So in the future, try not to review movies by comparing them to the movies that are going to be coming out in the next several years.

lol I said 'coming out' in a Massa talkback. HOW DARING!!

If the best reason for seeing a movie is because I can make someone I dont like spending time with uncomfortable, well, guess what - THE FACT THAT HES BIGOTED AND I INVITED HIM TO THE MOVIES MAKES US BOTH PLENTY UNCOMFORTABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Can you please just stick to reviewing board games? I want to know if painting an army of elves makes me gay, or if I should stick to orcs and goblins so that I can assert my heterosexuality on the surface of a beer stained pool table in my parent's garage.

Brolin cameos as The ghost of Saddam Hussien who also turns out to be a fan of the manbits. If The Ghost and Mister Miur made your toes curl, this sequel will flat iron your pubis and make your junk look like Cher if Cher was 6 inches tall and had an elephant trunk for a face.

*embedded furry sig image from my DeviantART page*

So then I have to wonder - what happens after THAT? Group marriages where a batch of people figure out a way to get themselves a nice tax break if they say "yeah all 16 of us are in love and want to marry"? And dogs are very loyal - whose to say a dog owner with a dog that very clearly and visibly loves its owner, should not be allowed to marry.

So far, nobody has said in any of this literature, where this whole 'movement' will draw a finish line and pack up its things. It makes the whole 'homosexual marriage' look like a front piece of an entirely different agenda. Im not saying I am pro prop 8, but Im saying that those who are against it, at least the organized ones, are also in favor of some really creepy stuff if anyone bothered to spend time listening to EVERYTHING they're saying.

As for violations of civil rights, every single day in this country somewhere someone gets beaten up randomly for being gay. This took two seconds to google. http://www.washingtonblade.com /2008/11-21/news/localnews/136 28.cfm As for why gays would want to marry, why wouldn't people want people in love to be able to aspire to a lifelong commitment? By refusing that it says that love between two people irregardless of gender is less than any others. You're saying that two people who want to devote themselves with the utmost commitment with vows in front of everyone are doing something wrong, when they are in fact saying no to promiscuity or instability. What fucking gives you're so scared of that? And nycbusyguy or whatevs, not even the term homosexual, or even gay should mean anything. It's just people, in love. If you put anyone's sex life under a microscope someone would find it weird. There isn't a man alive who hasn't jerked off to some kind of dubious thought. As a comfortable straight man I've even seen gay male porn and guess what, no reaction from me whatsoever. Not even disgust, just not turned on by it. How many of you queer haters could do the same, or are you scared of finding something out about yourselves? Is gay love the same thing anyway as gay sex? What is it about gay people that's so frightening to you all?

For reference, the movie was 300.

It advocates polygamy and sibling unions in black and white.

as for the dog-owner marriage rights - all I was going for there was to get someone else to type ArcadianDS in their post. Thanks for making me feel so very special.

The fact of the matter is, 10 percent of the population is gay. One in ten. I want you homophobes to think about that today while you go about your business. There's a chacne that every tenth person you meet is.... GAY. Big fuckin deal. Shit, I'd rather that Sulu gets to be married in public and see him kiss his husband than I'd ever want to see a waingro from heat looking motherfucker jerking it to online porn of rv bukkake parties with girls holding teddy bears.

Sorry dude, but that just never happened. That movie was all about the gay, and never let you forget it.

Purely from a non-religious position, and from a scientific one, homosexuality is an aberration of our construction - Im not going to say its an evil evil sin or that its a very bad thing. Im saying that within the framework of nature itself, homosexuality is a tangent; it is outside of the normal process - not normal.

abnormal.

Congrats on presenting the worst strawman since Nicolas Cage.

Also - if your name is Leche then I laugh at you hard.

In a word? YES.

btw: when something is mainstream, its not accurate to refer to it as 'fringe' - as fringe suggests something that is outside of mainstream. The mainstream world at large has accepted that 'normal' coitus consists of the conjunction of a vagina and a penis. Those who do not agree with this sentiment - they are on the 'fringe'

Why?

Simple: cause then every straight woman would be knocking on my door natch!

In all seriousness...either shit like this has no place in a state or federal context (and it fucking shouldn't) or those who are pushing religious morality need to start paying taxes (churches). The fact that we're even talking about a moral principle based on theological views is offensive to anyone who truly believes in the separation of church and state. Keep the Church out of the State and keep the State out of the Church. And now that pastors are openly coaching their members to vote in specific ways or denying them religious service due to their voting choices, then these guys need to start paying taxes and join in the political banality game like everybody else.

Unless, of course, Holy shit doesn't smell.

Let me tell you why... The Bononbos monkeys are the one they always try to compare to humans. Well of course they have gay sex. That's all good and fine, and I got nothing wrong with it, but they also have Incest and they Kill and Eat each other.... We could argue till we are blue in the face about how natural that is, but in truth what those creatures are doing are purely based on instinct and primal desire.

I'd like to think we are different.. We shouldn't open that door bro. Theres some crazy fucking shit behind it that will make the statement look poor.

Let me guess, You were expecting it to say "i might be secretly gay" right?

That whole notion of 'people who dont like gays are actually gays' is the most asinine thing I've ever heard or read in a homofagual debate.

I happen to also not like tunafish. I suppose this means that deep down inside myself, I actually love tunafish so much that I just cannot get enough of it. But Im afraid I'll look like a douche at the supermarket with a cart loaded with canned tuna, so I have to say things like, "tuna sucks man amirite?!" and then glance around nervously to see if anyone has seen through my ruse.

yeah - its that kind of stupid.

if one looks at nature without the distorted prism of scripture one finds that it is remorselely indifferent to the notion of human morality or norms. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo!

Well fuck! I'd go Gay/Black/Minority right the fuck now, if it would grant me ownership over my own little island, all for me self! Give me the island. I will blow you in Blackface with a Spanish Accent.

clearly I've been the victim of an agenda-driven educational system and all the biology texts I've read in my life were written by a consortium of gay-bashing scientists, can you give me some suggested reading material - specifically some biology textbooks that say, "homosexaulity is actually the normal method of intercourse within nature." I'll read it with an open mind, and then laugh at it when Im done.

I just read a Sears catalog and I've diagnosed you as a tool.

Do not equivocate "normal" with "common" as it detracts the debate into bullshit semantics and then people just have insult shouting verbal tennis-matches and it's just a big stupid mess.

I'm going to read this TB, and then once up to speed, go to war.

Thats just childish and dumb. in a word: "gay"

Not that I'd know...

Just saying guys don't point the finger at the animals for logic. It's dumb! And you all know I'm for Gay rights right. Please don't I'm the jerk. I think as long as it mutual and it doesn't hurt anyone. What's the big deal.

And being a copypasta machine doesn't make you any kind of intellectual. An 8 year old with downs can copypasta from wikipedia. Hell, you just proved that.

And you wont be seeing me because you're not taking me to a gaybar gaybar

Unless you're douche fag with a pretentiously faux latin handle, in which case, typos and such are ripe fodder for counter-arguments.

I don't know where I got those silly ideas into my head.

also lol @ u for not being able to stay away for longer than 23 seconds.

11:47:17 AM - "Good luck in all your endeavors, bud. Be seeing you."

11:56:53 AM - "OH HAI IM BACK"

The question you have to ask yourselves (pay attention at the back)is "Why do you give a shit about 2 consenting adults getting married"

Those who still want to seriously try to debate me on this topic probably need to just take a moment, realize they got rolled, and then let it go. If I have to, I'll whip out my "DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD Approved" card.

A warm glass of semen to wash out all the filth coming out of your mouth.

You naughty boy ;)

I like the fact that Hollywood is doing a pro-milk film. More people should drink it. Fuck soya.

I also like the fact that Sean Penn plays a bottle of milk in this. If I was a brilliant actor, I'd sometimes want to just say "Fuck it" and play a bottle of milk too.

And I defy you to prove me wrong.

And churches wouldn't have had to marry gays if Prop 8 passed.

Now please bend over.

and "it's objectively a flaw the inhibits the correct functioning of the reproductive system"...what the fuck are you talking about??!!!

"But the bible is against homosexuality." -The inadequacies of the Leviticus passages (all of which except the part slurring gays have been abandoned as archaic hygiene laws) are well documented, and biblical scholars disagree as to what the story of Sodom and Gamorrah actually signifies, whether the reisdents of said towns were damned for being gay, just sexually libidinous overall, or for being assholes in general.

"Christian churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies." -Who's asking them to? Does a church have to perform a wedding for anyone if they don't want? No. Easily one of the lamest anti-gay marriage arguments out there, but thanks for playing.

"If we let gay marriage happen, we have to let people marry pets, underage children, pieces of furniture and video game consoles." -The slippery slope argument. Indeed, where will we ever draw the line? Certainly not at two consenting adults, God forfend.

"Gay marriage goes beyond just asking for tolerance, and demands approval of "lifestyles" I don't agree with." Good one, sparky. This argument belies the insistence that homosexuality can be tolerated, but only if gay people live in shame and secrecy, hiding their relationships and feelings from the world and forever resigned to the empty blackness of the social closet. Sounds great, I can't believe gays don't take this option readily. AFter all, who wants to be yourself and respected as yourself in society? That certainly isn't a tenet of being a member of society or anything. The "don't ask don't tell" form of dealing with the issue.

