Is opposition to gay marriage hate?

here is a story. Let's suppose you know a kid in middle school who eats his boogers. Yeah, what a disgusting habit. That kid thinks there is nothing wrong with eat boogers since we all swallow our own saliva too. what's the difference?! Hum..true.... That kid also says if I eat my booger how does it harm you in anyway? True. That kid also asks "am I not a human being even though I like to eat my booger?" well, yeah, that's right he's still a human being. So you decided to be his friend as long as he doesn't try to offer you his booger to eat :) You try to stop other kids from making fun of him or even beating him up. So you actually try to protect him. But one day that kid comes to you ask you to sign a petition to the national institute of education and you asked him what the petition is all about. He said he wants to petition to change the official English definition of the word booger from "solidified nasal mucus" to "an acceptable and chewy salty snack" he claims this change of definition will gain him rights and equality and stops discrimination, etc. Of course any person with common sense will say "dude, I respect your booger eating habit and I even defended you when other kids try to kick your ass. But man, changing the definition of booger to snack is going way to far. Booger is not snack and I don't want kids around the country to learn that booger is a snack!" How would you feel if that kid after finding out you don't support changing the definition of boogers started to spit on you, hate you, call you a bigot, a close minded fool, and even threatens to hit you? Isn't this story outrageous and ridiculous? Well, that's what gay activists are doing. Even though we Americans disagreed but tolerated their gay behaviors they turn on us and wrongfully accused any Americans who disagree with changing the definition of marriage as hateful and bigots! Well, just to make it plain to gay activists, we do not support changing the definition of marriage the same way we do not support changing the definition of booger to be included as a snack!

Right to vote being stripped away

What is the right to vote? Does it simply mean you can vote? or does your vote need to be counted? in other words, if we say African Americans have the right to vote but if some white folks don't like the way they voted then African Americans' votes can be discarded. Is that right to vote? Obviously NOT! The right to vote is for someone to be able to vote and his/her vote is counted.

Proposition 22 in California shows that about 60% of Californians favor the definition of marriage to be between opposite sexes. And the 4 judges under influence and pressure from gay activists said pretty much "oh, wait, thanks for voting but since we don't like the way you voted so your votes don't count and prop 22 is unconstitutional. Ha Ha." That equates to taking the right to vote from 60% of the people because whatever they've just voted didn't matter. WTF? Imaging you voted for Obama and the supreme court says "whatever, we don't like the way you voted and this election doesn't count" man, there will riots! Because people's votes need to be respected and counted. In essence, gay activists are trying to get marital rights for 10% of the population by stripping away the right to vote of 60% of the population! That is un-democratic and plainly evil! No one should be able to sit and watch our democracy is being undermined in such a fundermental way!

Where does it stop

When gay activists argue we should change the definition of marriage that often leads me to think where this slippery slope will stop.

Current definition of marriages
union between 2 adult human beings of opposite sex

the version of marriage definition proposed by gays is to remove the clause "opposite sex"
union between 2 adult humans beings

The polygamists will then also argue to change the number 2 to "x" to permit polygamy.
union between x number of adult humans beings

Then under age marriage proponents will argue to drop the word "adult"
union between x number of humans beings

The bestiality sickos will then argue to drop the word "human"
union between x number of beings

and so on so forth.......if we allow gay marriages to go ahead then I ask "where does it stop"?

Stupidity of changing definition of marriage

Gay activists often argue that changing the definition of marriage will give them more rights and equality. That on the surface sounds good but after a bit of thinking I realize how ridiculous it really is. Here is an analogy to make it clear.

I for one oppose affirmative action based on race because that takes away rights and equal treatment of poor/disadvantaged white people. So the proper approach to correct this problem is to revisit how we administer the affirmative action i.e. make it need-based not race-based i.e. anyone regardless of color should be able to receive help if he/she is disadvantaged socially and economically. But if someone tells me there is a quicker way to correct the current affirmative action laws by changing the definition of the phrase "colored people" to include white people because white is technically a color so white people should be also classified under the phrase "colored people" therefore they will be automatically included in the current race-based affirmative action laws since they are also "colored". I would say " what the heck are you thinking? what ? no, this is a stupid short cut instead of a thorough fix of the problem. If we change the definition of colored people to include white folks then what is the point of having the phrase colored people? ie. why don't we just say "everybody" instead of colored people then? This is a ridiculous idea". Well, it's the same thing with gay marriages. Currently family benefits are administered based primarily on marriage that indeed exclude others from getting equal rights in some cases. We need to thoroughly review how we give out family benefits such as giving social security benefits not only to surviving spouse, but maybe also to domestic partners, or even sibling partners (e.g. 2 old sisters who never got married to anyone and they live together to support and depend on each other. They are not emotionally or sexually engaged so they are not civil unioned but they are a form of plutonic partnership and I think they should be able to get each other's social security benefit should one decease). As you can see we should review and change the way to administer benefits. However, it is plainly a stupid idea for gay activists to say there is a quicker short cut by changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples. This does not solve the problem (i.e. the issue of 2 old sisters metnioned above would still be unresolved by gay marriages and they will still be discrimated and excluded) and if we change the definition of marriage to include gay couples, then what stops others from continue to change the definition of marriages? Changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples to get equal family benefits is as ridiculous as changing the definition of the phrase "colored people" to include white people in order to get equal benefits under affirmative actions. Gosh, liberals think they are all smart but not really. They are cows who don't think for themselves.

