[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We heteros have some things that are sacred to us. Why do gays have to be such shitholes that they have to intrude on our culture?
Gay culture, in fact all cultures, are sacrosanct, except for normal heteros who are to be fucked with at every opportunity.
We tried to accomodate gays and other such perversions by giving you civil unions. You took that as a sign of weakness and that now you can crush ALL of our traditions. Its never enough for you homosexual perverts!
Don’t be surprised that, if you keep poking a lion with a stick, that the lion finally tires of you and bites off your arm. Dumb fucks…[/quote]
The only reason there’s such a thing as ‘gay culture’ is because they were forced out of the mainstream. There’s nothing inherent about homosexuality that would give birth to its own sub-culture. Like any group of people singled out for some aspect (some identity group) of themselves, they end up turning it around and making it a point of pride within their community. This always happens.[/quote]
Nonsense. You may as well try to explain the rise of ‘web 2.0’ culture as originating from a minority of people being forced out of the mainstream. Or anime nerds, quilters, and horticulturers developing their own lingo and ettiquette because they were ‘forced’ out of the mainstream.
People find their identity in all sorts of places. The ability to freely associate allows birds of a feather to flock similarly.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You can take issue with the CDC, but in all reality, unsafe homosexual sex causes a number of physical disease’s. I just can’t say it any clearer than that and you can’t really successfully deny that.[/quote]
I don’t take issue with the CDC at all. In fact, I just used them exclusively to make my above point.
makkun wrote: Do MSM engage in risk behaviours? Yes.[…]
As I’ve posted repeatedly, it almost doesn’t matter how much money, or time is committed to informing the homosexual community regarding the risks of HIV, nothing prevents them from having multiple partners and taking multiple risks with those partners. I have a study somewhere pointing out that San francisco spent something like 5 million dollars above and beyond what they usually spend in “educating the gay community.” Apparently the homosexuals laughed at this as HIV actually increased that same year and the year after. Here’s a clue, they know what they are doing is wrong and they still do it. Simple. It’s not about education, it’s about the will to do the right thing.[/quote]
Now that I can’t gather from the CDC data at all. But take the point of the $5m - if only health policy would be so simple. Throwing money at a problem doesn’t solve it necessary. It’s not, and I’m a bit surprised that you don’t seem to understand that. What’s more disturbing though, is that you’re now referring to MSM as ‘the gays’ who seem to have merged into a collective, making sinister decisions. Don’t you see how irrational that sounds?
[quote]Makkun wrote: Men in generally do so more than women,[…]
Yea, this has been discussed many times. When there are two males who are willing there is no one to say no thanks. And, two males are usually willing, hence the problem.[/quote]
A bit simplistic, but I would argue that that plays a role. Yet, what the CDC concentrates on are the risk factors, and how they are confounded by poverty and a homophobic environment. And yes, that’s what the CDC says. I would argue that we should concentrate on the issues we have data for - not only for reasons of rationality, but also of moral.
[quote]Makkun wrote: The disease got into the US via the homosexual community[…]
True, and the homosexual community continues to spread this horrible disease by simply not caring about the people whom they are having sex with. It’s all about enjoying the moment and not really caring about the other person. Nice huh?[/quote]
Evidence for the ‘not caring’ part? Where does the CDC tell you that? Last time I checked in addition to be in the closet and fearful of getting out, in addition to being poor and disadvantaged - and then dying because you didn’t get the memo - wasn’t so much fun. And yet again you label MSM as some form of collective which makes organised decisions. Wouldn’t it be easy if people worked that way.