"But this is democracy in action; the will of the people is clear." Nice sentiment, but the same argument was made for slavery, segregation, restriction of voting rights, etc. The will of the people isn't always in line with democratic principles, and infamously fascist states have arisen from popular vote.

Bottom line: Proposition 8 represents a dangerous precedent. Voting to take away someone else's previously granted rights is an ugly and desperate action, all the more so because gay marriage was legal in California for a while, and nothing measurably bad became of it. There was no threat here, and no amount of justification can obfuscate that those that voted for the measure did so to make themselves less threatened by something that didn't harm them in any real form.

However, there are some new problems that arise. Benefits generally will probably be limited to one spouse, for example.

I would rather my child grown up in a world of married gays, than spend five minutes in a classroom with your brain-dead kid.

Kindly fuck off.

I seriously think a lot of people define homosexuality in just that way.

...that two men or women... straight or gay...don't have the ability to form a mutually beneficial social contract that, in the eyes of the law, hold one another responsible for the well being of the pair.

It's no different than any business partnership...just that it's a partnership in life...which is the biggest business of all.

This arguement should NOT be about homosexual marriage, it should be about the right to choose your own path in life as long as it doesn't directly and detrimentally effect the lives of those around you. Otherwise known as privacy nd the persuit of happiness. It is actually rather unfortunate that homosexuality has become the poster child for this movement because of the irrelavant religious and prejudicial overtones it brings to an otherwise simple human rights issue.

Civil Unions and marriage are the exact same thing, and anyone who says the difference is that marriage is between a man and a women is using very flawed logic and needs to take another look at exactly what they are basing their opinion on.

It’s not a difficult concept – democracy does not equal mob rule. Laws are made by duly elected legislatures and initiatives are passed by a majority of voters all the time that get stricken down by courts as unconstitutional. A majority of the population did not believe in interracial marriages in the 30’s. A majority of the population did not believe black people should be able to vote in the 60’s. It doesn’t really matter what a majority of people want or believe – the courts have always been more progressive and aggressive in recognizing the inherent rights granted by the constitution of all citizens (irrespective of unpopular beliefs or lifestyles). Sometimes it takes the general population a few decades to catch up but it’s inevitable – our society progresses and this model has served us very well for 200+ years. Whine all you want wingers – history has shown you are fighting a losing battle and gay marriage will be legal in this country someday.

Also, please stop with the slippery slope argument of “then we’ll have to allow incest, child brides, and bestiality”. These sorts of straw-men arguments just make you like more of an idiot. Do you really think you can compare two loving adults who have consented to commit to an enduring relationship with a pervert marrying a child or an animal that is by any definition incapable of making the same rational decisions about their life as an adult human? Seriously???

When it comes to protecting the rights of minority groups – you rarely will get an amendment or even a majority vote (precisely because it’s a minority concern). The court was smart enough to recognize that we’ve tried separate but equal in the country and it doesn’t work. Equality is guaranteed – therefore gay marriage must be allowed. A lot of wingers point to this as the most egregious example of judicial activism overriding the will of the people, but really, they just did their job.

Speaking of the Supreme Court and bad judges, a perfect example is Anton Scalia. Here's a judge with a legacy of pursuing his militant conservative beliefs whether there's a constitutional basis for them or not. In a recent ruling on the Bush Administration's detention of "illegal combatants (TM)" at Guantanamo , his public, on the record, legal dissenting opinion actually stated that the ruling allowing detainees the right to challenge their incarceration "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." -Here's a Supreme Court justice not even mentioning whether something is constitutional or not but instead, playing the fear card, threatening that it will effectively kill Americans. Even in this case I wouldn't say he's being "judicially activist." He's doing his job, just really, really badly, and I thank God we have nine other, better judges, even Alito, to override his brazen incompetence.

...then compare with the juvenile, hateful and just plain lunked-headed arguments against them. I'm not sure whether or not people "choose" to be gay... but a lot of petty little jerks on these boards certainly choose to be stoooooopid.

suppose a man and a woman go to the courthouse. they say, "we are not in love, we do not have sex, we will never have children, we have sex with other people, we are not going to live together, we are not going to file joint tax returns. we want to get married."

what's the response? "sure, got 55 bucks?"

suppose a gay couple go to the same courthouse and say, "we are in a devoted relationship, and have been for 10 years. we have an adopted child together, we are monogamous, we file joint tax returns. can we get married?"

nope, you're gay!

what of that first scenario "sanctifies" marriage, as opponent of gay marriage love to talk about. gay marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage? really? look at that first LEGAL scenario and tell me that marriage has value still. if people are devoted to each other and in love and want to be married, THAT sanctifies marriage.

The environment: either all pollution and environmental damage should be legal or none. Either we let factories dump sludge in the ocean and medical waste be tossed anywhere they want, or all cars need to be outlawed as weapons of mass pollution.

Pornography: Either we allow bestial and underage porn, rape porn and snuff films, or we ban any book, movie, or piece of art that indicates anything remotely sexual.

Murder: Either we take murder off the lawbooks or we take away the right to self-defense and disband our military.

In fact, if some of the above mentioned WERE legal, it would be a lot easier to regulate or tackle certain negative issues that might arise, like driving while high, or genetic testing to see, if you did indeed want to marry your sister, whether the probablities of her giving birth to an X-Man are high.

Unless you can PROVE gay marriage would directly affect your quality of life, SHUT THE FUCK UP about vague and meaningless notions of "sanctity" and "unnatural," and go form your own little Neo-Amish sect to shelter yourselves and your idiot spawn from any challenge to your irrational prejudice from the rest of the evolving world. The only thing that amazes me more than the astonishing selfish behavior of anti-gay jackasses is that rational people (ie- people who DON'T assume they have the right to tell others how to live, based SOLELY on archaic myth or ridiculous straw man assumptions) actually still bother to waste breath arguing against some perceived "right" to engage in this kind of blatantly intolerant douchebaggery. You want to talk tolerance? The fact that gay people still deign to engage in this "debate" and try to reason with you morons, rather than just spitting in your face and walking away, is proof of the tolerance of the gay-rights movement.

I'm not gay myself, but if some self righteous asshole tried to condescendingly tell me and the person I love that we have no right to spend our lives together under the same protection of the law as any other two consenting adults because he didn't think my idea of love was "natural," he would first be wiping warm sinus loog out of his eyes, and any repeated attempts at "debate" would end with me activating his dental plan. FUCK THAT SHIT. Some things are not open to compromise or debate, and the right to pursue personal happiness in all forms (until it specifically infringes on the rights of another person) is one of those things. The end.

Oops, I talked about the movie review. Is that allowed here?

Of course, there are logical arguments against gay marriage that don't involve God. You just don't like them. As a debate coach, I try to make students realize there are two logical sides to every argument, even if you disagree with the other side. Knowledge of the other side is a weapon in your arsenal. Dismissing the other side completely indicates you do not have a strong case yourself.

I might not agree with Scientology, but I understand its followers have some logical reasons to follow that belief. I might not agree with Capital Punishment, but I understand those who support it have some logical reasons to do so. To label anyone who disagrees with you and your position as a bigot is counterproductive for your argument every time, as it diminishes whatever argument you might have.

If a person's argument against gay marriage is "gay people are gross and icky" then, yes, perhaps they are bigoted. But there are other arguments, and you wish not to address them. Why is there a human right to marry whomever you choose? None of us in this country, nor any civilized society, have EVER had that right. I don't, and you don't. You wish to broaden the definition of marriage to include more than what traditional society has accepted until recently. Others disagree, so they must be bigots, right?

If I have to hear "why does it bother you?" or "give me a single good reason" one more time, I'm gong to start beating people with reason sticks. This is America, folks. You remember, America? People here don't have to give you a reason why they believe the way they do. As long as they're working within the legal and/or legislative system, they can believe whatever crazy-ass thing they want to believe. Got that? They don't have to justify it to you. You're nobody, and your standards of justice are meaningless.

Are any of you self-aware enough to notice that you're doing as much name-calling as the homophobes? Or that you're, gosh, trying to force your own morality on a group of people who don't agree with it? You wouldn't do that, would you?

Sure you would. Because you're the "good guys," and you're forcing others to live by your rules *for their own good.* One day, when they grow up, they'll understand, and thank you for your efforts, right?

Not quite. The fact is that, as much as you want to separate church and state, and dismiss religious arguments as "bigoted" or "unreasonable," a big ol' majority of people in this country (including--hey!--gay people) are kinda partial to their religion, and use it as a moral divining rod. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to agree, but it is what it is, and they've got just as much right to use the legislative system as you do. (Here's the kicker: they have the right to hold their beliefs and use the legislative system to enforce those beliefs without being condescended to or called names. Y'know, just like you.)

Me, personally, I'm all for gay marriage. I understand the arguments against it, but in the end, I think the pros outweigh the cons. So, if/when the issue hits the ballot in my state, I'll vote "yea," but I'll do so without belittling those who vote "nay." I'm not so fucking full of myself and drunk on my own self-importance to believe that people who disagree with me aren't just wrong, they're stupid and evil.