Gay activists are forcing their opinion on the rest of americans

Gay activists often ask me questions such as “why can’t gays get married?” I tell them the issue is not whether or not gays can get married. As a matter of fact gays CAN get married. They are free to call each other husband and wife and on one says gays cannot do that. The real issue is that gays want to go one step further by making it a law to allow gay marriages so that OTHER people who are morally, religiouly, socially, or culturelly object to gay marriages will be FORCED to accept it under law. So the issue should be correctly stated as “why are gays forcing their opinions onto the rest of americans?” So don’t let gay activitests trick you by thinking that the issue is about not letting them get married but rather show it to everyone that the issue is gays are forcing their opinion on us. This clarification instantly turns the table on this issue. I often ask them at the end of the discuss “how would liberal americans feel if the christians are making a law stating that Jesus Christ is now legally recognized as the national Savior of America (like national flag, national anthem , national flower, national birds, etc)?” Liberals would fight to death to prevent such a law even though it has no direct impact on their lives because they do not believe in Jesus and do not want their country to be associated w/ anything they fundermentally disagree. well, this is kinda the same for christians and normal americans alike on the gay issue. We will not be forced to accept anything we fundermentally disagree on a national, state or local level.

is gay movement (gay marriage) a civil rights issue?

people often compare gay marriages with interracial marriages. Specifically they say “well 100 yrs ago people of 2 races cannot get married but they can now, people of the same gender is not allowed to get married today and by the same reasoning that they should be allowed to get married just like people of different races”. let me just say as a minority myself that this comparison is totally inappropriate. One cannot compare race issue with gay issue. These 2 things are totally separate. If this approach of piggyback one movement on the previous movement is valid then what stops people who promote under age marriage from piggyback onto the gay movement? what prevents polygamist, beastiality people, etc. from also claiming “gee you let gays get married then why can’t we get married?” When people ask me “so interracial marriage is ok, then why can’t gay marriages be ok?” I ask them “let’s suppose gay marriages are legal, how would you respond if someone ask you a similar question that if gay marriage is ok, then why isn’t underage, polygamist, or even beastality marriage legal? If you say gender is not an issue, then people will say then why is age, number, and species matter in marriages?” once they hear my response I can see those gay activists are confused in their mind because they know the validity of this argument and they have nothing solid to respond. Often time they just respond something like “whatever” and resume their hateful name calling tactics. Their ignorant behavior clearly shows me that reasoning is NOT on their side contrary to what they claim. In addition, all of the people I’ve met who make such comparison between race and homosexuality are liberal white americans. Man, I say those libral white americans are ignorant and have no true understanding of what civil rights movement really is. Having someone stating that civil rights movement and gay marriage movements are the same is like hearing some libral white american stating that koreans and japanese are the same. Dude, give me a break. You stupid white libral americans. I have NEVER EVER hear a minority making such ignorant comparison.

2nd, if someone finds a bone and believes it’s a definiative proof of evolution and takes this bone to Dr. Darwin (assumes he is still alive). After careful examination Darwin himself declares this bone is nothing but a KFC chicken bone and means nothing to his theory of revolution. When Darwin himself, the creator of the theory of evolution, says something is not a proof of evolution that means a LOT. Because he will be the most enthusiastic person to embrace anything that supports his theory. when he rejects a proof that means it really is not a proof. so why am I tell you this example? well, african americans are the group that founded the modern civil rights movement, they’ve talk the talk, walk the walk, many of them died for their cause. and they continue to carry on the fight for civil rights. If the gay movement is truely part of the civil rights movement, then of course the african american community will open their arms to embrace it. But the reality is that OVERWHELMING percentage of the african americans and civil rights leaders say the gay movement is NOT a part of the civil rights movement. And as a matter of fact they resent such comparison. This goes to show you that gay marriage movements are so lacking support that they unilaterally piggy back on the civil rights movement in order to gain legitamcy.

In the next postings I will discuss the proposition 8 in california, my view of gay marriages, etc. stay tuned