[quote]Makkun wrote: But transmission is not caused by the homosexual nature of the contact - it is caused by risk behaviours which lie not in the sexual orientation, but in the environment which foster them.[…]
Kind of funny if it were not so sad. Unprotected anal sex spreads HIV. Simple and irrefutable. That is pretty much the end of the story if we were just looking for the truth. But, truth is lost among the politically correct mainstream liberal media which perpetuates the lie of the happily coexisting homosexual couple. Okay, here it comes, the exception to the rule, not the actual rule (not from you Makkun): “I have a neigbor who has lived with his partner for 24 straight years and I have followed them 24/7 and never once have either cheated.” Yawn, that’s nice, now tell the other 97.8% that they should do the same thing-Good Luck.[/quote]
Not evidenced by the CDC source you quoted. You’re introducing assumptions without a) providing any form of source and b) then make an assumption based on it that there’s some form of conspiracy to lie about the thing you haven’t evidenced. Ration and reason went out of the window right there. To stick with the neighbour example - if I were gay, I would wonder how well I would feel if I were surrounded by people who continuously label me with the most sinister of motives and assume the worst. Hey, it might even impact on my mental and physical health - oh wait, that’s what the CDC has data for…
[quote]Makkun wrote: Blaming MSM for the spread of HIV in the US is shortsighted at best, negligent and dangerous at worst.[…]
There is a problem with that thinking. The problem is that part of being a homosexual male is being promiscuous and part of that promiscuity is having unprotected anal sex. You are saying, “hey there’s nothing wrong with that behavior if they just watch themselves.” Those are two diametrically opposed ideas. To be homosexual (for the most part) is to be promiscuous. I can show you studies from reputable sites which demonstrate that even a homosexual who is supposed to be in a committed relationship still has sexual contact with multiple partners.[/quote]
Yet more assertions not based on the CDC. And, yet something has compelled the CDC not to focus on the homosexuality itself - could it be that this is not supported by sufficient evidence? Read through their mass study on behavioural and clinical symptoms of people living with HIV.
[quote]Makkun wrote:
The CDC recognises that, and makes its recommendations accordingly - which is why they never discourage homosexual contact per se - but focus on the risk behaviours. Anything else would be blaming the victims.[…]
The CDC while reporting the truth and shocking all the people who think that homosexuality is perfectly safe cannot be seen as not being politically correct.[/quote]
Oh, I see - the CDC is in on ‘it’ now. Just to summarise - you are labeling ‘the gays’ as some sort of sinister collective which lies and cheats and is protected by the main stream media (the other msm) and now the CDC. How convenient - when the data doesn’t support your conclusion (should I say pre-clusions?), they’re obviously all in on it. Again - does that sound rational? Not to me.
Blams doesn’t solve problems, it confounds them. Looking at causes, data and scientific research and acting upon them does. All I’m getting is outrage - and now some unclear call to stop ‘the gays’ doing what they are doing. I’m not sure if I want you to elaborate. So far, I always thought that your zeal was driven by compassion for the potential victims of a disease - and a in your view treatable mental health condition (as evidenced by your posts on ‘reparative’ therapy). This is now somewhat more - there’s mostly blame and some diffuse call to action. I’m not sure I want to know what you have in mind.
Rest assured - based on the sources quoted, you didn’t really succeed with that. But don’t worry, I care about you [this is for once not a cynical remark], and I hope that over time you will be able to see that it’s more productive to concentrate on solutions than on outrage. And even that gay people may just be normal people after all. You don’t need to like them in the end - but it would be helpful if we could all concentrate on solving the problems we’re confronting rather than leaning back and blaming each other.
Makkun
[Edit]PS: Sorry for the weird layout - I’m having trouble with the quoting functiong.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Bottom line: any contract between two consenting adults should be legal, and recognized by the government as such.
[/quote]
Lawl…So, if we have a contract that you pay me my money or I shot you in your knees until you do, the government should recognize it?[/quote]
Not too clear on the difference between ‘consent’ and ‘coerce’?[/quote]
If someone gets a loan from a loan shark, they know the consequences, yet they still do it. And, I am sure no one coerced them into taking the loan.[/quote]
And the loanshark can kneecap him as long as he’s willing to go jail.Civil vs. criminal…we really are all free to do what we want as long as we can stomach the consequences.
Zeb, I think it is entirely heartless to deny those poor wretched creatures whop are afflicted by the gay to deny them the little amount of happiness they hope to squeeze out of their short, disease ridden life.
Why must you stomp on people who are already burdened with a terrible problem and are headed for eternal damnation?
How about gay stuff is just plain icky and gross? I know it doesn’t contribute much to the debate. But as a gun owner etc. I’ve seen many very specious arguments liberals have tried with no hard stats or science. And I’ve seen thirty years of AIDS.
Gay guys don’t change their behavior and want you to like it. And I won’t and I’ll fight with my vote against it. Education hasn’t worked and won’t work. It’s just another I want to be an idiot and you should have to pay for it thing.
I can make a will and extend property rights to a partner if I was gay. Don’t see the problem there. I updated my will when I got married for app. 150$. Not to hard. But doing this stuff would be a commitment and maybe would be difficult if you had to do it every other week with a new partner.
