It's called checks and balances.

Less than four years now 'til 2012. Yee Haw!!!!

Making a gay relationship official for tax purposes doesn't seem all that important in light of all that. Still, I guess to some folks it is.

If homosexuals want to marry, they need to decide to sleep with members of the opposite sex. Otherwise they can have civil unions and enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

This is a situation where a very vocal minority is desperate for acceptance by the mainstream and will do anything to achieve it.

They are trying to convince the world that this is a Civil Rights struggle like the black civil rights movement of the 1960s. It isn't even close to that. Gay people can vote, run for office, hold jobs and do everything else straight people can do in this country. But don't you dare point that out or you'll be called a homophobe!

The gay mafia won't let the voters decide, even though that's the very foundation this country is built on. Instead, you can expect all sorts of lawsuits and claims of bigotry and hatred against anyone who dares disagree with their agenda.

It's not straight people's fault that homosexuality isn't the norm. Don't make straight people out to be evil for wanting to keep marriage as it always has been - between a man and a woman.

There was nothing amusing about this Hollywood garbage. Except that they thought this was somehow ingenius. More like disingenuous.

The only thing that is being withheld from them is the opportunity to call their civil union "marriage".

When you think about it, it's actually quite comical. Unlike that video. Is that really the best argument Hollywood can come up with for gay marriage? If so, that's lame!

As someone else on here said, blacks take offense to the notion that gays are mistreated in this country. Most blacks don't even approve of homosexuality. So the gays are barking up the wrong tree there.

They ought to thank their lucky stars that we like them so much. They aren't being lynched, forced to ride the back of the bus, drink from different fountains, eat at different restaurants, are they? No! But they can't be happy with living their lives quietly.

Instead, they are throwing their sexuality in our faces at every opportunity. Gay Pride Parades in every major city. Then they're bitching and moaning about how everyone hates them so much. Do you have any idea how much money gay people make?

If we hate gays so much, why are they so successful in business? Why do they have so many shows on the air? They run the fashion industry and much of the entertainment industry.

Being homosexual is about as accepted as it's going to be in this society. The thing is, they don't want to admit that they are different, that their behavior is abnormal. Instead, they want to cram it down our throat and change the very definition of marriage to suit their own situation.

The INCONVENIENT TRUTH is, marriage was invented to be between a man and a woman - between members of opposite sex. It started off that way and it has been that way ever since.

I am sorry that homosexuals think they can't lead fulfilling lives without being able to be "married". The truth is, it's petulant behavior from people who aren't used to not getting their way. The sad thing is, they are going to lose a lot of the tolerance that they have been shown if they keep pushing things.

Straight couples will not allow the definition of marriage to be changed just in order to accomodate a liberal political agenda. So what are homosexual advocates to do next?

The next step will be to outlaw all marriage and force the State to issue civil unions to couples instead. The gay mafia would rather ruin it for everybody than not get their way.

Expect a lot less support from the majority of Americans if shitty videos like this keep cropping up. Jack Black and his friends won't be changing any minds in their favor by making religious belief look evil.

"We need to prevent against fraudulent marriages for the purposes of scamming insurance companies, etc." ----- What is to stop hetero couples from doing the same?

"Marriage is intended for families who seek to reproduce" ---- Then by that logic, shouldn't we refuse marriage licenses to sterile couples and compel all married couples to procreate within a set amount of time or have their marriage revoked?

"We must define Marriage the way it is defined in the Bible as being between a man and a woman" ------ Have you heard of something called the Separation Clause in the Constitution?

"We need to uphold the values upon which marriage was based in this Country for 200+ years" ---- You realize that this is the same Country that once permitted slavery and only began to allow non-whites or non-males to vote in the past 100 years?

"We can confer the same rights to same sex couples by letting them have Civil Unions" ----- No, the rights are not the same, and didn't this "Separate but Equal" thing not work out too well the last time we tried it?

"It should be left to the states to decide" ----- No, any state legislation that contains discriminatory language immediately becomes a Federal Question to be decided in Federal Court, appealable to the Supreme Court. So leaving it to the States to decide (which is something regrettably many Democrats have said to side-step controversy), is only just another hurdle on this issue's ultimate date with destiny in the Supreme Court.

Like it or not, the homosexuals in this country are facing nothing like what blacks in this country faced in the 1960s. And because marriage isn't a Constitutionally-protected right, you can't really define the marriage issue as a Civil Rights issue. Like it or not.

