Homosexual Marriage

[Chris the Chees]

You are not in my leauge and I'm going to enjoy making you feel smaller.

Personal insults and ad-hominems are not tolerated here Elminister. I advise you to watch your tone.

[Pockets]

Number one is off the list. Your responses are identical in tone and content to the clergy. Interesting
The best thing about people that are wrong is they will almost always give you the ammunition you need to defeat their purpose. I say 'almost' because sometimes people are smart.

elminister said If homosexual practice,as you all proport, is a biologicaly endorsed thing then it would be the only all species wide,self defeating,self destruct mechanism that would be subject to both mutation/variation and as a pysiological thing be subject to; deletion of an obsolete<your appendix> or apparent moves of refinement. Is there anybody that can even show me that? Feel free, people, to wrap and bang your head around that for a while. There really is no way around it

.
Please correct me if I am wrong but, for the purpose of clarification. You are saying the reason homosexuals are not 'born' gay is that in all the animal kingdom there is not a documented occuirrence of a living organism having a similar trait. Specifically one that stops them from procreating. I think you may actually believe what you write. It doesn't mean this is why you feel how you do yet it does not mean otherwise either. I guess it is a good thing this is debate, not Biology. So I ask is homosexuality a proclivity? An aberration? You state whatever it is, it is a choice. Nature has several extinctions yet that is not what you are tallking about. Boy I guess you win huh? Number one homosexuals can procreate. Homosexuality is not a separate species. It is a sexual orientation. One you do not agree with. You cannot eqaute your orientation with a choice because you know you did not make one. So you hem haw and avoid those questions with evasive, transparent manuevers. One of my favorites

Quote by: Pockets In all fairness breaking down the quotes by sentence and answering each sentence is alot like the day labor we have hanging out in front of The Home Depot stores-It doesn't work! elminister Fairess, in this case, is not relevant.A proper sentence contains a subject, that subject can be addresed individualy,which is what I did. I will continue to do so because whether or not you agree with my form it is still proper and am still getting my points across,obviously. You are not worthy of dictating the methods inwhich debate is to be conducted.

You do everything except stick out your tongue, grab your ball and go home. Why am I not worthy? I guess you can't say something that I can't disprove. Fairness is not relevant? Making your case without deception is something you apparently cannot do. Why would you use deception in your posts? You also cite statistics of governmenrt agencies being overrun in the mad rush to get married. Insurance companies becoming overun with changes to group plans. Those are not reasons, they are straws. Your grabbing at them. Excuses.

Yes, I know your stance is that people are born gay. Re-wording it over and over will not make it true,you know. So now you claim that being a homosexual is interwoven with the concept of destiny, do you? Also you compare homosexuality to being a professional athlete? So tell me, are you a novice or professional homosexual?

Is that what you got out of your education? Rewording it did not change what I said or meant. Unlike you , I mean what I say. If I had no basis for my feelings other than ignorance I would just keep my mouth shut. You're in the weeds. I don't support this issue because I'm gay. I'm not gay. I'm straight. I date girls. If you have a daughter she would like me. I guraantee it. They turn me on. Everything I do is motivated by one thing: Getting laid. You know those guys you hated in school because you couldn't get laid? That was me. I feel this way becauseI know the ramifications of allowing the minority to speak for the majority. I'm not altruisitc. Im getting older and I actually worry about the ramifications of allowing discrinminatory laws to be passed. You and people like you talk about children, stability, responsibility, money and reason that is why same sex marriage cannot work. You can say there is not a documented case of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. So what. Humans are unique. No other animal sits around and talks about going to the moon. We have a higher intelligence. More complex emotions, more complwex emotional issues. At least some of us do. You are comparing apples and oranges You even stated you made a choice about your sexuality. You know you lied. Why? Becasue your case is that weak. Everyone would know when they made the choice if it was a choice.That would be a big day. We probably would have a holiday. No not valentines Day or Sweetest Day.Those are for everyone. Unless we cannot prove another life form had one. I've been up too long. You're not worth my time.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Elminister If homosexual practice,as you all proport, is a biologicaly endorsed thing then it would be the only all species wide, self defeating, self destruct mechanism that would be subject to both mutation/variation and as a pysiological thing be subject to; deletion of an obsolete<your appendix> or apparent moves of refinement. Is there anybody that can even show me that? Feel free, people, to wrap and bang your head around that for a while. There really is no way around it.

