Yes I intentionally went with the shock factor of that post. But the reality is we have a class of Americans who are still de jure second class citizens in America. crap like this in Indiana and however many other states are a thinly veiled attempt to enforce more layers of de jure segregation on America through the guise of religious liberty. These exact same arguments were used in miscegenation issues.
Drawing parallels between opposition to gay marriage and interracial marriage is a lazy, flawed argument. In fact, it is downright moronic.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-gay-marriage-doesn-t-make-you-a-crypto-racist.html#
Your post was not only stupid, you magnified it by inserting a racial slur. "Hey everybody, look at me - I'm making a really profound, morally superior argument and I'll use the n-word as an exclamation point!" What a dumbass.
Hey bigot please read my entire post because you're under covered analysis shows you don't grasp the issues at play.
Edit:
WOW thanks for posting that. It really makes it quite clear you are on the wrong side of history and have a fundamental problem with the rights of all Americans.
First issue is the author clearly doesn't understand what marriage means in the modern context. Okay I'll bite that it always has been gendered. Do you really want to go into what fem covert means? do you really want to talk about why and where the legal precedent of spouses being prohibited from testifying against one another comes from? Because if you understood those issues you'd know that marriage has improved dramatically over the centuries. The fact is gender is a social construct based on societal norms. That means the authors flawed attempts at homogenizing marriage over all cultures if fatally flawed from the beginning. The author totally fucks up his position further by noting this as a gender issue instead of recognizing that these laws are being based on sex. At that point his entire critique is void. Yes we should ask people to give up thousands of years of history on marriage so gays can have real citizenship. Just the same way we asked for it to happen for women when we decided they had a fundamental legal identity which wasn't totally subsumed and destroyed because they were attached to their husbands, fathers, or brothers.
Second point is that religion is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean you have the right to discriminate against someone because of their basic humanity. That slipper slope would allow something you fear, the mass application of something like sharia law in America because my liberty of being an oppressive muslim would trump my wife's (remember since you hate evolving marriage law and custom from point one) right to be a secure person and I could beat her and rape her at will because me religion, my gender, and my rights trump her's in your fantasy world.
More on Point 2: OOOHHH it has deep roots in religious history. You know what else does? Banning mixed fabrics. With your logic taken to the extreme I should be allowed to strike people down for their trespasses of wearing poly cotton blends, because my religion says I should cast down all who stand for "abominations". Further more the bible's term for homosexuality being wrong is properly translated into a religious felony of sorts with no scale of standard. That means it could be in violation of a felony on the same level of mixed fabrics or murder. There is no context. How about we give gays some rights and see if the world gets flooded. If we stay dry I think we'll know which side Jesus was on.
Point 3: rough ridin' wow. Every time a glbt person has their rights violated that is a political emergency. Ask a gblt person with someone on the death bed in a bigot state if they would like to have a say in their partner's end of life care. Ask a gblt person if they would like to have kids through adoption with shared parental rights. Ask a gblt person if they would like to have the same rights to pensions, health insurance, or legal protections as a straight couple. Yeah all of those are political emergencies which should be rectified. The wait it out bullshit does only one thing: delay justice. And as William Penn said justice delayed is injustice. That is empirically a political emergency which much rendered just.