In engineering, you cannot marry like components. You cannot marry a plug to a plug, you need a socket. You cannot marry a gear to a gear, you need a cog, you cannot marry a tire to a tire, you need a hub, you cannot marry a screw to a screw, you need a nut. The marry something requires to opposing things. This is the important thing that gay relationships lack.
A dude and another dude, is not going to have the same kind of relationship as a man and a woman. There may be some similarities, but the union of man and woman is unique. The forces in a marriage are far greater than any gay relationship. You’re gay partner cannot not leave your ass, take everything you have leave you with nothing and make you the guilty one. That is a unique man-woman thing. A true man-woman marriages makes the highs less frequent and the lows much lower. ← If you don’t get that from your gay marriage, it ain’t a marriage.
So, you can have a union of some sort, where rings, pick out curtains, put people on your insurance, co-sign loans, have say-so in your partner’s medical care, etc. I don’t give a flip about that. But it ain’t no marriage.
The only real victim in your little scenario is the truth!
Rest assured - based on the sources quoted, you didn’t really succeed with that.[/quote]
I beg to differ. My sources are solid and I think everyone knows that.
And I care about you. May you live over 100 years and find that each year of your life is happier and healthier than the previous. There, top that for caring!
The answer is not in accepting a lifestyle that is killing, and tormenting homosexuals. That is tantamount to enabling your alcoholic spouse to keep drinking because he or she likes it. As a matter of fact the only group who has the mental and physical disease ratio per group that homosexuals do are in fact alcoholics.
It’s time that we actually try to help these people by not enabling them to kill themselves and all whom they seem not to care about.
There is a wide span in that definition isn’t there?
I actually love them and I mean that. You, like many in this day and age, confuse love and enabling. If you love someone do you let them drive drunk? How’s the slogan go? “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” Yea that’s it. So, why don’t you let someone drive drunk? Uh huh. Well it’s an easy comparison because homosexuals are doing the same thing. They are killing themselves and others. But we should just sit on the sidelines and say “good for you, go for it man we’re all with you.” That is not love, that is enabling and I don’t do that that because it is not a solution to the problem, it is perpetuating the problem.
[quote]
[Edit]PS: Sorry for the weird layout - I’m having trouble with the quoting functiong.[/quote]
No problem, not a lot of time today anyway. And at this point I think we know how the other feels. I can’t help but think in a different time you might agree with me. But between the liberal University’s and the mainstream liberal media, there is too much false information being spread. The sort of painful reality that most homosexuals lead is nothing to glamorize. They need our love, and even more so, our help.
[quote]orion wrote:
Zeb, I think it is entirely heartless to deny those poor wretched creatures whop are afflicted by the gay to deny them the little amount of happiness they hope to squeeze out of their short, disease ridden life.
Why must you stomp on people who are already burdened with a terrible problem and are headed for eternal damnation?
[/quote]
Good sarcasm orion, I would expect nothing less. Unfortunately that doesn’t solve the problem, nor does it accurately depict what I have been posting, or my true feelings. People can do things out of love which seem harsh. My Dad used to take things away from me when I was a boy, it seemed harsh, but many years later I realize that he had my best interests at heart, and it made me a better man.
Enabling doesn’t help anyone. Would you continue to buy an alcoholic beer, because they wanted it so very badly?
I know the above is not something you’ll find out watching “Will & Grace” or anywhere out of the mainstream liberal media. They want you to think that there is no danger at all from homosexual behavior. But darn those pesky facts, they just keep getting in the way of their dream world.
[/quote]
I read the quote and it is a terrible thing. However, I don’t understand why it’s in a government’s best interest to deny a right to a group of individuals when some members of said group may engage in reckless behavior unrelated to the right being disputed. It’s akin to denying the right of goverment-recognized marriage to a hetero couple because straight people die in skydiving accidents in a greater proportion than their share of the overall population would suggest.
What I take from the CDC site is that gay and bisexual men need to either practice safer sex or abstain lest they infect themselves.
In neither case does the government have a compelling case to withold recognition of a civil union.
[/quote]
This^ is an excellent post. [/quote]
No it’s not, it’s a logical fallacy, unless you mean this logical fallacy is a good fallacy, then sure you maybe correct, but I’ve still seen better.[/quote]
It’s neither a strawman nor a logical fallacy.
