marry and be monogamous would reduce their number of sexual partners and reduce their chance to spread, or be infected by, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

On birthrates:

1. Your facts are wrong. Countries with legal gay marriage and positive population growth:

Netherlands: +0.45%.
Sweden: +0.36%
Norway: +0.49%
Belgium: +0.19%
South Africa: +0.475%

Secondly, birth rates and populational growth are based on demographic characteristics that shfit. Japan, for example, is in serious populational decline due to the aging of its population and the reduction of marriage in its country. They don't have legalized homosexuality. I could make an argument as ridiculous as yours and claim straight marriage is ruining Japan, but I like to think my points through before I post them. Additionally, as countires become more prosperous and attain a higher standard of living, birth rates tend to decline. This is largely the result of children costing more to raise, a family being less dependant on children to survive in old age, and society aging (thus, having fewer people in the age range necessary to produce birth). Demographic trends are unrelated to the gay marriage debate. There is no significant change in the birth rates of any of the countries I mentioned from the date they legalized gay marriage. Do your research next time.

On South Africa:

I don't have to tell you a single thing about crime in South Africa. Are you seriously going to pretend to me that rape and murder are the result of legalized gay marriage? Are you going to pretend to me that the massive poverty, lack of institutional safety, and powerful black market economy aren't the driving forces behind these actions? Are you going to pretend to me that South Africa's social and demographic problems are the result of legalized gay marriage?

On AIDS:

AIDS is the result of a lack of education about safe sex alternatives, the taboo of seeking treatment, misinformation about medicine, and proximity to / interact with other groups with high AIDS prevalence rates. In this respect, South Africa is average for an African nation, its AIDS prevalence rate is 10%, which places it 10th among African natinos in AIDS prevalence, and its AIDS infectino rate has not shifted since gay marriage was legalized there. Furthermore, AIDS occurs most heavily in rural areas and informal settlements that are not effectively managed by the government. These people generally don't have birth certificates, do not marry legally, and do not divorce legally. They act based on social custom. The legalization of gay marriage has no impact on these groups, as they don't seek legal recognition of marriage to begin with. Among wealthier segments of the population who do marry legally, there is no evidence to suggest legalizing gay marriage increases AIDS prevalence. And lastly, lacking legal gay marriage doesn't prevent people from having gay sex. Its legal. It occurs anyway.

As for Norway, your argument here isn't even related to gay marriage. You don't like Norway. Good for you. I don't like the Cavaliers.

You have not, at any point, made a cogent argument against legalized gay marriage. Just a bunch of unrelated strawmans based on factually inaccurate information.

I'd respond more, but I have a Final tomorrow on the economic development of sub-Saharan Africa.

You ask whether society has a right to sanction a legal bond of matrimony. To be clear, I don't care. Whether you want to say they do, or whether you want to say they don't, it doesn't change what is, they presently sanction it. The debate about state recognition of marriage and the intersection of law and culture is much more than would fit into this debate.

For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that society has the right to sanction the legal bonds of matrimony. It doesn't change anything about this discussion. My point is that, even if you say society can police marriage, society should change how it polices marriage. Policing marriage in a way that is inclusive of homosexuality is better than policing in a way that is not. That is my argument.

Now. Your entire post fails to respond to my argument: THERE IS NO SPILL OVER FROM GAY MARRIAGE TO BESTIALITY, PEDOPHILIA, OR POLYGAMY.

Until you can show how supporting gay rights means you are supporting these other causes, your entire complaint is null and void. Nowhere, in your entire response, do you give me any logical reasons why my support of Gay Rights means I am furthering the cause of pedophiles (especially since, despite supporting gay rights, I actively abhor NAMBLA and other idiots like that). If everyone in California voted No on Prop 8, NAMBLA would not gain one inch.

You have, by my count, said on at least 6 different occasions that supporting gay rights leads to polygamy, bestiality, and incest. I then made an entire post negating your slippery slope argument, I even had six subpoints analysing it from various ethical, legal, and movements-level perspectives. At no point in your reply have you shown me how there is any spill over.

So: Do you admit there is no spill over from gay marriage to bestiality, etc?

Either admit that its a ridiculous argument, or back it up, because so far you've been unable to.

Now, on your points.

1. Opening the Floodgates:

You make the analogy from miscegeny to gay marriage, and then state that your analogy is wrong.

Anyway, gay marriage is not a leap from interracial marriage. Interracial marriage was never banned in the Netherlands or Sweden, and they've progressed to gay marriage. The gay marriage movement is something that occurs on its own. Like any movement, it looks back at the history of other movements and draws parallels, but the movement functions fine on its own.

2. “The only reason NAMBLA and animal lovers and others are not so powerful is because they do not have the money and support the gay movement has.”

You know what else. The only reason John McCain lost the election was because he didn't have the support Obama has.

Your statement is just irrelevant here. Furthering gay marriage does not increase either the finances or support of NAMBLA. Additionally, even with gay marriage remaining illegal, NAMBLA can still gain money from supporters. NAMBLA and Gay Marriage are separate. This entire part of your post about NAMBLA is irrelevant to the debate about gay rights.

And to take it a step further. If you gave one billion to NAMBLA, it still would fail to get mainstream acceptance. Homosexual relations are legal in America, people have the right to pursue romantic relations with others of the same sex or gender. Bestial, incestual, or pedophiliac relations are not legal, and are criminal acts under status quo, punishable by prison. Society recognizes the rights of homosexuals to legally pursue romantic affairs with others of the same sex, it does not recognize this with bestiality, incest, or pedophilia. They are on completely different levels.