Like it or not, the majority of blacks do not approve of homosexuality, so gays really shouldn't try to liken themselves to blacks in their attempts to draw parallels between gay rights and civil rights. Like it or not.

How's that, Gavin Nuisance?

Having a job isn't a constitutionally protected right, but your boss cannot discriminate because of your sexual preference.

Going to public school isn't a "constitutionally protected right", but they can't kick you out of school because you are gay.

While I disagree with your position, you are obviously smart enough to know that any law that has any discriminatory intent towards a class of people, whether it is age, sex, race, or sexual preference, is a Federal Question, and therefore must ultimately be decided by a Federal Court - namely the Supreme Court. It's only a matter of time. So, blowing it off by saying "it's not in the Constitution" is inaccurate, misleading, and a distraction.

In five years this will be moot, but hey, enjoy the exclusive right to marry while you can. I'm sure when 1000's of gay people you don't know and will never meet get married it will ruin your life.

There is always going to be the need for boundaries to be placed in order for a society to thrive. The boundary for marriage may be uncomfortable and inconvenient, but it has been decided upon by the voters.

The truth is, things aren't always "all-inclusive" in life. Not everyone can be a super-model, for instance. Or date one. Not just anyone gets to go to Harvard Law. Marriage is just another one of these things.

But we can pursue happiness even knowing there are things out of our reach. Right? Do you really want to legislate happiness? Because that is what I am hearing from a lot of the gay rights advocates. They are saying that they just want gays to have the same chance at happiness.

Well, why stop at the marriage issue? Why not have a constitutional right to a job that makes you happy? Or why not a constitutional right to a million dollar mansion to live in? How about a constitutional right to whatever floats your boat? Whatever makes you happy, you should have a constitutionally-protected right to it. Right?

Sorry, but that's not how life, let alone our society, works.

What drives me fucking crazy is that people somehow think or believe that gay people are incapable of loving each other the same way I love my wife. I have gay friends who would jump in front of a bus to save their "partner", and half this fucking country is getting divorces - so why deprive people of the right to experience the joy of a REAL wedding and give them all of the same legal rights. Again, there is absolutely no legal or rational explanation for prohibiting gay marriage, and I am confident this issue will be moot within the decade. But I just don't understand why the Snake Foreskins of the world get so worked up about keeping the prohibitions on gay marriage, and are willing to hide behind flimsy arguments rather than just say "Fuck it, if you want to be married too, have fun." How does this hurt you? Why do you care so much? Is it the Bible? Are you afraid of gay people? Do you even know any gay people? (I bet not).

Nearly all cultures that I am aware of, have defined marriage as between one woman and one man. This is why polygamy is outlawed, and why people have questioned homosexual unions as being considered marriage, because it changes the definition.

But that argument is challenged as inconsequential. I'm just sayin', I think its pretty simplistic to compare this to interacial marriages, and there are a lot of African American's who would agree. African American's have been subjugated against by the color of their skin, something they can not keep private. Sexual preference is not something you can just spot upon sight of someone. To me that makes it pretty dramatically different.

You think Lindsay Lohan is gay? She may be right now, but that can change, depending on her bank account. Is Anne Heche gay? She was when she was with Ellen, then she wasn't. Same with David Bowie and Elton John. But then Elton is gay again. It can get oh so confusing!

They should have a ticker like they do in the Stock Market. Like the DOW JONES INDUSTRIALS. Throughout the day you can check on people to see their gay stock rising and falling.

WHO CARES?

What difference does it make considering so many straight people get married because (a) they got knocked up; (b) they are under pressure from their families/parents; (c) they assume they can't do better; (d) they are compulsive; (e) they want a green card; (f) they want an inheritance; (g) they are in Vegas for the weekend; (h through infinity).....

There are so many ridiculous reasons why straight people get married, why in God's name are we preventing a majority gay people who really want to get married for all of the "right" reasons from doing so?

However, he wishes to run a marathon, using a wheelchair. The marathon organizers say "fine, you can compete, as part of the wheelchair division."

The man says "no" I want to "run a marathon" I want the same rights as those with legs, to deny me this right is to deny my civil rights. The race organizers reply "but running a marathon, means you have to run, that is by definition what it means. You can still compete, you can still enter this race, you just can not have your times compete against those who run."