I recommend you heed your own advice and figure out how to wrap your head around the fact that homosexuality has existed at least as long as recorded history has. If it were the biological dead end you suggest it is, it would've been weeded out a long time ago.

The theories behind homosexuality's persistence are fairly simple to understand. I challenge you -- as you put it -- to wrap your head around the existing theories. I further challenge you to work on a counter argument.

Here's your homework: Homosexual Marriage Get busy.

[Elminister]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Yes. Do you actively choose to whom you are sexually attracted? Most, if not all people, are attracted instinctually not conciously; there is no decision making process in it on anything other than a sub-concious level.

No, I do not actively choose my thoughts. Everybody actively chooses to or to not manifest this attraction is my point. There is a decision being made there that you or anybody else cannot remove, no matter how hard you try.

In several different studies in sexual orientation conducted by different people at different times have produced this simular statement: there were far more people,in those studies, that professed to or showed a homosexual inclination/desire than what could actually be construed both by admission and definiton to represent the percent of the homosexual demography as it exists in society.

Tell me, honestly, what does that above fact mean to you? Is that not indicative of a choice, all the way around the table? Show me a different interpretation of that if you can.

Quote by: Chris the Chees You equate attraction with 'random' thought?

Hmmm, are your random encounters planned? Wouldn't an attraction forged in a random encounter with a woman indeed be a roving thought? Or are you saying that you could be attracted to every and all women on this planet because you carry a base attraction to women? Preference is still at play and preference is manifest by choice.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Then how do you explian that homosexuality has existed throughout human existance and across the rest of animal kingdom?

It's an anomaly continued on thru and by consciousness of actions. There is no proof to show it being passed on in the genome. How simple, huh.

Quote by: Chris the Chees And thus we get to the crux of the anti-gay argument; some judgmental meanderings into the subjective while operating under the pretence that the judgements are objective and thus subject to the two dimensional paradigm of ‘right and wrong’.

The 'paradigm' is all that is needed for one to make a decision for and that only affects ones self, unless of course you think more than that is needed.
This is the logic quo that homosexuals use in regarding their own decisions of personal lifestyle..."Who is it hurting?" Of which however ,with somebody else in this forum, I am expanding on how it is probable to "hurt" somebody.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Personal insults and ad-hominems are not tolerated here Elminister. I advise you to watch your tone.

This is a warning from a Volconvo Moderator, correct? As I have read in the forum rules is this not supposed to be deliverd via the P.M system only?
If I am mistaken then offer up the correct explanation if you would/should because I'm going to look into this further myself for an accurate explanation.

Quote by: Volconvo's Rules Moderation issues must be address via PM or in the Site Operations forum

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/socie...uncements.html

Your up next, Bacon Guy.

[Chris the Chees]

Everybody actively chooses to or to not manifest this attraction is my point.

I take it by this you mean act upon attraction?

that professed to or showed a homosexual inclination/desire than what could actually be construed both by admission and definiton to represent the percent of the homosexual demography as it exists in society.

Or alternatively the modern day statistics are warped by the stigma which still exists in society; a result of a continuing prevailant homophobic attitude espouced by certain members of the community?

Hmmm, are your random encounters planned?

By me, no; but attraction as already stated is naturally dictated not chosen. In other words, the girls I happen to be attracted to all tend to share certain physical characteristics, which debunks the theory that there is anything random about attraction, from a biological point of view.

Preference is still at play and preference is manifest by choice.