For fuck's sake.

before you get on your angry horse again, just listen to me for a second. suppose someone was trying to make it illegal for black people to vote, or marry white people, or drink from the same water fountain as white people. many people supported that segregation, and the people who were against it, called them bigots. because, you know, they WERE bigots. you certainly wouldn't have a problem with someone being called a bigot that supports racism and segregation, right?

so if you want to deny gay people the same basic right as heterosexual people, many see that as akin to denying black people the same rights as whites, or women the same rights as men.

so if you don't like the word bigot, then we'll invent a new word, I don't care. but homosexuality is the last safe outlet for bigotry. and people who want to deny them basic rights (and marriage is one of those in america) will one day be looked upon the way we look at the people who opposed desegregation and women's suffrage.

you're on the wrong side of history. so maybe it's time to worry less about what names you're being called, and more about why homosexuality is so threatening to you.

I used a poor word choice by using "normal". The point I was getting at and tried to get across in my original post was that being gay, whatever the cause, goes against a very basic law of nature -- survival. Whether you look at it from a religious point of view or a scientific one, I do not think humans were meant to be gay since procreation does not work that way.

I honestly do not care what gay people do. Marry, don't marry, I just do not care. I have not taken a stand on the civil rights merits of gay marriage because I just do not know how to lean on that one. I made a point about not understanding being gay and not believing in it. I do not want that being used against me to call me a bigot. Ask my gay friends if I am a bigot or treat them any differently.

I'm pro gay marriage. My closest friend and mentor for the last 20 years is gay. I'm not "on the wrong side of history." I'm just not a self-important asshole.

I'll put it in caps for you this time:

I AM FOR GAY MARRIAGE.

Clear 'nuff?

They DO have the right to hold beliefs and use the legislative system but do NOT have a right to not be called names. Just sayin'.

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

It is a strange world, my little bastards. The "hatred" of the "hated" far exceeds the "hate" they feel "hated" upon with.

At any rate, my point remains: the people who disagree with gay marriage don't owe you or me or anybody else an explanation for their beliefs.

Come to think of it, why do I hump fire hydrants and my grandmother's leg?

Genetic flaw?

Perhaps.

You never said I was against gay marriage? What was this:

"You don't like gay marriage then continue not to like it, no one is asking you to. Your argument holds no water whatsoever."

That was in a post addressed specifically to me, dipstick.

I did not start out this discussion to make a point about whether gay marriage is moral or not. However, I will tell you why some people are against it and you can take from it what you will.

First, the reason that opposing gay marriage is different that opposing blacks marrying whites or who gets to vote, or who gets to eat or drink where is a very simple one. Money. It comes down to that. Many people fight against gay marriage because it affects them financially as well as ideologically. Why should those who oppose gay marriage have to have their tax dollars spent to give them government rights? Until a system gets put in place where only taxes from gay couples goes to paying for those benefits that marries couples get then you are going to have more opposition. I could give a rat's ass about gays marrying. I do not want to have to pay for their benefits when they engage in a lifestyle I disagree with. They can do whatever they want as long as I am not paying for it. This is what a lot of people think. Their religious beliefs carry a lot of weight and they do not want to support gay marriage in any way. You may not agree with it, but it is a valid argument.

I also just have to say that comment about me not believing in any sex act that does not produce children is a stretch. The point was and will ever be that being gay goes against most creature's most basic survival instinct. Terry, I think you know that not every sex act is done with the intent of producing children.

2) Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children.

3) Gay relationships are immoral.

4)Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species.

5) Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.

6) Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution.

7)Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment.

8) Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences.

9) Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right.

10) Gay marriage would mean forcing businesses to provide benefits to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples.

11) Gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so.

REAL REASONS 1) Just not comfortable with the idea.

2) It offends everything religion stands for.

3)Marriage is a sacred institution.

4) Gay sex is unnatural.

5) Making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine.

Got this from some website but I left out all the counter-arguments... Enjoy IndustryKiller!

If I mischaracterized what you said, my bad. But you did say "That still does not change the fact that neither the animals' nor humans' bodies are meant to work that way. If being gay was every bit as natural (from a biological standpoint) then animals and humans could have children either way." So it does seem to be, from your statement, that you are equating natural with producing children.

It doesn't go against any of my instincts when my girlfriend gives me a blowjob, by the way. If your point is that from an evolutionary biological PERSPECTIVE, the only point of life and sex is to reproduce, then I would agree with you.

But animals wouldn't know that and many humans would disagree with you.

That argument holds no water.

You are 100 percent correct about there being many things are government does that people morally and financially disagree with. The war in Iraq is a perfect example. Am I correct in assuming that you would be okay with protesting the war based on your personal views? Would it matter to you if the soldiers wanted to go? Would it matter how many people disagreed with you? I am guessing probably not. I see no difference between the validity of opposing one thing as the other. We all have our right to protest and then, in the end, we either go with the majority or we leave or keep fighting.

Yes, by natural I going with a purely biological perspective. If God or nature wanted homosexuality to be every bit the norm as heterosexuality then we'd all be asexual beings. Our parts are meant to work in a certain combination and I also believe that our sexual urges are meant to work the same way. Hetero keeps the species going and that is the only "natural" I was going for.

Second: my apologies for saying I wouldn't respond to any more of your posts. Shutting down a dialogue out of frustration is no way to work.

Third: I haven't anywhere said anything about "NOT speaking up at all." Where did you come up with that, please?

Fourth: Those who want to force gay marriage through by anything other than a ballot measure most assuredly *are* forcing their beliefs on others. We can argue all day long about whether they're right to do so, but that's a separate debate. As it stands, a good number of folks prefer living in a traditional society where gay marriages are not recognized by the state. By altering that society without giving them a vote, we are imposing our beliefs on them. This isn't that hard to understand. Five: Just because I don't approve of being a dick to people who disagree with you, it doesn't mean I'm advocating silence. Rather, I advocate education, discussion, and reform. Telling the opposition that they're bigots, their religion is stupid, and equating them with Nazis isn't going to change anyone's mind.

Ipso facto, ad nauseum E. Pluribus Unum your argument makes no sense.

Industrykiller, I am not talking about every sexual act. I think I posted that one already. I also never said anything about making anything illegal.

Terry, I never said anything about my stance on gay marriage. I believe I posted at least twice that I have no position. I got accused of making no argument so I made the argument of people that I talk to. Lifestyle combined with a strong religious belief lead people to think that by helping to pay for gay marriage benefits they are condoning the act. These people choose to take a stand on this and let other things go. Do you take a stand against everything you disagree with or do you pick your battles based on how strongly you feel?

On the taxation issue, I take no stand except hiring an accountant to make me spend as little as possible.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

It's yours...

I never said anyone should be denied any rights. You could be right about why some people are gay, Industrykiller. I still chose to stick with my beliefs on the biology portion. We have so many other ways to curb the population such as disease. But I am not going to say your point is invalid since there is no way to know.

BTW, Terry, I was enjoying the debate until the butt baby comment. Not sure where you were trying to go with that.

anyway I am off to sleep. Enjoy the discussions.

I despise this liberal fascist dogma. It's disingenuous horseshit, and only constructed so that religious conservatives can seperate themselves from a truly evil regime.

This is not hard, and no matter how much you fudge history to fit your warped definition, you will never succeed.

If you want a far left totalitarian regime, the word you are looking for is communist.

There isn't one. Again, I ask the question: "Why do you give a fuck if 2 consenting adults want to marry?"

Note I used "2 consenting adults" not a fucking harem, or an adult and a child, animal or household appliance.

You really need to take a long look at yourselves.

Dreadful people.

The majority is NOT always right.

Furthermore, your repression argument is truly, truly reprehensible. It is thinking like that that has lead to some utterly dreadful regimes.

Remember the "Come Play House with us and Barbie.." Arrrghh fuck that "War, and Shoot out an fist against flesh, and racing and stunting on bikes and remote controlled shit and building forts"

I never liked Girls. I just like what I can do with them.

Guys don't do that for me cause well. I'm a guy. I own the same shit and it's boring.

I guess I'm A sexual. That what I really am. I don't want kids or a wife or anyone really. I hate everyone equally! It ain't about your skin or what you believe in, or who you fuck, or where you come from. You just piss me off cause you are you! Not that I want you just like me. I think I want no one on earth and all the cool shit. If i woke up tomorrow and every last human on this earth was dirt and dust and I was the only one still walking.. I'd be totally cool with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that theory essentially boils down to the "thou protest too much." and if that's the case - the person who rants and raves how much they despise bible-thumping bigots - are they in fact harboring deep-seated bigoted thoughts that embarrass them and late at night furtively look at those pictures of white-bearded prophets in their illustrated Good Book they have secreted under the bed and feel the need to overcompensate for these lapses? If not - why not? Why is that a one way street?

And to the fuckwits who are saying "This is America"

Fuck you! It's the fucking internet you blinkered shitheads!

That is all.

drturing FTW!

No touching!

It is the story of a blind,retarded, freed slave, communist, homosexual, ex-patriot that converts to Judaism and dies in a Nazi concentration camp.

Guaranteed Sweep. And my lead will go the "full retard".

I'm pretty socially liberal and support gay marriage but, Hollywood has become so predictable. Push one of the right "liberal buttons" and everyone in Hollywood starts screaming Oscar.

It was shit.

Gold, ebonic_plague!