The man replies "No! That is patently unfair and offensive to me, I was not born with a choice, and by telling me that I can not "run" a marathon you are taking away my right as a human, change your definition to include wheelchair racing as "running" do it! Do it now!"

The race organizers again plead toward the logic of this statement, "But what you are asking is to radically change a known and defined institution, which is the concept of running a marathon, simply so you can have the same public sentiment that you "ran a marathon." You can race a marathon, but by nature you can not run a marathon, based upon who you are that is simply the case. There is nothing wrong with you, it is simply the definition of what it means to run a marathon.

The man responds "I reject your notion and your discriminatory policies, I don't want to be known as "racing a marathon" I want it to be known that I "ran" a marathon. I will not take any other position on the matter. If you deny me this, than you are saying you hate all people who have my condition, and you are subjugating us to draconian rules, this is not only unfair, it is unconstitutional, and I for one will not stand for it!!!"

I don't know, to me this is what the argument amounts to. If civil unions and domestic partnerships were created to provide gay relationships the same legal and civil rights as married couples, then why the need to define it as marriage? Why re-define an institution like this? I'm asking.

And for those opposing it for religious reasons, fine. Oppose it in your own religion, but let Ellen and Portia pick up a marriage certificate and give them the union they're looking for under the eyes of the law. If, under the eyes of your God, it's an abomination, then that's your problem, don't marry them in your church (as if God cares more about preventing the tiny percentage of gays from marrying than preventing the dozens of millions of children starving and suffering all over the world.) I just don't think these religious reasons should interfere with the laws of the land. But whatever.

And if any of you out there disagree, please cite me one argument that is not based in bigotry, just one.

Your example of 4 celebrities is a really convincing argument. A couple of douchebags who want to be edgy, and you're convinced? A real powerful mind you have there.

If being gay is a choice, then do it for 5 minutes. Come on Snake, turn on the switch, and be attracted to Brad Pitt just for 5 minutes. Oh wait. That's impossible... Do you honestly not see how ridiculous your argument is?

I'm attracted to men, and I'm a man. There's nothing I can do about it. I have never, ever, even once been attracted to a woman. Same as you've never been attracted to a man. It's just the way I am. Lay off the hate man.

Either way, it's nice to know that progress is progress, and you're going to lose eventually. Hope you know that. Doesn't matter too much to me anyway; I live in a sane country: Canada.

I don't know why people get so upset if a couple of fruits wanna put on a tux and swap rings. Does it effect the price of beer, gas, cigarettes, pot or porn? If the answer is no, then who gives a fuck?

Are we prepared to allow polygamists to marry? Maybe we are, I'm not one who pays a whole lot of care to these issues, but I can see where people are concerned about how are society allows definitions to be changed, when rights can still be given without changing definitions.

Why do none of you guys saying "it's a democracy, live with it" respond when we bring up past issues like slavery and inter-racial marriage? There're TONS of issues that people would've LIKED to have voted on, but didn't. Popular opinion should NOT be imposed on people. If it was, then bigotry would be the norm everywhere.

The reason I ask, is that I find it interesting that there are no propositions that are seeking to allow Gay civil unions to get the same rights as hetero married couples. Honestly I don't think they care as much about the rights from a tax and legal sense, as much as the societal inclusion that "marriage" provides. To me that was my point with the marathon example. It isn't that the "racer" gets any different prize money or whatever, it is the societal adulation and understanding of what it means to "run" a marathon.

Can anyone come up with a SINGLE valid argument against gay marriage? Honestly? There hasn't been one in this entire talkback.

It blows my mind how some of you guys think like this. You guys that are so anti gay marriage: have you EVER met a gay person, aside from the one flaming guy in your high school?

"On November 4, in what is almosty certainly the most shameful element of the election, Proposition 8 was passed in California - essentially amending the state's Constitution to restrict marriage between same sex couples. Because, you know, love and commitment should only be honored and respected as prescribed by strangers."

CONCLUSION: (parody)"Everyone needs to get out and make sure their opinions are counted - unless you disagree with me, then you shouldn't get to vote and your opinion should not count. My opinion is the only one that matters here because I deem you not smart enough to participate." (end parody).

I know, I know, slippery slope arguments are not logically strong cases, but I do think in this case by redefining what "marriage" is you open the door to questions about other types of unions. I think the biggest argument against that is that Homosexuals are a class of citizens, where as "Elephant Lovers" are not a known or recognized class of citizens, that I know of...hmmm, maybe they should be.