On the contrary, preference is naturally dictated, it has nothing to do with what one personally wants. Why would homosexuals choose to be attracted to men, a choice which will lead them to being alienated and stigmatised, have their rights limited and generally be discriminated against? Why would anyone choose that?

It's an anomaly continued on thru and by consciousness of actions.

So you are arguing that non-sentient beings, with a highly limited capacity for intellegent thoughts and near completely dictated by instinct make conscious decisions? What a truly laughable theory.

The 'paradigm' is all that is needed for one to make a decision for and that only affects ones self, unless of course you think more than that is needed.

That makes no sense, try again.

Of which however ,with somebody else in this forum, I am expanding on how it is probable to "hurt" somebody.

And just how do your propose to argue that the homosexul lifestyle which is inherently a private affair, hurts anybody?

This is a warning from a Volconvo Moderator, correct?

Incorrect; it was a friendly piece of advice. You will know when I am giving you a warning in an official capacity.

As I have read in the forum rules is this not supposed to be deliverd via the P.M system only?

They are the channels in which we would like you to question or queery moderator decisions or policy.

If you would like to discuss the issue further then, and this is with my moderator hat on, take it to the site operations forum or via PM.

[Dirty Name]

The majority of couples have intercourse before marriage, and many more children are being born out of wedlock than ever before.

Yeah, so what? That's your argument against traditional marriage? Here you are pointing to people who deliberately DON'T use the incentives as proof that the legal recognition of marriage doesn't strengthen relationships? Isn't that a bit like saying Alcoholics Anonymous doesn't work because, gee, look at all the drunks out there who refuse to attend?

There are also the many couples who do not, and have no intention of having children.

Intent is irrelevant to the argument, remember? It's about potential. Think of it this way... you and your spouse don't intend to have children. But, whoops! A child is conceived. There goes your "intent" argument, right out the window.

Need I continue thrashing that point of yours? I thought not.

Like senior citizens. Their sexual relationship has far less impact on society than any other demographic out there.

Except for... um... same-sex couples. Did you forget what we are talking about here?

If we can not offer incentives to homosexual marriages based on the fact that their intercourse will never produce offspring then I hope you are also asking that the rights and incentives of senior citezens, the sterile/infertile, professionals who do not wish to have children, have their rights and incentives demoted to "union" status as well. Otherwise you are left looking like some kind of dumb hypocrite.

I think I've made myself pretty clear on this point. Same-sex couples will never have offspring within their relationship. While you try to draw some similarity between senior citizens, infertile couples and professionals who don't want children, you fail utterly. Because no matter how you slice it, the government /society /state cannot say with certainty that the latter groups will NEVER have children unless the state wants to invade privacy by obtaining medical records.

But even that is missing the point of marriage benefits. The state should grant them LONG before children are born, to strengthen potentially procreative unions so that WHEN children do arrive, the relationship is already stable.

We already do give benefits to ANYONE, gay, straight, married, single, old, young, etc who has a child. So recognizing marriage only after a child is born SERVES NO PURPOSE.

The idea in my argument is to strengthen the relationship before children enter the picture.

[Jack]

Same-sex couples will never have offspring within their relationship.

Obviously you're only considering gay males. A lesbian is quite able to produce a child within her relationship. Unless you want to add another impediment by adding that the sperm must come from her partner. Otherwise a lesbian couple can produce children like any straight couple who resorts to A.I. So now your argument is only aimed at gay males who do not have custody of children from a previous marriage or have adopted.

to strengthen potentially procreative unions

We, as a society, do not need to "strengthen" or otherwise encourage the production of children. Enough are born without incentive to eliminate any worry that we're suddenly going to run low on human babies.

How come wedding vows, even in a church ceremony, don't mention children?

[Dirty Name]

Obviously you're only considering gay males. A lesbian is quite able to produce a child within her relationship.