I think that, to be utterly fair and impartial, this draconian measure should come off the books. In return gay marriage should be legal.

And yes, this post is being written tongue in cheek. Except the bit about sodomy. I think that's true. It's certainly stupid enough.

HA HA... ha... ha...

I'm sure I've just lifted that from some movie.

1) The majority has decided and any change by the courts flaunts the will of the people and is therefore invalid.

2) If gay marriage is allowed, they will teach my children that homosexuality is morally ok.

Your first point has already been utterly demolished. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's actually valid. What then are you going to do when the majority of Americans support gay marriage?

As for your second point, no. In sex ed, I was taught nothing about marriage. I was taught about anatomy and contraception. Most religious people have a problem with pre-marital sex too, but that doesn't mean the schools are advocating for children to go out and have it. Which leads us to abstinence only programs which of course are extremely ineffective.

Bottom line, if you want to teach your child being gay is wrong, you can. (But good luck if your child is gay).

Who the hell looks up to their sixth grade science teacher for sexual knowledge anyways.

Okay, now, because I feel that fucking people is a choice, whomever you choose to fuck, shouldn't I have some knee-jerk reaction to two guys wanting to pair off and get benefits that a typical married couple get? Shouldn't I be quoting scripture and pointing out the flaws in their spirit that will send them to damnation with a smug and self-satisfied air? No. Because unlike my friends and brothers and sisters in the church, I understand that lesson of Christ that tells us NOT to judge. I am not the one making or enforcing rules around here on behalf of God.

The fact is, mainstream America believes the word 'Marriage' means something very specific, and very religious. The truth is that marriage has been treated like an industry rather than a solemn vow of committing to your partner, and that the term is being used to call any pairing of two humans. But, the truth exists without parity, because the mainstream doesn't think that people who act outside their religious beliefs should be wed in the way that they were wed.

So, I think that the government should recognize all unions, hetero and gay, as 'civil unions' and the only people defining marriage are those people pairing off...Like it says in the Constitution, let's keep the Church out of our Government party, and our Government party out of our Churches. Or, let's make everyone in my church have TWO tithes...one tenth to God, and one tenth to Uncle Sam.

So, gays, I'm starting a throttle version doggy-style only sector of society. Let's really talk minority, here, I want guys who prefer the throttle method of thumb in the butt to be called throttle-sexuals and demand equal rights under the law! We should have a voice on the radio, and a face on television, we should be represented, or our rights will be trampled! We should have a parade with guys throttling chicks heinies with their gnarled thumbs like Little Jack Horner, big ass floats made of flowers of thumbs slowly penetrating ruby starfruits for all on Flatbush to see! All I'm asking for is a little equality.

Okay, sarcasm over, my prayer on Thanksgiving will be for every single fuckwit hater out there, calling gays out and condemning them with their stupid bullshit insecurities, that they are blessed like Dick Cheney is blessed; with a gay son or daughter. Or, better, a gay brother or sister. Tis the season for most of our gay friends to come out of the closet over drunken Thanksgiving dinner after all. I'm the older brother of a gay kid. So, fuck you, haters. If I had you in front of me, I'd step on your fucking stupid throats and morally correct you like your daddys should have done.

With love, Micturatingbenjamin.

Amistad

Malcolm X

Glory

There's more, I'm sure.

Malcolm X (1992)

Glory (1989)

I can't for the life of me think of a "civil rights" type flick in the last 10 years.

...

...

Holy shit! There are NONE!

Get it you ignorant fucks!

Who are you to tell other people what they can and cannot do?

Seriously, if someone tried to tell me I couldn't marry my fiancee for ANY fucking reason they'd find out how hard it is to pick up their teeth with broken fingers.

Legalizing gay marriage means social recognition and acceptance of a lifestyle that many people find objectionable. How does that affect these people?

Look up a few statistics about the number of "evangelical Christian" young people who now co-habitate before marriage, or who see nothing inappropriate about premarital sex and multiple sexual partners. Thirty-five years ago, such notions were just gaining acceptance in mainstream America, and were unheard of in "Christian" circles. Today, it's a very different story.

The same can be said for issues like abortion, homosexuality, even ecumenicalism. All these issues have far greater acceptance among young churchgoers today than they have in years past. Why? Because "society," represented by news media, pop culture, literature, etc., embraced these issues a couple decades ago, and today's parents cannot counteract the tidal wave of culture on their children. The times, they are a-changin'.

Now, then, we can argue all day long that these are good developments, but that's beside the issue (and it's an argument that can't be won anyway--"good" is a relative term). The issue is that loads of folks don't want to raise their children in a society where "good is called evil, and evil is called good." They believe it will confuse their children, and/or cause them to be deceived, in the same way that has happened with these other issues.

That doesn't make them "bigots" or "ignorant" or "evil." It simply means they have a different worldview. As agents of tolerance, some of us would do well to remember that.

IndustryKiller pretty much summed up the weakness of the forced-morality argument when he said, "You don't like homosexuality? Well, that's just too bad."

Very tolerant, indeed.

I was quite disturbed watching this episode. How can someone control what he thinks is in-built in him or her? Is pedophilia a genetic choice like what homosexuality is alleged to be, a "born" trait? What if people who have been classified to have uncontrollable attraction to kids ask for rights to marry underage kids because they are born that way? Is this where we are heading?

If you're unable to recognize that legalizing gay marriage legitimizes the lifestyle, and therefore normalizes it to a generation who never knew otherwise, we really don't have anything to talk about.

The Rosa Park's story

Get On the Bus

The Killing Yard

The Rising Place

Fight For Freedom

Journey to Little Rock: The Untold Story of Minnijean Brown Trickey

Maggie Growls

Lest We Forget

Life Or Liberty

women Organize!

Gay Films- Boys Don't Cry.

The Matthew Shepard Story.

Brokeback Mountain.

Beautiful Thing

Shelter

Shortbus

Yoshi and Yagher

Mysterious Skin

Headwig

TransAmerica

Gods and Monsters- One of my favorites

Rent

People keep saying stupid shit like if this film came out before this election, that it would have greatly affected the vote on Prop 8. Look... Anyone who needs a film to correct their moral foundations is not someone you really want involved in the decision making process.

I agree that the biggest issue here was not doing the foot work on Prop 8.

You have tons of wealthy and powerful, and dare i say publicly admired and loved Gay People in this world- They should have paid for ads on TV and in the Newspapers and held events that protested against it. They should have started a group that called every ones house in that state to inform them.

They didn't do it!!!

The majority voted. I'm sorry that it went the way it did. Keep fighting and good fight, and fight harder next time! Thats all you can do.

You can talk about the infallible rights the people of this country deserve, but the truth of the matter is that each group who has it earned it.

That "Earning" it bit is tossed into your ring now. Earn these rights! Fight for them, Stand up and fucking represent, Inform and Destroy Misconception/Ignorance across the board. Do it!

If people who engage in a sexual behavior - and what we're really talking about here is the legitimization of a sexual behavior - there are already numerous ways to legally do that: Powers of Attorney, Health Care Powers of Attorney, and Wills pretty much create all of the same legal protections given through marriage (and much cheaper than marriage).

What the push for "gay marriage" is about is for people who engage in a sexual behavior that for 99% of human existence has been deemed an abnormal behavior to feel good about themselves. Sorry, but I’m not for upending our social order for that.

And this attempt to equate this to what blacks went through is, quite frankly, disgusting. Blacks obviously feel the same way. Being a racial minority incorporates a whole host of cultural practices in addition to appearance. What is special about engaging in homosexual behavior, other than the fact that we’re talking about a behavior? That’s why there is a very slippery slope that will open the door to polygamy, inter-familial marriage, and wiping away the age of consent laws (I wont’ go so far as inter-species relationship, but the argument is not far-fetched). Look at any of the crappy legal decisions that have opened the door for “gay marriage”, throw in polygamy in its place, and tell me where the argument falls apart.

Denying a murderer the right to walk free is denying him his rights.

Denying a felon the right to vote is pretty good as well as both a deterrent, and a societal help.

On the other hand, I have a huge problem with anyone getting personally attacked for any reason. Everyone should always feel free from attack and persecution because of their belief and (legalized) behavior. I find the history of attacks against gays and lesbians in this country repugnant.

If two men/women in love feel they would like to express that love by signing a contract that affects no one but themselves, it is of no concern of yours.

You're like the old bitch across the street tut-tutting at the fucking neighbours. And you know why she's tut-tutting? Because deep down all she really wants is a tongue in her twat and a dildo up her ass.

If we allow gay people to marry, we can't pretend it's dirty and secret and illegal anymore.

FYI In the culture war, it's too late.

You lost.

But guess what?

IT DOESN'T MATTER! If your child is not gay, they aren't going to be gay. And if they ARE and you convince them that is wrong, you will make them HATE THEMSELVES for the rest of their lives...

...forcing them to either live a lie, join the priesthood, or stand up to you and own who they are.

But finally, Balcony admitted what is the only reason for people being against homosexual marriage. Because they find homosexuality to be immoral.

Sorry, but that doesn't hold up in the court of law.

I don't think that's ever been in question. Of course that's why people are against homosexuality.