And you’ve not addressed the point: does the government have the right to deny a right to a group just because some members of that group engage in risky behavior? Where did this imaginary hurdle come from, do we find it in any other area of constitutional law?
We allow fugitives, pedophiles, child pornographers, loan sharks, mafia dons, numbers runners, casino operators, alcoholics, drug abusers, juicers, and personal injury lawyers (ha!) to marry. Therefore, I just don’t see any kind of fitness test for recognizing marriage that the government could possibly adhere to.
[quote]pat wrote:
In engineering, you cannot marry like components. You cannot marry a plug to a plug, you need a socket. You cannot marry a gear to a gear, you need a cog, you cannot marry a tire to a tire, you need a hub, you cannot marry a screw to a screw, you need a nut. The marry something requires to opposing things. This is the important thing that gay relationships lack. [/quote]
This is just silly, you can’t possibly believe that Constitutional law be based upon a trite engineering example, especially when it’s so easily manipulated.
This just in! Gay love is like a Tig welder allowing one to weld like to like…
Just silly.
[quote]pat worte:
The forces in a marriage are far greater than any gay relationship. You’re gay partner cannot not leave your ass, take everything you have leave you with nothing and make you the guilty one. That is a unique man-woman thing. A true man-woman marriages makes the highs less frequent and the lows much lower. ← If you don’t get that from your gay marriage, it ain’t a marriage.[/quote]
What are these forces you speak of?
And if I understand you correctly, gay marriage shouldn’t be recognized because a gay man can’t (allegedly) cause as much suffering to his mate as a straight partner can? I find your focus on suffering as a litmus test of fitness to marriage to be a bit strange, to say the least.
[quote]pat wrote:
In engineering, you cannot marry like components. You cannot marry a plug to a plug, you need a socket. You cannot marry a gear to a gear, you need a cog, you cannot marry a tire to a tire, you need a hub, you cannot marry a screw to a screw, you need a nut. The marry something requires to opposing things. This is the important thing that gay relationships lack. [/quote]
This is just silly, you can’t possibly believe that Constitutional law be based upon a trite engineering example, especially when it’s so easily manipulated.
This just in! Gay love is like a Tig welder allowing one to weld like to like…
Just silly.
[quote]pat worte:
The forces in a marriage are far greater than any gay relationship. You’re gay partner cannot not leave your ass, take everything you have leave you with nothing and make you the guilty one. That is a unique man-woman thing. A true man-woman marriages makes the highs less frequent and the lows much lower. ← If you don’t get that from your gay marriage, it ain’t a marriage.[/quote]
What are these forces you speak of?
And if I understand you correctly, gay marriage shouldn’t be recognized because a gay man can’t (allegedly) cause as much suffering to his mate as a straight partner can? I find your focus on suffering as a litmus test of fitness to marriage to be a bit strange, to say the least.
[/quote]
Strange, but it’s true and you seemed to agree or at least did not dispute.
Second, I don’t care about what they do, but a marriage, it ain’t. A man-man or woman-woman relationship is not the same as a man-woman relationship and should not be referred to as the same. Call it something else. Coupling, pair bonding, linking, union, whatever… If you call that marriage, than the man-woman bound relationship should be named different. But since the man-woman bonding was called marriage first, I think the gays should have to pick a different name. I don’t care if they hook up and want some recognition of it, but it’s not he same as a hetero marriage and should that fact should be acknowledged.
[quote]pat wrote:
In engineering, you cannot marry like components. You cannot marry a plug to a plug, you need a socket. You cannot marry a gear to a gear, you need a cog, you cannot marry a tire to a tire, you need a hub, you cannot marry a screw to a screw, you need a nut. The marry something requires to opposing things. This is the important thing that gay relationships lack. [/quote]
This is just silly, you can’t possibly believe that Constitutional law be based upon a trite engineering example, especially when it’s so easily manipulated.
This just in! Gay love is like a Tig welder allowing one to weld like to like…
Just silly.
[quote]pat worte:
The forces in a marriage are far greater than any gay relationship. You’re gay partner cannot not leave your ass, take everything you have leave you with nothing and make you the guilty one. That is a unique man-woman thing. A true man-woman marriages makes the highs less frequent and the lows much lower. ← If you don’t get that from your gay marriage, it ain’t a marriage.[/quote]
What are these forces you speak of?