A more apt analogy is the one I posed. There is no difference between banning gay marriages and interracial marriages. Further, I would argue that if three or more consenting adults want to enter into a marriage they should be allowed to. However, in this case, I believe it would be equal treatment under the law to, for example, only require the employer to provide benefits for one of an employees spouses.

Why is that? Why do we have to change the definition of a known institution in order to provide individuals the same legal protections, tax benefits, and status? I think it is because (though I could be wrong) that it is not really about that, it is more about the need for gays to tear down any and all definitions or institutions that might point to their relationships as in anyway different.

And to those talking about the slippery slope: there're billions (yes, billions) of gay people in the US who want to get married, and can't help being the way they are. No one will possibly argue to me that a man wanting to marry his sister is the same; no one is completely unable to control wanting to fuck their sister. Secondly, even if they do, their relationship is outlawed because the children could be genetically deformed, which is a whole other issue...

Anyone? Anyone with valid arguments?

And the right to gay marriage is not a democratic issue. If prop 8 had passed by a margin of 9:1 it should still be overturned by the Courts as unconstitutional.

Mel, thanks for being actually curtious. To your point: Gay people (like me) want marriage instead of civil unions because we're tired of being treated like second class citizens. Forgive me, but you're probably a white, straight male. Not to act like some holocaust sufferer or anything, but you have no idea what it's like to spend the majority of your adolesence with people calling you a "fag" or when a movie sucks, they say it's "gay". It may sound trivial to you, but it's insanely hurtful.

Gay people want it to be marriage, because separate but equal is not equal. Period. We know our relationships aren't "the same", do you think we're idiots? But the only thing that's different is genitalia. I've loved boyfriends in the past as much as you've loved girlfriends; my love isn't anything less than yours, and shouldn't be treated as such.

So, unless you're willing to argue that you believe that two brothers should have the same rights to marry as you think two non-related homosexuals should have, you're pretty much just a hypocrite whose opinion isn't worth listening to.

And if you DO think that two siblings should be allow to have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples, you're a sick, twisted nutjob whose opinion isn't worth listening to. :)

No, I don't agree that people who voted for prop 8 should've lost their job. I bet 99.9% of gay people agree with me. What? You expected me to disagree? LOL

They're selfish hypocrites to whom "Democracy" is merely a tool to be used or discarded, depending entirely on whether it gets them what they want. How sad... :(

And you say "flooding the medical system"? Are you kidding me? Gay people have had to pay for YOUR straight marriage benefits for hundreds of years. Deal with. Equality is coming.

And churches WOULD NOT be prosecutable for not treating gay couples equally. That's a lie. Plain and simple. No one is trying to force churches into anything.

This is sad, this is what makes me really upset. However, I still question the need to call homosexual unions marriage, it is completely re-difining the term, and that is where I have taken issue. I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights, and would absolutely support a proposition that would grant civil unions the same legal and protected status, but why marriage? I dissagree that it is the same as blocking interacial marriage. To me that was singling out a specific population and saying "you can not do something exactly as others do" However, with homosexual marriage, I see a specific population saying "we want to do something others do, and change it fundementally to allow our version."

I think the problem with this proposition is that it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion without the bigots and the hatemongers jumping in to spew their crap.

Like I said, why shouldn't the definition be changed? Marriage, in the legal term, is just that: a legal term. We want it changed, because we want to be equal. What I don't get is this: why DON'T you want it to be changed? I'm not trying to be rude, I just want to know. I don't see how it affects any straight person that gay people want to be treated exactly the same.

True, inter-racial and same-sex marriages being recognised are different in that the genitals aren't the same, but like I said, my love is the same as anyone else's. Do you understand how it feels to be told that you're "less than" or need "a separate definition"? God, I love being Canadian...

My point, and ifinitezero is actually brave enough to explain this, is that it is more about perception of being a second class citezen and taking back legitimacy. But changing the definition of an existing institution, which matters to many people, seems arbitrary and radical for no reason. To me it is more about making a statement than issuing rights. Again, I do not see a proposition requesting the same civil rights for domestic partnerships as marriage, because I bet you would see that pass.

Saying that we should just go for civil unions because it's more plausible is like saying black people should've been happy with their "3/5 of a person" treatment, since it's better than nothing at all. Gay people won't stop until we're completely equal.