As for your very succinct, "Sorry, but that doesn't hold up in a court of law," I have to wonder what society you've been living in. We legislate morality every day in this country. Some people don't find theft immoral, but most people do, so it's illegal. Some people don't find polygamy immoral, but most do, so it's illegal. Some people don't see anything immoral about rigging an election, but most do, so... you get my point.

Society's notions about what is and isn't moral form the framework of a lawful society. If we find a particular injustice within our lawful society, we should work to right that wrong--but trampling over others in the name of "progress" isn't an admirable way to go about it.

Finally, your assertion that marriage "was a business deal" indicates that you've got no grasp of how most people understand the concept of marriage. Once again, the fact that you hold the institution in no high regard is fairly irrelevant to those who do. Different worldviews. If you want others to respect yours, you'll have to respect theirs too. Sucks, eh?

And in point of fact, I think the IDEAL of marriage is one of the most beautiful, sacred things we have left in society. Our society IS too hedonistic, I'll give GreatOne that. Hedonistic and materialistic. But a married gay couple committed to each other in a loving way is neither hedonistic or materialistic.

My point is that the TRADITION of marriage has left us with a legacy of ashes. Adultery, divorce, a cavalier attitude to commitment. Broken families. It riles me up. But the courts and the government have no right to interfere. We need to promote true family values to our children and lead by example. Hetero marriage is nothing to brag about.

And in my opinion, the gay community will greatly benefit morally from being able to marry. The often leveled charge of promiscuity has a certain element of truth, and marriage could potentially reduce this.

wIRED SHUT.

Don't talk bollocks

Right from the horses mouth. BTW Lucas all your questions have already been addressed on this talkback and since you were late tot he party its up to you to go back and read them. But im pretty sure after that last post its the end of your credibility so you might wanna just bounce.

That's such a load of mince that can be trotted out to defend practically any piece of dreadful prejudice.

You bigoted redneck fuck

Why do you want to prevent them from doing this?

Bigotry is bigotry, whether you choose to tell your friends (as if they exist) that you think their marriage/ commitment to each other is a sham or not.

I'm starting to seriously dislike the right wing. And I'm not even on the left.

What if you want to marry your toaster?

That rubbish has been despatched repeatedly here.

There is no good argument in favour of not allowing gays to get married.

If gays want a civil ceremony, and as a result have the same rights as heterosexuals then they should be allowed. Churches should also not be forced to perform homosexual ceremonies. Why anyone is against this is a complete fucking mystery to me.

Just not male ones.

Fucking ridiculous. Imagine if these complete arseholes weren't so fucking busy obsessing about what consenting adults got up to in the bedroom. Shit could get done.

Come on, bigots, where is it?

I'd rather play Wii.

Last I checked, this debate had nothing to do with people do in the bedroom. It's about what they do at the courthouse.

I strongly suspect it is going to come down to ingrained bigotry

If you want a legitimate reason why people opppose gay marriage, just scroll up -- I outlined it pretty clearly. Whether or not you feel it's "good" enough is irrelevant.

As soon as you start talking about morality you lose all credibility

"My children will be taught about it and may catch gayness" Erm? No. When were you taught about Marriage at school? And you can't catch gayness.

"It's unnatural"- ok. Bigot.

"It undermines marriage as an institution"- No it doesn't. Anyway heterosexuals have been busy doing that for ages

"it's immoral"- No it isn't. Define Morality before setting up this Aunt Sally, then we'll argue

"Marriage is about children"- No it isn't. See childless couples.

"The majority is for it"- so fucking what. The majority is not always right.

There is not one legitimate reason for stopping homos getting hitched.

Why? Incest, for example- must already be legal if it's heterosexual by that reasoning. But each case is different and has different measures. Gay Marriage does not mean that someone is going to turn up at a courthouse and demand the right to marry his fucking volvo.

Look- the point is, you seem to care that a portion of society wants to have the same rights as you.

They don't want better rights, they don't want to make you be gay, it isn't a revolution. They want the same rights.

So I ask again, why do you support measures that prevent this?

And you have presumably been asked, and voted to prevent it- therefore you are actively, for no good reason, repressing a minority.

If I was asked to vote, I'd vote in favour of allowing gay marriage. But that's because it doesn't affect me (at all), and I can't think of one legitimate reason to be against it.

I stand by what I said: you are a hypocritical bigot.

Me- I don't know a gay couple. Not one. I know a few individual gays, but not a couple. I don't care either. All I am is disgusted at the behaviour of these self-righteous and self-appointed guardians of morality. Ironically, I think they are being pretty fucking immoral.

I'm really, really disgusted at you on the right.

LVF: I don't know what you found to be difficult about my criticism. You asserted that there was no good argument against gay marriage and gave the debate you saw as proof/evidence, whichever. I said that made poor evidence. You also gave an example of someone intentionally trying to goad someone by not recognizing their marriage, and I responded by saying that you can be respectful of a "married" couple and carry on a friendship without endorsing/recognizing their marriage and without drawing attention to the fact that you don't endorse/recognize that marriage. That's why I said the argument fails.

What I'm trying to do in this TB is point out the blatant hypocrisy of fascist moral crusaders -- who exist, btw, on both sides of the issue. It's easy to dismiss genuine bigots who get freaked out by homosexuality. There's no need to expose them, as their bigotry and ignorance exposes itself.

It's much easier, on the other hand, to overlook the hypocrisy that's been on display here: agents of "tolerance and progress" dismissing those who disagree with them, calling their opponents "stupid" and "evil," cheerfully asserting that they don't give a shit what anyone else thinks, comparing their opponents to racists and Nazis (two arguments so absurd I haven't even bothered to address them).

I hope gay people win the right to marry, as I believe they deserve it. But bullshit is bullshit, however it dresses. Fascism is fascism, no matter how "noble" the cause. We'll win this battle in the end, but I'd rather not lose my soul in the process, thanks.

"Look- the point is, you seem to care that a portion of society wants to have the same rights as you." Then you got the wrong impression. I mentioned earlier that I don't have a proactive objection to gay marriage. My objection isn't about rights; if anything that is incidental to my concern. Also, why do you ask what my reasoning for objecting is with one breath and with the next say I have no good reason? That's undeniably dismissing my opinion before you have even heard it or attempted to understand it. And how am I being hypocritical? At least I understand why you might think I'm a bigot (even though I maintain I am not), but I hardly think you've given reason to claim I am a bigot.

Sophistry.

1)You DO have a proactive (despicable word- but that's another rant) objection. You're just lying. This is nothing to do with going on marches or whatever. I'm assuming you voted for proposition 8- if you don't have any active objection then why did you take the oppressive measure? You could have left it blank.

2)The reason I posted "waiting for reasons" followed by the dismissal, is that I want to see if you have a valid one. You, clearly, don't.

3)Ignorance is not my hallmark, but hostility is. Especially when dealing with groundless bigotry.

4)If these "people" that are allegedly your friends exist, and you judge them like that then you are a shitty friend. And yes, I am aware of the irony of judging you.

5)You are not arguing from a position. What you are doing is eloquently weaving posts with less substance than helium. You are disguising hatred as "reasonableness".

Give me your reason for opposing gay marriage. I am not unreasonable (see the stand corrected post above). I will weigh and measure your reason, but I warn you now- my tolerance level is set to "very fucking low".

Where do you think the word "Sapphic" comes from?

Tai Pan is either lying about the existance of these 2 magic lesbians that can be wheeled out to try to counteract accusations of bigotry or is a complete asshole with no understanding of the concept of friendship. I suspect the former.

Mind you, Nowadays it's easier to be gay than own up to being on AICN (this is a joke, for you humourless right wing fucks out there).

I do care about bigotry though, and that's why I keep posting.

If it is true then that's fucking sad in the 21st century.

The only reason it was legalised here was so Mandelson could take his boyfriend off the pay roll and make him a housewife

"Especially when dealing with groundless bigotry." Still calling my opinion groundless when you claim to not know why I believe as I do? What label would you normally attach to that: prejudice, assumption, idiocy...

This is somewhat of a separate issue, but the fact is that the law DOES legislate morality, and always has. If you think it shouldn't, then please tell me why someone shouldn't be allowed to dropkick baby puppies or fry a kitten on a barbecue grill. They have no legal rights, and are the property of their owners under that hypothetical. We outlaw prostitution, we adjust tax rates to help the poor, there's a lot of legislation out there having less to do with protecting legal rights (far from it in many cases) and more to do with advancing a particular moral goal. Don't get too preachy with those bigotry claims before you examine your own moral intolerances.

In other words, it's quite possible for an opponent of gay marriage to agree that gay people should have "basic rights."

Industry, you've practically answered for me in the way you've phrased your question. You see yourself as fighting for justice, and everyone else as fighting for injustice. It appears to be a rather black and white world in which you live. Unfortunately, reality is a bit more complicated.

None of us would accept a movie that portrays the villain as evil, just for the sake of being evil. Even bad movies have evolved beyond that simplistic worldview. People are complex. They legitimately understand the world differently from one another. Very, very few people *want* to do something evil, unjust, or unfair. By framing yourself as the "just" cause, and your opponents as the enemy, you do nothing to further understanding, tolerance, or social harmony. You're simply trying to raise the more forceful hand. It might work, but it doesn't make our situation any better.