And if I understand you correctly, gay marriage shouldn’t be recognized because a gay man can’t (allegedly) cause as much suffering to his mate as a straight partner can? I find your focus on suffering as a litmus test of fitness to marriage to be a bit strange, to say the least.
[/quote]
Strange, but it’s true and you seemed to agree or at least did not dispute.
Second, I don’t care about what they do, but a marriage, it ain’t. A man-man or woman-woman relationship is not the same as a man-woman relationship and should not be referred to as the same. Call it something else. Coupling, pair bonding, linking, union, whatever… If you call that marriage, than the man-woman bound relationship should be named different. But since the man-woman bonding was called marriage first, I think the gays should have to pick a different name. I don’t care if they hook up and want some recognition of it, but it’s not he same as a hetero marriage and should that fact should be acknowledged.[/quote]
So your argument against gay marriage is based purely in semantics?
My argument is the fact that it is supposed to be accepted as normal.
You can be whoever the hell you want to be, but it is my right as an individual not to accept you. Government has interferred enough in religion to a point where there are so many watered down versions of christianity it is pathetic, ones that tought sexual immorality as being ok.
marriage is a religeous institute, civil unions are government contracts.
what is more outrageous that the governement can tell me as said business owner that I have to cater to anyone. If I own say a fitness center, I should have the right to deny anyone I want a membership for any reason. I own the business. But this special interest driven collective seems to think they can infringe upon my rights and tell me what to do. Or those deprived oppressed people can suite me.
[quote]pat worte:
Second, I don’t care about what they do, but a marriage, it ain’t. A man-man or woman-woman relationship is not the same as a man-woman relationship and should not be referred to as the same. Call it something else. Coupling, pair bonding, linking, union, whatever… If you call that marriage, than the man-woman bound relationship should be named different. But since the man-woman bonding was called marriage first, I think the gays should have to pick a different name. I don’t care if they hook up and want some recognition of it, but it’s not he same as a hetero marriage and should that fact should be acknowledged.[/quote]
I think you’ve hit on a very important point. I think many people are uncomfortable not with the ideas of gay couples being recognized by the government, but by the nomenclature. I think many people would be comfortable with calling the government sanctioned institution a “civil union” and reserve the term “marriage” for the institution recognized by religious organizations.
[quote]pat worte:
Second, I don’t care about what they do, but a marriage, it ain’t. A man-man or woman-woman relationship is not the same as a man-woman relationship and should not be referred to as the same. Call it something else. Coupling, pair bonding, linking, union, whatever… If you call that marriage, than the man-woman bound relationship should be named different. But since the man-woman bonding was called marriage first, I think the gays should have to pick a different name. I don’t care if they hook up and want some recognition of it, but it’s not he same as a hetero marriage and should that fact should be acknowledged.[/quote]
I think you’ve hit on a very important point. I think many people are uncomfortable not with the ideas of gay couples being recognized by the government, but by the nomenclature. I think many people would be comfortable with calling the government sanctioned institution a “civil union” and reserve the term “marriage” for the institution recognized by religious organizations.
[/quote]
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I think you’ve hit on a very important point. I think many people are uncomfortable not with the ideas of gay couples being recognized by the government, but by the nomenclature. I think many people would be comfortable with calling the government sanctioned institution a “civil union” and reserve the term “marriage” for the institution recognized by religious organizations.
[/quote]
We have nonreligious marriages. In Norway gays can marry, but the christian based religions choose not to marry gay people, and that is okay. Who wants to marry trough a belief system that says you are an abomination anyways.
[quote]pat wrote:
In engineering, you cannot marry like components. You cannot marry a plug to a plug, you need a socket. You cannot marry a gear to a gear, you need a cog, you cannot marry a tire to a tire, you need a hub, you cannot marry a screw to a screw, you need a nut. The marry something requires to opposing things. This is the important thing that gay relationships lack. [/quote]
This is just silly, you can’t possibly believe that Constitutional law be based upon a trite engineering example, especially when it’s so easily manipulated.
This just in! Gay love is like a Tig welder allowing one to weld like to like…
Just silly.
[quote]pat worte:
The forces in a marriage are far greater than any gay relationship. You’re gay partner cannot not leave your ass, take everything you have leave you with nothing and make you the guilty one. That is a unique man-woman thing. A true man-woman marriages makes the highs less frequent and the lows much lower. ← If you don’t get that from your gay marriage, it ain’t a marriage.[/quote]
What are these forces you speak of?