Nope. How do you figure that? Clearly, a lesbian must get sperm from a third party, which is outside the lesbian relationship. Even if that third party waives all legal rights to the child, we aren't talking about an exclusively lesbian relationship, due to the possibility that the donor could legally attempt to reassert paternity rights if he chooses to do so. Thus, any sperm donor must be considered a third party, i.e. not an exclusively lesbian relationship.

[Dirty Name]

We, as a society, do not need to "strengthen" or otherwise encourage the production of children.

Never said we should. For the umpteenth time - and you should know - I'm not advocating that we encourage the production of children. I agree that it happens on it's own, via natural sexual relations between heterosexual couples. Which is EXACTLY why our society should work to protect any heterosexual relationship where the couple has declared they intend to mate for life.

And it's exactly why society has far less concern about a same-sex relationship where the couple declares the exact same thing - because the impact on society is not the same.

[Dirty Name]

You people can nitpick my argument all you want, you can bring up lesbians with turkey basters filled with sperm, you can talk about really old people being unable to get pregnant, you can talk about infertility and all that crap, but the bottom line in my argument is this:

When you compare sexual relationships between heterosexual couples versus same-sex couples, the potential impact on society and on the couple - good or bad - is NOT equal. Therefore, same-sex relationships don't need to be treated equally by society.

Nor should they be. But I suppose that's a separate discussion we can have after you admit the two types of relationships aren't equal in the first place.

[Elminister]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy It was always hypothetical; I though that was obvious from the outset. If it were not, you have my sincere and most profuse apologies.

You have an interesting way of dodging having to concede when you're backed into a corner; this is the second time you have done so. Let me explain. Before when you were using improper terms to describe a scenario of which you continually used the term Pavlovian Conditioning in conjunction with and I then pointed out your improper use of terms you just said" oh sorry, it's been ""good number"" of years and I am just mixed up". Yes and no. Essentialy you were wrong but did not confess to it; you just simply employed a cheap tactic to avoid saying so. The other time I am referring to is now how this scenario you have proped has now become "hypothetical" and the value of defeating such has been reduced to some kind of mentor/pupil challenge you have put forth for me to riddle out. I can can show you several of your own statemnets proporting this scenario as being applicable and factual, not hypothetical. Weren't you the one that said something about changing terms and expressions in debate?
You're essentialy debating to stay neutral herein and are changing the value of your statemnets to avoid being wrong. You are no mentor and are not in my leauge,either. I am bored with our little games and must now bring them to a close.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy There can be no absolute proof of non-existence, which was my subtle point.

...And now you have made your point universally applicable,as it reads, and in doing so the term "nonexistant" as it is used throuout virtually all fields of science and many,many other various situations now is only really a misnomer. Do you wish to continue with this line of thought? Oh yeah, purpple people eating monsters that look like Sparrow Agnue exists

Quote by: The Bacon Guy That’s what I acknowledged from the outset. It doesn’t affect my argument.

No,no you did not. You proposed your Panda study as being a manifestation of a concept of erotica and I then pointed out to you it was only really and unconditioned response; a natural reaction to something, you then changed your terminology........."Mr. Terminology". You keep changing your statments to maintain relevancy. If I cannot retract a statement which I did not intend to be all inclusive then you cannot change any of your statments either; as your prior statements stand they are wrong. You also said I cannot call in metaphor after the fact in this then you cannot call hypothecitcal after the fact. Because of this, of you trying to offer supportive proof for yourself, you are wrong. There is no forgiving; there is no retraction. These are the quo's you have set and they have made you wrong, enjoy.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy The panda may be thinking of eroticism, but be prevented from acting upon it by another thought; one brought about by social dynamics. Again, it's not inconceivable.

Then offer up any kind of supporting proof, if you can. Just saying something is possible does not give it value of form or function. If you cannot support this proposal at all it is worthless.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Thoughts can exist without being plain or apparent. Without being plain or apparent, they are not manifest. Hence, a thought can exist without being manifest. What part of that do you disagree with?