To answer your question more directly, yes, I do tend to play devil's advocate even (especially!) toward causes with which I agree. Why wouldn't I? I'm after truth, not propaganda, and if a position is worth taking, it's worth taking honestly, fairly, and without malice.

If you think that economic legislation *only* serves to prop up the overall economic health of the country then I assure you you are severely misinformed. It is simply impossible to stick your ehad in the sand over this issue, but since people wish to try, I'll simply say it louder: SOCIETY LEGISLATES MORALITY. There's no winning argument otherwise. It's fact.

As for marriage being a basic right, certainly there have been things that set that as a precedent. not the least of which being when barring interracial marriage was abolished in 1967. Also convicted felons are allowed to marry, ask Ted Bundy. There is no precedent for denying two consenting heterosexual adults the right to marry. If it has never been denied to a straight couple then denying it to a gay couple is discrimination.

1) "People in favor of gay marriage are fighting that a group of people can have a right that affects no on else."

This is *your perception,* but it is *not* a fact. Altering the structure of a civil institution affects everyone within that society to whatever extent it matters to them. In this case, for some people, it creates an environment that they find objectionable. The fact that you don't find that effect relevant doesn't make it disappear.

2) "This is no different whatsoever than civil rights in the sixties."

I've been ignoring this argument thus far because it's so utterly ludicrous (and a shameless attempt to frame the debate in heroic terms), but I'll go ahead and point out the obvious. Being black is not a lifestyle choice; marrying a member of your sex is. You're closer to the mark when you talk about interracial marriage--that's a tack that will serve us much better.

3) "It's all about equality."

To reiterate a point that you've thus far ignored, it's only about equality for those who frame the debate in such terms. No matter how hard you close your eyes or how far you stick your fingers in your ears, there are other facets of this debate, e.g., the redefinition of marriage, and all the moral, legal, and societal implications that entails.

4) "Make your case for gay marriage being an injustice if you want to continue this line of rationale."

Huh? I don't know anyone who's calling gay marriage "an injustice." If they're out there, I'll agree with you that they're wrong.

5) "If it has never been denied to a straight couple then denying it to a gay couple is discrimination."

Correct, it is discrimination, as in "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." Not all discrimination is immoral, and some is necessary.

I'm enjoying the back and forth of this debate, and in the end, we're both on the wrong side, but as long as you paint yourself as the hero and all opponents as the villains, I'm going to take exception to your approach. I'm also a bit astounded (and impressed?) by the amount of hubris it takes to so taken with your own POV as to vilify all others. It's breathtaking, really.

Mea culpa.

As for homosexuality being a lifestyle choice, it seems your true colors show a bit int hat statement. It isnt a choice. These people dont wake up one morning and decide to be gay. They are that way and cannot reverse it any more than black people can reverse their skin color. What they are fighting for is something every single one of their straight peers has a right to, the only distinction is sexuality, which isnt a choice. Ergo its identical to civil rights. just because the difference isnt immediately obvious to the eye doesn't make it different.

How is this debate NOT about equality? Legally, if I were gay, my love for my partner would be less equal than a straight persons. Thats a fact. I am not privy to the same rights. As for "societal implications" I would love to know what they are. please site how the societal dynamic of Massachusetts has changed at all for straight couples. Ditto with moral implications. Invoking religious opposition as a moral implication doesnt hold because God isnt here personally telling us what he will and will not accept, its all speculative at best. Its a guess by people who are talking about something they cant possibly understand.

Tell me how descrimination between gay and straight couples is necessary. For what greater good? I cant wait to hear that argument. Not that you think it is, but since you brought it up Im assuming you can defend it with practical reasons.

For example, I didn't say homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (it isn't), I said gay marriage is a lifestyle choice (it is -- just like heterosexual marriage). Argue with what I've said, not with what you wish I said, or what you've heard other people say.

Obviously, I don't think discrimination between gay and straight couples is necessary, nor do I think it serves a greater good. I do, however, understand the rationale of those who *do* feel that way. See? It's possible to understand those you don't agree with! :) The argument goes like this:

There are a lot of people who feel that the breakdown of the traditional family unit is responsible for a lot of social ills, including higher instances of violent crime, alcoholism and substance abuse, unwanted pregnancy (which itself leads to abuse and poverty), etc. There are statistics and studies that can be dragged out to support this idea. (NOTE: I'm not referring to gay unions directly causing these ills; rather, they are correlated with the breakdown of the traditional family.) Civic legitimization of alternative lifestyles serves to remove the stigma associated with those lifestyles, which (they believe) encourages further breakdown of the traditional family unit.

That's one angle. Of course, you may add the fact that a lot of these people also think gayness is yucky, and its inherent immorality is the root cause of these social ills, but that argument is beside the point. Anyone who brings it up (on either side of the issue) is shooting themselves in the foot, because in our society, we don't typically legislate on those grounds. (Although we have in the past; there are still states where things like adultery and sodomy are technically illegal.)

So there ya go. I think that argument isn't very strong, because we live in such an open society already that "marriage" is really just a semantic distinction. Now that certain states allow gay marriage, we should soon have studies indicating the negative impact on traditional arrangements is negligible. At that point, the anti-gay-marriage crowd will have a harder time making their case. They'll pretty much be left with the "redefinition" argument, which has its merits, but won't be enough, I don't think.

Homosexual behavior is just that - a behavior. There is no culture (i.e., practices, foods, clothes, music, etc.) associated with it.

So you're saying gay people should have the same rights to toasters and not the same rights as heterosexual human beings. I'm not even being sarcastic, is that really your point or did you misspeak (or mistype)?

So robbing gays of the same rights interracial couples got a couple decades ago is fine because its the *only* right they are being denied. Each minority has to have 2 rights denied to it before it can have any of them rectified?

Uh, no. I simply said the two struggles are not comparable. Just a few posts ago, I noted that the interracial marriage rights are a good tack to take, specifically because it's the only comparable element from the civil rights movement.

I swear, some of you people...

And your argument against interracial marriage is specious, because the primary purpose of marriage is for the raising and rearing of children. Obviously an interracial couple has the ability to raise and rear children.

I really don't understand your argument. You admit that its directly comparable in that regard to the civil rights movement: that the 1 right gays are fighting for now is one of the many that black people were fighting for in the 60's. And you seem to be fine with that right being given to black people in the 60s but not to the current minority looking for that right. I don't get it: you portray the civil rights movement of the 60s as a great thing, say that gay marriage is a directly comparable thing to that one segment of this great civil rights movement of the 60s, and then that gay marriage, however, is not a good thing. I don't get it.

There are so many things wrong with your post, where to start?

1. Primary reason for marriage?!! Seriously, so you agree with the following: "infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry" "If a gay may has an experimental operation to allow him to rear children, its fine for him to marry his partner then" "Heterosexual couples who find each other late in life should not be allowed to marry because they cannot have children" "loveless marriages are great as long as you bring children into the fold"

2. You seem to imply that a homosexual couple cannot raise a child. That's rediculous.

3. "gays have the same rights as everyone else because they can enter a heterosexual marriage" - another rediculous statement, because they do not have the same right, which is to enter into a marriage with the person that they love and want to spend the rest of their life with. Your argument would be like saying women had the same rights as men before they got the vote because they were free to fraudulently portray themselves as men, and then vote. It isn't really equal rights when you have to conform to the majority to get them.

I wonder what that must feel like.....

I also have good friends who are part of the Mormon church, and I don't feel it necessary to tell them I think their religious beliefs are ridiculous. That's not so far removed from the topic at hand. You simply can't dismiss that some people place just as high a value on their religion as they do their marriage (that's probably part of the reason why you erroneously and arrogantly claim that everyone against gay marriage is intolerant/closed minded).

Actually, LVF, the more you talk the more *you* start to sound like a bigot: a person obstinately or *intolerantly devoted* to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with *hatred* and intolerance

Agree, absolutely. You've hit the nail on the head, and highlighted a problem we should be more concerned with anyway.

I'm sorry, I simply disagree (though I do think this struggle is just as important).

"You have yet to explain how its different."

Well, it seems self-evident. Right now, the legalization of gay marriage would not change the practical day-to-day business of living their lives. It would give 'em warm fuzzies, sure, and it would save them the trouble of having to fill out a few extra forms here and there, but in practical terms, the legalization of gay marriage will be a "moral victory." (Incidentally, the victory of prop 8 was also nothing more than a moral victory.)

The elimination of Jim Crow laws was a practical victory, as well as a moral one. Ask a few older black folks if it changed the day-to-day business of their lives. It's a different sort of struggle, that's all.

Yeah, you're right, nec. I shouldn't get two cents, should I? Or if I do, I should just use 'em to tell my opponents to "shut up." 'Cause that creates progress.

"If you think you have the more tolerant stance on the side of pro-gay-marriage, let's hear it."

I've been saying it for three days, nec. It goes like this: I understand the arguments made by opponents of gay marriage, but I think those arguments don't hold up to real scrutiny. Therefore, let's continue to educate the public about our viewpoint and work through the system to change things. A ballot-measure is preferable, because (like it or not) people in this country really, really like the idea of democracy, and it's an indication of actual progress. (If you'd like to see how effective a "court ruling" can be, note that we're *still* fighting the abortion issue, thirty-odd years later.)

"You don't help the cause by constantly and continuously arguing with the people ON YOUR OWN SIDE."