And if I understand you correctly, gay marriage shouldn’t be recognized because a gay man can’t (allegedly) cause as much suffering to his mate as a straight partner can? I find your focus on suffering as a litmus test of fitness to marriage to be a bit strange, to say the least.
[/quote]
Strange, but it’s true and you seemed to agree or at least did not dispute.
Second, I don’t care about what they do, but a marriage, it ain’t. A man-man or woman-woman relationship is not the same as a man-woman relationship and should not be referred to as the same. Call it something else. Coupling, pair bonding, linking, union, whatever… If you call that marriage, than the man-woman bound relationship should be named different. But since the man-woman bonding was called marriage first, I think the gays should have to pick a different name. I don’t care if they hook up and want some recognition of it, but it’s not he same as a hetero marriage and should that fact should be acknowledged.[/quote]
So your argument against gay marriage is based purely in semantics?[/quote]
I am arguing about the semantic of the word “marriage”. I don’t care if they hook up and want to christen it with a ceremony and have all that goes with it. But it’s not the same as a man-woman marriage and should not be referred to as the same thing. Yes, for me it’s the terminology. I otherwise could careless what gay people do. That’s not my business, but it should be called something that signify it as the union it is and not a “marriage” which it is not.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Bottom line: any contract between two consenting adults should be legal, and recognized by the government as such.
[/quote]
Lawl…So, if we have a contract that you pay me my money or I shot you in your knees until you do, the government should recognize it?[/quote]
Not too clear on the difference between ‘consent’ and ‘coerce’?[/quote]
If someone gets a loan from a loan shark, they know the consequences, yet they still do it. And, I am sure no one coerced them into taking the loan.[/quote]
And the loanshark can kneecap him as long as he’s willing to go jail.Civil vs. criminal…we really are all free to do what we want as long as we can stomach the consequences.[/quote]
The above poster clearly stated the government should recognize ANY contract.
I know the above is not something you’ll find out watching “Will & Grace” or anywhere out of the mainstream liberal media. They want you to think that there is no danger at all from homosexual behavior. But darn those pesky facts, they just keep getting in the way of their dream world.
[/quote]
I read the quote and it is a terrible thing. However, I don’t understand why it’s in a government’s best interest to deny a right to a group of individuals when some members of said group may engage in reckless behavior unrelated to the right being disputed. It’s akin to denying the right of goverment-recognized marriage to a hetero couple because straight people die in skydiving accidents in a greater proportion than their share of the overall population would suggest.
What I take from the CDC site is that gay and bisexual men need to either practice safer sex or abstain lest they infect themselves.
In neither case does the government have a compelling case to withold recognition of a civil union.
[/quote]
This^ is an excellent post. [/quote]
No it’s not, it’s a logical fallacy, unless you mean this logical fallacy is a good fallacy, then sure you maybe correct, but I’ve still seen better.[/quote]
It’s neither a strawman nor a logical fallacy.
And you’ve not addressed the point: does the government have the right to deny a right to a group just because some members of that group engage in risky behavior? Where did this imaginary hurdle come from, do we find it in any other area of constitutional law?
We allow fugitives, pedophiles, child pornographers, loan sharks, mafia dons, numbers runners, casino operators, alcoholics, drug abusers, juicers, and personal injury lawyers (ha!) to marry. Therefore, I just don’t see any kind of fitness test for recognizing marriage that the government could possibly adhere to.
[/quote]
First that is not the reason they are being denied those rights. And sorry those are not rights. Marriage is not a right.
Second, if that was the reason. How would something a person does that is not intrinsic to marriage, like sky diving, be equal to something like unprotected sex that is intrinsic to the gay relationship? It’s not therefore, your argument is fallacious as you are arguing against a straw-man argument. Your metaphor is skewed and untrue and the fact is that because these groups are immersed into dangerous behavior do they not have the privilege to get married.
But don’t worry, I care about you [this is for once not a cynical remark], and I hope that over time you will be able to see that it’s more productive to concentrate on solutions than on outrage. And even that gay people may just be normal people after all. You don’t need to like them in the end - but it would be helpful if we could all concentrate on solving the problems we’re confronting rather than leaning back and blaming each other.