And furthermore, support won't help NAMBLA. Allen Ginsberg was a supporter of NAMBLA and has been ridiculed and boycotted for it. Jerry Lee Lewis (“Great Balls of Fire”) became a pariah and lost his recording contract after he married his 13 year old cousin (it was legal back then).

In short, money and celebrity endorsements won't help these movements. And even if they did, supporting gay rights won't bring any support to these movements, they are wholly separate from one another.

In conclusion: there is no rational argument to equate support of gay rights with furthering the causes of bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, or incest. So stop repeating this ridiculous argument.

And lastly, stop saying “sick homosexual racist militants.” Are you even remotely aware that there are countless homosexuals in the black community? Are they racist? Why do you constantly equate homosexuality with racism? There are countless homosexuals who come from ethnicities that are traditionally marginalized, oppressed, or have histories of slavery and colonial rule. Being gay does not make you racist, being gay also does not exclude you from being the victim of racism. A gay latina woman can simultaneously be a “militant” gay rights advocate and fight for the rights of minorities. Do not equate homosexuality with racism.

Blessings

First of all, the battle for gay marriage is for gay marriage. It is a recognition of the rights of homosexuals to be in relations with one another. It rejects the religious discrimination of a specific lifestyle choice, and affirms the rights of people to act in accordance with their own wants and needs. The legalization of gay marriage legalizes only gay marriage. Allowing homosexuals to marry one another does not set legal precedent allowing bestiality, incest, or necrophilia. These are crimes covered by wholly different statues with different legal and ethical bases. There is absolutely no legal spill over.

Secondly, the movement of gay marriage will not, by any stretch of the imagination, be coopted by those advocating bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, or incest. This equivocation between advocating gay marriage and 'paving the way for all sins' is a common, and ignorant, attack on gay rights and gay advocates have repeatedly made it clear that they stand in opposition to decriminalizing these acts, and that they are wholly separate from their movement. Acknowledging that homosexuality is a right of people, accepting the LGBTQ community, and legalizing gay marriage will not, in any way, further the causes of legalizing every possible scenario of marriage. The movement for gay rights is a movement to grant marriage rights to gays, not to grant marriage rights to everyone. Pretending otherwise is a willful misinterpretation of the LGBTQ movement to slur them.

Third of all, these other acts you mention are not, by any stretch of the imagination commonly supported or burgeoning movements. You are constructing a false threat. There is no national movement to support bestiality, incest, or pedophilia. You might point out to me an organization like NAMBLA, but the fact that in their decades of existence they have not accomplished anything than earn scorn and ridicule should demonstrate that these are not viable movements and they have no chance of crossing over into main stream acceptance. To pretend that legalizing the right of two women to marry suddenly paves the way for those who want to marry their pets, or daughters, or 10 year olds, is ridiculous, and seeks to attack the gay movement for reasons wholly extraneous to the gay debate.

Fourth of all, there is no burden on the gay community to “draw a line.” Explain why we stop at gay marriage. There is no present “line” as to where we stop marriage. You might believe that we have set the line at “straights only,” but you are completely mistaken. Under the status quo, it is legal for transsexuals to marry people of their sex-at-birth. A male-to-female transsexual can marry a man, and a female-to-male transsexual can marry a woman. These marriages are legal, recognized as male-female bonds, and are accepted in all 50 states with full marriage benefits. Furthermore, some states already accept the rights of homosexuals to marry, as laws on marriage differ from state to state. There is no “line” under the status quo that affirms only one form of marriage, there are many different lines and they are constantly shifting. And they shift without leading to the 'other marriage scenarios' you discuss. Fact is, there is no line, and gay marriage advocates don't have to draw a new line, all they have to do is show why accepting the rights of gay people is the ethical choice to make. Anything else is a strawman.

Fifth of all, the reasons to support gay marriage are wholly separate from the other types of marriage you discuss. There are countless non-religious legal, scientific, and ethical reasons to oppose incest, bestiality, and pedophilia. These reasons do not disappear when you legalize gay marriage. There is no scenario you could possibly provide that shows why allowing gay marriage leads to everyone suddenly being able to marry whomever or whatever they want.

Sixth of all, gay marriage has been legalized without leading to any of these ridiculous scenarios anti-Gay Rights activists blabber about. Gay Marriage is presently legal in Massachussets, Connecticut, Iowa, and will be legal in Vermont and Maine by the end of 2009. It is also legal in: Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa. These nations have not suddenly morphed into societies embracing pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. There is absolutely no instance where gay marriage has lead to the decriminalization of these acts. Absolutely none.

The fact of the matter is, there is no empirical, ethical, or logical reason to assume that gay marriage leads to this slippery slope. The only reason people use the slippery slope argument is either out of ignorance or because they don't want to admit that they oppose the rights of gays to marry, and so they pretend they're fighting against pedophilia instead. History, however, makes it clear that they are not fighting against pedophilia, they're simply equating the gay movement with a movement for pedophiles, without admitting the slurs they are using.

Bigamy, btw, is when one person marries two folks – one of whom is unaware of any other marriage but their own.

You are, simply put, a hater and you're either too blind or dumb to see.