Not arguing with their position, I'm arguing with their stance and tactics, which I believe are counterproductive to the cause. Calling people names, telling them their opinion doesn't matter, and attempting to steamroll over their objections DOES NOT create meaningful change. It creates misunderstanding, anger, resentment, and culture wars.

Your preference seems to be the Leeroy Jenkins approach, and good luck with that.

Hi, welcome to the world beyond black hats and white hats. Careful, though, it can be kinda confusing. Hey, you ever seen Kurosawa's "Rashomon"? Aw, nevermind, you wouldn't like it.

"don't pretend to try to understand to make us think your are being REASONABLE."

Yeah, what fucking good would *that* be?

The reason people keep opposing your views is that you, and all of the other "heterosexual marriage only" proponents have, as-to-far, offered a valid social, religious, or other, argument against gay marriage.

I will therefore ask you all once again: WHY, specifically, are you against it?

Don't pretend as though, simply because you keep your bigoted, arrogant and self-important views to yourself, that it makes them - or you - valid.

Side note: You find your mormon friends' beliefs "ridiculous"... Would you approve of a constitutional ammendment limiting how your mormon friends practiced their beliefs?

I fucking bet you would not, but that's just my humble guess.

"That's not me tahts our countries court system" Sorry, but I'm a law student. If you want to cite legal precedent, then I'll listen. Until then, I'll assume you don't know what you are talking about.

"Stop denying rights and you'll stop being a bigot." You're an idiot. I've shown repeatedly that this country routinely denies rights for societal interest. Your argument is bunk. Let's put you on the block for a second and see whether you are a bigot under your own terms: Would you deny a 38-year-old man to have sex with a child if the child and parents both consented. Get ready tb: another bigot prepares for arrival.

Regardless of parental consent being present or not, the child is still not of legal age to have a relationship with an adult male, so the relationship should be denied. That's like saying a child can kill someone if his parents say it's ok. The action is still illegal. Guardian consent does not trump the law.

"How does it affect you or any other proponent of heterosexual marriage as the only valid definition of "Marriage", in any way?" It's the same as the puppy hypothetical. That doesn't have to affect me personally or any other person for that matter to find some objection. I realize that's not exactly what you wanted to hear, but that's a part of my actual objection.... not that there *isn't* an argument for disallowing gays to marry. I'm not concerned about this ramification personally, but there would be an economic impact on the country by allowing gay marriage. I only mention that because you seem to have the perception that no one has any good argument against gay marriage in the Libertarian sense; that simply isn't true.

And you know what? He's the guy who taught me -- a brash, reactionary, judgmental jackass -- to stop demonizing people who disagree with me, to try to understand why they feel the way they do, and to realize that most people are trying to do the right thing, no matter how wrong I think they are. He holds no grudges, and he's a much, much bigger man than those who hate him for what he is. Aw, fuck it, I'll go sappy: he's my hero. He's my big, gay hero.

It took me a long time to learn how to see people that way, and I'm grateful to my friend for giving me that gift. And I really don't give a flying fuck whether you believe he exists or not. The world is far more complex than the black-and-white lens through which you see it.

I believe our society will be better off when gay marriage is legalized, and I'll do whatever's in my power to help make it happen. But I believe it's even more desperately important for people in our society to stop vilifying and belittling one another.

I'm not asking my fellow advocates to compromise their convictions, or to stand by passively. I'm asking them to stand righteously against injustice, so we can look ourselves in the mirror when it's over, so we can win the battle without becoming the bad guys.

Gee, Nova, you really stepped into that trap. First of all, gay marriage is currently illegal in my state the same as Adult with child sex. Legally, no different. Next, you made the assumption that the child/adult sex would be illegal. That's exactly the point. You're apparently an advocate for legal gay marriage. I simply asked why we shouldn't allow consenting children to have sex with consenting adults. It seems like you made a value judgment. A MORAL judgment most likely; same as so many of those who oppose gay marriage.

Of course, if we want to go by your standard we can stop the debate the same way you did with child/adult sex: gay marriage is an illegal action/ Homosexual consent does not trump the law.

The redefinition argument is an easy starting point. Answer this:

Why don't we start legally referring to pets as "children," with all the same rights and responsibilities go along with parenting? After all, there's no practical difference between a pet and a child, except that one is human, and the other isn't. Please give me a "valid" reason why we shouldn't do this.

look man I know you dont agree with some peoples methods, thats fine I get that argument whether I agree or not, but that doesnt mean we are wrong. People against gay marriage fit the definition of a bigot. They ARE bigots. If "because I dont like their lifestyle" is a good enough reason to condemn people then why are people like KKK Klansmen and Nazis so awful? After all they just dont like the black and jewish lifestyle. Now Im not saying the anti gay movement is akin to that level of evil but the germ of hate is certainly the same. Maybe calling them out on it only further alienates them into their beliefs but its for me to decide how I want to add to the discourse. And Im not saying anything factually incorect.

Opponents of gay marriage typically believe one or both of the following two things:

1) It will be harmful to society as a whole

2) It will unfairly redefine the legal status held in precedent by existing married couples

Is there an element of "I don't like it" involved for most opponents of gay marriage? Undoubtedly. But you'd be hard-pressed to find any serious person making that argument.

Civil unions through the state for gay and straight; marriages given at the discretion of each church and the state legally recognizes marriages performed by churches as civil unions. Done and done. All you closet bigots can move on to the next waste of energy.

That's actually a great idea.

"Forcing a child to have sex is beyond morally wrong, that child CANNOT make that decision and it will more than likely ruin their life." Gee, Industry, way to force your morality into the situation. You stupidly blundered into that trap as well. Let's say the kid is sixteen and a 40-year-old offers her $2,000 to suck his dick. DOn't try and tell me that no 16-year-old who can't reasonably conclude that they want to engage in such an act. It can be a reasonable conclusion if we assume for a minute that the law no longer forbids it. You also can't blanketly assume the child is going to be forever damaged by such a decision. YOU JUST MADE A MORAL DECISION. You oppressor, you. How dare you try and inject your morality onto consenting individuals. What if they kid is 17 years old, two days away from her eighteenth birthday. Gee, look at that: not only do we legislate morality in this country, but it's often arbitrary at that.

Not that long ago this country was marrying off 14-year-olds to old men. Morality changed, so ddid the law. I wonder what this country's great-great-grandmothers thought about your theory that having sex with a child caused damage to society. If you were so obsessively concerned with your little ramification-theory you'd outlaw fatty foods that are jacking up healthcare costs by making the country into a nation of fat-asses. Get over it AMERICA LEGISLATES MORALITY, AND HAS ALWAYS DONE SO. Your little excuse for outlawing child sex for non-moral reasons is a sham. You know damn well the real reason sex with children is outlawed. It's morality. And if you advocate giving false excuses for making law, then I say you are dishonest and a hypocrite. At least be honest in this discussion, Industry.

BTW, industry: get a law dictionary. Illegal simply means "forbidden by law." (Black's Law Dictionary). You clearly don't know what your talking about. Gay marriage is forbidden in my state, therefore it is illegal. I wish I could say I was surprised you couldn't grasp that very modest concept.

Also, Mass. is a poor example. They are receiving an influx of revenue BECAUSE the other states have outlawed gay marriage. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this makes Mass. a travel spot for gay couples around the country wanting to get married. On the other hand, if gay marriage were legal nationwide, you potentially have millions of people receiving tax benefits from marriage which DOES AFFECT the rest of the country as it affects government ability to use resources. That argument doesn't concern me, as it has nothing to do with my personal reasons for voting against gay marriage, but the point still stands.

What I am looking for is an anti-gay-marriage argument that conforms to the the tenants of classical debate. IE: One that relies on empiricism vs hearsay; IE: How does it detrimentally affect social order, heterosexual marriage, child rearing, or religious integrity? I have seen no evidence of any such argument in this TB thus far.

Yep, I tossed off a single line to Thunderbolt, just like I'm tossing off a couple lines to you right now. I'll respond to your other post later, when I've got some time to kill.

I keed, I keed!

To answer your last question, nope. I'm all for gay marriage. (But clit-lickers and butt-fuckers... doesn't that describe *every* male?) :D

Secondly, I didn't assume child/adult sex was illegal. I know it is. Which state allows such a thing to take place? None of them. In no place in America is sex with a child legal. It's not an assumption if you know it to be fact. Yes, of course, morally i believe sex with a child to be wrong, but in this case it doesn't even have to be a moral judgement. It's a legal one regardless of my thoughts on the subject.

But set that aside for a minute and lets talk about legality. Children having sex with adults is illegal for a very simple reason. Children, even if they give consent, are not old enough to understand what they are consenting to. It's that simple. They're not mature or responsible enough to make adult decisions. This is why we have driving ages, voting ages, drinking ages, etc.

A sexual relationship between two, consenting, ADULTS is a very different matter and two compare the two is a desperate attempt to make gay marriage immoral by association.

When did I say my mind equates gay amrriage with having sex with children. Don't distort my argument. That's dishonest on your part. I said that society codifies morality, and used the child sex scenario as an easily understandable example. It's a simple analogy because at this point in time, children having sex with adults is morally reprehensible to the lowest common demoninator (except for perverts in NAMBLA and other ssimilarly themed organizations). Prohibition of such acts are clearly morally based and some of the dictates are quite arbitrary. No one is begging for these moral laws to be removed because society has long since decided that it wishes to legislate morality.