I'll paraphrase Dan Savage: gay people are sick of this. We're no longer willing to just accept "that we have different opinions on the subject"; how can this be an opinion?!?! I'm a PERSON just like you. It's not a political thing; it's whether you have a mind and can think, or not.

That makes me a biggot? That's the most ridiculous joke of an argument I've ever heard.

You have equated difference as being second class, yet you also (and rightly so) celebrate your differences and your uniqueness. So I fail to see the need to redefine what has been in existence for so long. If it was only about rights, then we would be talking about domestic partnerships, but we are not, we are talking about changing what is.

Does this affect me? I don't know, does something that fundementally changes what it means to be married affect those who are married. On the outside, no, it really doesn't. But the precedence of making the change to be inclusive is a bit stupefying to me, I simply do not see the purpose.

Finally, and I will say this, I am also dissapointed in the "No on 8" crowd for recasting the same hatred they have back towards those they oppose. They see homophobia in the "Yes on 8" crowd, and it certainly exists, but the epithets and the abusive spew I have seen lobbed against certain religions is astounding to me. I have friends who are jewish, mormon, and even (gasp!) the dreaded born again christians, and I am always suprised at how the latter two can be treated with such incredible hatred and distain, as though to hate this group is perfectly acceptable. To me this is hypocritical and counter to the very charge and cause that the liberal and open minded community is trying to make.

Also, your sources (which you didn't seem to cite...) talk about RELATIONSHIPS. Not marriages. Fail'd.

And yes, the select few who've gone on attacks against groups who supported prop 8 are shameful. But what I find even worse, is black people trying to vote down another group's rights. It's so backwards that it makes me physically sad.

You know what...agree or not...if you can't enjoy the circling of the drain...what's the point ya know? Fortunately, I've practically got front row seats and the show gets better and better every year! Bring on the dancing girls with exposed boobs on public TV again! We need more fines so we can buy more god damn pop corn! I don't want to see talking heads on my tv..I want to see BOOBS! With nipples! Attached to female bodies not collecting social security! As deep as a bird bath I tells ya!

Besides what is with all the people here and their "Majority rule" bullshit? Wasn't the voting definition of "majority" changed from 50% to 60%? I'm sorry but the Majority lost!

And the video is funny. Nothing wrong with it the religious people who are offended are just touchy and are willing to don their KKK battle armor to ease their blood lust when their religion of choice is politely question by those of no faith/other faith.

Rebeck, be aware that (like most liberals) you will always be an incredibly unhappy, frustrated person no matter who is in control of government. So march at the rallies and cry about the injustice of the world but in the end you still are who you are and no external force (government or otherwise) will help you. In other words, Nancy Pelosi or Obama can't save you from being this bitter little loser you are. Now feel free to swear some more you happy-go-lucky fella.

But it's all about money and not an ideology for Hollywood? That must be why we haven't seen the Clinton movie yet. Nobody wants to see an impeached Pres. sticking a cigar up a chubby intern's cooz while searching for Bin Laden as his Lady Macbeth-like wife plot her own rise to power. BOOOORING!!!

http://news.yahoo. com/s/ap/20081204/ap_on_re_us/ gay_marriage_poll

Don't forget to remove the spaces. Secondly we ARE confronting the black community. There was just a rally here in LA that went straight through minority neighborhoods. So that's that.

PRIMARY COLORS was quite the hit piece. I was ready to vote for him after that movie. Did they actually address his presidency, purgury, impeachment, pardons, or last minute legal plea bargaining in that film? Did they actually use the word "Clinton" in it?

Rea, read closely. I will try to limit the syllables. The definition of marraige is currently LAW. If you want it changed then it will be voted in by the public or duely elected representatives. The Constitution that you claim to love so much kind of wants us to do it that way. So it would be just so wonderful and I'm sure improve the society 10 times over and make you a very happy, productive member of society if the law was changed to let homosexuals marry. But they sorta, kinda have to follow our nations laws to achieve it as opposed to backdoor it in through judges. I personally don't care either way. As long as it is done legally and Constitutionally. Oh crap, that last word had a lot of syllables. Sorry about that. PEACE OUT Y'ALL!!

If the will of the people actually determined civil rights issues, we would have had Jim Crow laws into the '90s. No, I'm not saying the gay community is going through the same legal violence that blacks have had to face -- no one in this country CAN compare to that -- but it is an issue of the minority being denied equal rights. It shouldn't matter where it fits on your sliding scale of injustice, discrimination is discrimination.