For clarity' sake, let me repeat myself: NEVER ONCE did I say that I feel homosexuality is on the same footing as those who advocate having sex with children. If the only way you feel you can advance your point is by attacking me with falsehoods, then I'd say you are probably a dishonest person or at least lacking in comprehension and reasoning skills.

"but do you mean to tell me that someone who tried to get a gay marriage would be prosecuted under the law? " If you had any reading comprehension, you'd see quite plainly that I never implied that. As I've mentioned several times now, I'm a law student, and that's not how the law works. Your problem is that you are unfamiliar with the legal system. If you try to apply to the government for something illegal, you'll simply be told "No. That's illegal." Thus, if I want to build a liquor store across from a school (generally, such stores are prohibited by law when in close proximity to a school), I can apply for a license without fear of going to jail. This is *VERY* simple and common knowledge. That your mind goes straight to the idea that I was implying someone would go to jail indicates to me that you know very little about the law and that such ignorance probably exaggerates your outrage over gay marriage being illegal.

"Would there be jailtime involved for those who performed secret gay marriages?" Come on, people. We can do better than this. At least make an attemmpt to understand the laws that govern your own country.

"Secondly, I didn't assume child/adult sex was illegal. I know it is. Which state allows such a thing to take place?" Yes, you made an assumption. I gave a hypothetical. You can't take for granted a premise that doesn't exist in the hypothetical: *that's called an assumption.*

"Yes, of course, morally i believe sex with a child to be wrong, but in this case it doesn't even have to be a moral judgement. It's a legal one regardless of my thoughts on the subject." C'mon. I already pointed out that gay marriage is illegal. If your psychology is to dismiss a subject based on whether or not the law allows it, then you may as well stop arguing over gay marriage in states that prohibit it.

"Children having sex with adults is illegal for a very simple reason. Children, even if they give consent, are not old enough to understand what they are consenting to." So would you agree that we should allow sex between children and adults IF children could understand what was happening? That's an answer I can't wait for you to give. How do you feel about a 45-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old who has had several years of sex education? Let's say it's a 14yo. Let's say the child is 15. Let's say the child is 16. Let's say the child is 17. Let's say the child is two days away from turning 18. Let's say the child is 18. Oops! Did we cross the make-believe line and suddenly comprehension of what sex is magically occured? Let's say the person is 19 and missed out on that magical delivery of comprehensiion. Should we make it illegal for immature adults to have sex? Do you get the point?

Better still, who is to say that a child cannot understand what sex implies? Are you really going to tell me that a 15yo is incapable of rationally considering the implications? Are you going to tell me that an 11yo child who is offered $2000 to perform a sex act (for argument sake, let's say a sex act that cannot result in physical harm) cannot decide that it is in her/his best interest to do so? Why is this different from any other act prohibited to minors unless the parents consent? Parents generally are allowed to make a variety of decisions for their children. Why can't parents decide whether or not to allow their kids to perform fellatio on old guys? OH YEAH, IT'S BECAUSE SOCIETY FINDS THAT SORT OF SHIT DISGUSTING AND MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE. This is hardly a contest. The motivation to outlaw such things is quite clear.

"This is why we have driving ages, voting ages, drinking ages, etc." You mean arbitrary infringements on someone's rights? Yeah, I agree.

A sexual relationship between two, consenting, ADULTS is a very different matter and two compare the two is a desperate attempt to make gay marriage immoral by association." Shame on you, as well. Comparing rationales is not the same as comparing substance. You desperately need to learn the difference. I grow tired of batting away these stupid and ill-reasoned attacks, so do me a favor and use your brain before replying.

Shall we just ask the other posters here how they would interpret that statement?

You have no argument against gay marriage, you're merely a bigot who doesn't want others engaging in behavior that you don't approve of.

"And as for your deceptive example of a 16 year old girl and a 40 year old getting it on, there's a big fucking difference between an adult having sex with a sexually mature teenager and an adult having sex with a prepubescent child. " A 16yo is not a prepubescent (at least healthy, normally developing 16yo are not). And it also helps to give *evidence* for your reasoning instead of simply making an unsupported claim.

"Of course, by using an example of someone so near the age of consent (and in most states 16 would fit the definition) you sought to salvage your flawed premise" Actually, I mentioned children as young as 11. Do me a favor and *read* what I write before posting.

"As a law student, I would think you'd know better than to equate pedophilia with murky age of consent issues. " Hey brainless, I never used the term pedophile/pedophilia. And as I've mentioned several times before, I have not limited my examples to those 16 or older. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Start taking notes, as your short term memory apparently is very poor.

"If we're talking about a constitutional violation of an individual's rights--which I posit we are--it's not up to the general electorate at all any more than desegregation or interracial marriage were." Actually, the general populace is free to tell the government what they consider to be a constitutional right or not. THAT'S HOW WE GOT THOSE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

"Denying marriage rights to individual's based on their sexual orientation is demonstrably unconstitutional. " No it isn't. It hinges on a variety of perceptions. (For instance: one can easily claim that marriage as a legal concept is intended for a man and a woman, and that there is no discrimination in denying a gay marriage any more than there is discrimination in not allowing a white man to recieve a state-funded loan intended for african-american students. As suhc, until states adopt a definition of marriage as otherwise, no constitutional violation exists. The law is all about statutory phrasing.).

"Incidentally, are you going into constitutional law by chance? " I have no intention to practice law.

"I've always considered myself a fiscally right leaning libertarian" I'm a communitarian. That's about as far away as you can get from libertarian.

Mark my words, unless you fail to survive the next 10 years or so you will see the federal "legalization" of same sex marriages in your lifetime because the ban on them is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and the movment to recognize them is gaining momentum every day.

You've made no logical argument against gay marriage at this point in this civil rights struggle; what will your argument against them be when it becomes federal law?

Done with you now, have a nice homophobic life.

"You've made no logical argument against gay marriage " That's simply untrue. At least afford me the credit of logic. I have no intention of denying that there is a logical reason for *allowing* gay marriage; I simply see this as a situation of competing interests."Mark my words, unless you fail to survive the next 10 years or so you will see the federal "legalization" of same sex marriages in your lifetime because the ban on them is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and the movment to recognize them is gaining momentum every day. what will your argument against them be when it becomes federal law?" Perceived inevitability has nothing to do with my own conscience and reasoning.

"Done with you now, have a nice homophobic life." You have no basis for calling me a homophobe. I have no fear, contempt or hatred of homosexuals. If you choose to act like a child and leave a discussion by throwing insults then I welcome your departure as you seemingly have nothing left to say of value.

Buh-by...

"Wow. And you call ME brainless?" Would you prefer it if I called you incompetent? It's either that or else you are deliberately dishonest, because you were claiming that I said things that I actually never said. The only conclusion I can come up with is that you are either A). Intentionally misrepresenting me (dishonest) or B). Too incompetent to read and understand what I wrote. Feel free to offer any clarity on that issue, and I'll make any amends necessary. "So the entire population of this country got together in the lead up to the American Revolution and decided what was constitutional and what was not?" The country has been formulating, reformulating, and instituting its wisdom on those issues for over 200 years through voting, through representatives, through courts, through petitions, public demonstrations, written word, civil disobedience, judges, mobs, public speeches, and war (among others). Let's not attempt to boil it down into a single event. That's a gross misrepresentation.

"A+ student I'm sure." I'm pretty confident in my grades. I'll gladly (and confidently) compare my credentials with yours if a pissing contest if what you'd like.

"As for your assertion that limiting marriage to the union between man and woman, " what assertion?

"we'll see what the high courts have to say" Gee, looks like nearly every single district court, all but 2 state courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court seem to think otherwise. Legislatures across the country have codified defense of marriage acts. The last two Presidents have done likewise. The next POTUS has said he opposes gay marriage, that marriage is not a constitutional right, he'll leave the decision to the states and that gay marriage isn't as important as equal gay rights. Looks like a big hill to climb to me. We'll see.

"Have a nice day, kid!" Are you an old man, or simply want to feel superior to me by addressing me with a diminutive? Gee, you scored some big points, there. Before you criticise someone for being testy, maybe you should examine your own behavior and see if you're engaging in any activity that deliberately agitates people.

And no matter how many times you remind us that you're a law student and that we're all so ignorant of the law, you're failing to make your case here. You completely have failed to give one good reason why gay marriage should be illegal. Because it's the will of society? So was slavery back in the day. So was segregation. Truth is not a majority decision, which is why such a proposition should never have been on the ballot in the first place.

Further, did you happen to see the commercials that were aired in LA in support of Prop 8? They were not only filled with misleading information but they were flat out lies in many instances. Further, many people in LA didn't fully understand the proposition, either. It was worded in such a way that some people thought to vote "yes" meant to keep gay marriage legal.

And please just spare us with the "that's not what i said, you're putting words in my mouth" bullshit. At the end of the day, you know exactly what you're implying with your comparisons, you weasel.

And in addition to the big question you keep dodging, you never answered another question: Your mormon friends have admittedly ridiculous beliefs... Would you support a law to limit how they practice those beliefs?

Care to actually answer a question or are you just gonna keep dancing?