I think the gay rights movement compares favorably to women's suffrage. Women never faced legal violence but they were clearly inferior in the eyes of the law. Their move for equality was justified and eventually substantiated. For the equal rights movement to gain traction, it's better to play up that analogy.

Thought not.

Even without that dicey assertion, the outside-the-norm argument is pathetic. Talk about slippery slopes.

http://www.connexion.org/rssit em.cfm?src=1&tabnum=0&subtabnu m=0&q=&p=0&id=67328

It took place on the 23rd of Nov. As for the "racism" that article clearly shows it had everything to do with socio economic boundaries, lack of education, and nothing to do with peopl being black. In LA alot of poorer areas are minority but I bet there was a lot of poor white trash voting for prop 8 as well. Im sure many black folks in more middle and upper class communities didnt vote for it. Your aspersion that we should be blaming all blacks is flawed. We should be educated people in poorer communities black or white.

As for the unnatural thing, I fail to see how something that occurs naturally (and it occurs a LOT in nature, across a massive range of species) is unnatural. The fact that gay sex doesn't lead to procreation, or isn't in harmony with our evolved reproductive processes, doesn't make it necessarily unnatural, in my view.

I do know what you mean about religious bigotry in the US, as well as the sometimes appalling levels education that feed into that. You're mistaken to include me as an American, though. I'm English, and do believe that gradually and inexorably science and reason will pervade more and more of the US. They're a bit behind the Europeans on a number of social fronts, but they're a younger country. They'll get there. I hope.

Bottom line: two consenting, happy adults = nobody else's business or right to legislate to remove rights from them enjoyed by the rest of society.

The religious definition of marriage is something specific to each individual church and the state cannot dictate how a church manages its private property. That definition is not at stake here. Churches that refuse to acknowledge gay marriage would be under the same legal protection as churches that refuse to accept interracial or interfaith marriage or even marriages of people who have been divorced. What's at stake is the civil definition of marriage.

If a heterosexual couple gets married in City Hall with no church, no pastor, no mention of spirituality whatsoever, does their marriage have less value in the eyes of the law then a couple that is married in a church by a pastor with yes mention of spirituality? No, it doesn't. Their marriages are the same under the law. In fact, the pastor in the church wedding still has to say, "By the power vested in me by the state of..."

Same-sex couples are asking for equal access to rights and recognition that only the civil definition of marriage can give them.

Gay marriage is already in the definition. Sorry, but Christians don't get to define these words on their own. Plenty of non religious and religious people who disagree that its simply between a man and woman. It has NOTHING to do with Christianity.

That is all.

I would just like to say though: Minority doesn't necessarily equal abnormal doesn't necessarily equal unnatural. People use those terms as a pejorative then try and pass it off as some kind of technical terminology. Well, it's inappropriate either way.

The lowest-common denominator "science" of using the reproductive function as the exclusive definition of natural use is either specious or disingenuous, probably depending on who's wielding it. Because something carries out a primary function does not mean application of secondary functions is unnatural. That's just overly simplistic.

And finally: Gay animals. God bless 'em.

Speaking of which, how come he didn't marry anyone? How very suspicious.

News just in, gay dudes get married, world doesn't end shocker.

Jesus wasn't being anti-semetic in the clearing of the temple, you dumbass and equating his actions to the current administration is just foolish.

I now retract any kind of intellectual support I had for you previously. You am a twat.

Yes, bad men do bad things, we get it. Please try and reason your arguments in a more coherent and sane fashion.

Take a deep breath...and relax.

Anyway the point of Jesus > Obama is - no shit. I'd expect the son of God would outdo the Son of a Woman Named Stanley.

Get to it you paranoiacs.

*Cue trailer music*

Get well soon.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Whooo, that's rich. *snif*

Please, stop man, you're killing me...

For shame, Morbid.

gotta revise my christmas list...

The only fan I want is Coughlins Laws. He's not easy on the eyes, but boy can he suck a mean cock.

Thats almost as good as my piss ladel (Coughlins) trying to say I was a racist after I repeatedly used the term "GOOK" while quoting John McKKKain.

And 2. This is for those who voted for Prop 8 and want to deny homosexuals the right to marry. You people never get to complain about this bullshit war on Christmas EVER FUCKING AGAIN. I heard all the false victim-hood of how you were being denied your 1st amendment rights and how this country and the "secullar left" had it out for you and how you we're now the "oppressed". Ok, fine. Now that your views are truly being forced upon everybody else, you no longer get to play victim over people being inclusive of other relgious holidays, mkay? You can't claim oppression when you're the one doing the oppressing (and yes, denying a homosexual the same rights you have is oppression, not violent or murderous of course, but oppression none the less).

And, one last thing...those of you saying "tough shit, the majority voted for it" must never have heard about Jefferson's notion of "The Tyranny of the Majority" and why he questioned some of the notions of a democratic republic. Just because the majority vote a particular way does not mean they are right. I won't even go into the other historical aspects the "majority" believed in or voted for that were wrong then as they are wrong today.

Damn...I'm just a schmuck trying to get by on what's left of my grey jelly floatin between me ears but so many people are so very passionate about thing they seemingly haven't thought very deeply about.

I apologize for calling you surely.

Some far rightwingers want to abolish the democracy - that allows common folks to vote on such things as propositions. They want the right to make laws restricted to the elites, and only the elites. Why would right wing Republicans want that? Because they want to be the elites. The bigger question, is why would people on the left want that?

Losing a vote is not the end-all. Losing the right to vote, is.

Proposition's come and go. What is voted for or against today, can have a different voting result next year. But if you remove the right to vote altogether, you will get what you richly deserve.

Why can't loving, consenting adults of opposite sex be allowed to hold on to the most basic definition of the institution of marriage that has existed since time immemorial?

Why can't loving, consenting adults of same sex simply accept the idea of civil unions and enjoy the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy? The answer: because they have a desperate need to feel accepted by the mainstream who make up the societal norm. The problem is, being homosexual is abnormal sexual and social behavior, and a lot of gay people don't want to admit or accept that.

They'd rather ruin marriage for heterosexuals than be denied it themselves. Talk about spoil-sports! The gay mafia wants to force a false sense of normalcy on the public. What they don't get is that they are actually pushing many straight people to become less tolerant of them.

You claim it's all about hate, I don't hate homosexuals, but the fact that this is all about tax breaks seems to go way above the heads of the people who made this thing. Yes, the musical was funny, but all it mainly did was say "You, you out there who voted against this! You're ignorant and STUPID! You so STUUUUPIIIIIID!!!!111"

Not the best way to reach the masses and spread your message. Personally, I say either let gays marry and be as miserable as the rest of us (what with divorces and alimony), or stop all gov't marriages and just let churches handle that shit... Honestly, why is the gov't involved in marriages anyway? Marriage has always just been a church thing since the beginning of civilization. How did the gov't get involved?

The whole "Christmas" thing is an effort by Christians (and some of varying other beliefs) to stop a political correctness movement which is attempting to remove the entire "reason for the season" from the public and private sector. They aren't trying to force people to celebrate Christmas if they don't want to. They are trying to keep the word "Christmas" in retail stores and various other arenas. It is so silly to ban "Christmas" because it *may* not be applicable to all people. I don't know too many people who get up in arms when they hear the word Christmas uttered or see it on a sign at Wal Mart. And yet, the PC Nazis are trying to strip Christmas out of our culture almost entirely.

Now look at what the gay mafia is trying to accomplish. They want to force all Americans to accept them as the norm and allow them to marry the same sex and change the definition for everyone... ah, I can't even deal with this anymore. Have a great weekend!

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 and/or opinion. IE: How specifically, 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, and I'm pretty sure my head would explode if I tried to catalog and refute all the fallacious bullshit being slung by the bigots here. It would require a 50 meter post, hmmm...

Nope, fuck it, not worth the time. It's all been successfully refuted piecemeal already anyway. It's like trying to debate a lamp-post.

Unless someone finally mounts a logical argument after all this blather, I'm out. Peace to you all.

We'll crucify the insincere tonight!!

We'll make things right, we'll feel it all tonight!!

Believe in me as I believe in you ... tonight.

I seriously doubt that you have the intellect to comprehend the writings of Ayn Rand, and that you probably draw most of your "opinions" regarding literature from Cliff Notes.

There was a whole group of us trying in vain to engage you in a logical debate of the subject, but you just kept repeating the same talking points, over, over, and calling us all stupid for "refusing to see" the validity of your position on the subject. So I wrote you off.

Get over yourself man. Your opinion just isn't that important, and it's high time you figured that out. You'll be a happier person for it. Humility is a virtue, not a liability.

Bye bye Tai, and don't worry, I won't bother with addressing you in the future.