We are talking about specific thought patterns, remember. We aren't just talking about the consciousness of an individual. So you show me proof of a specific though pattern< erotic conceptual> existing without being made apparent. Also, thusfar, we have been working off of terms that you have selected for yourself. I assume you picked the ones that would,as you figure, prove easiest for you to substanciate your claim. I had not put forth my terms in of use of the word manifest and up to this point of this debate I have allowed you your little self derived convenience but I will no longer continue to do so.
Here, use this:
4. to prove; put beyond doubt or question: The evidence manifests the guilt of the defendant.
adj. Clearly apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious.
To display or present a manifest of
clearly revealed," from L. manifestus "caught in the act, plainly apprehensible, clear, evident,"
clearly revealed to the mind or the senses or judgment; "the effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees the parched fields
provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one's behavior, attitude, or external attributes; "His high fever attested to his illness";
manifest - Definitions from Dictionary.com
Now, Bacon Guy, commence in banging your head against a wall< I am going to enjoy watching>

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Animals which have been shown erotic imagery do have the frame of reference from which to extrapolate.

No, read what I wrote: "a frame of refference from OUTSIDE what can be readily percieved like a human can". That is not the premise of your retort as it appears above. And as for your animals now having a "base line" to draw from for pleasure after veiwing erotic imagery.....PFFFT! All animals have the faculties, from and at birth, to recieve and interpret pain and pleasure, it has nothing to do with movies that humans show them. It's called unconditioned for a reason, Bacon Guy.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy You are the one who brought up human thought; I have thus far never mentioned it.

Our little debate here has basicaly been spawn from this:

Quote by: Turningtired I must submit that I've seen human beings eat their own, or even other's feces as well.. Not in person of course, but it's something called scat I believe. By this I think that we can level ourselves as a race with the animal kingdom as well.

What I said to her:
Level ourselves?No. This thing "scat" if that is indeed the name, is a fetish. Just thinking of it and recalling the very few pictures I have seen makes my stomach turn. I would presume this behaviour has some kind of erotic value to those that do it. I think it is safe to say it isn't done for the nutritional value. There are many,many fetishes that people indulge. Some involve pain, some involve garden tools.......and pain. Do you think erotica or any other concept of the such exists in a dogs' mind or the mind of any other animal? I don't."
Homosexual Marriage
and then you come running in with your Pandas and bla,bla,bla and now you say you were not trying to imply a relation to andof human thoughts with your Panda unconditioned response example? Your ummm apparent value of relation is somewhat skewed I think. That's nothing to be ashamed of though. :)

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Bottom line: the attraction is not a choice.

The bottom line is you have offered no proof; that's the bottom line. What the hell is this " predisposition which is the activated by conditioning" supposed to mean anyway? I'm not picking on your typeo just your choice of wording here, mind you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continued on next post:

[Elminister]

Continued from above....

Quote by: The Bacon Guy (though you have still to prove this to be the case).

Oh,I thought since you just dropped this particular issue you did not wish to continue. Alright onto the next step(s).
Read these:
ILGA | PM Patterson accused of collusion with anti-gay violence
Place: England.
Appeal for sanctions against Zimbabwe
Place: Africa.
Iraqi Ayatollah removes gay fatwa- from Pink News- all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News
Place: Iraq.
Youth Defense prints 50,000 anti-gay leaflets - Indymedia Ireland
Place: Ireland.
Also found pages listing simular events in Cuba and Brazil could not get the pages to open, however. I'm sure you get the point I'm trying to make. There is a global hatred of homosexuality.

Now read this and connect it with the above using the equation;we<people out in the world> don't like you Americans<American policy> and am going to make a connection of that to you< exact my anger about and of it on you>
USATODAY.com - Ugly sentiments sting American tourists

Another conjoining example: I’m American….Shhh!! Don’t tell!
"for the 4.1 million civilian United States citizens living and working abroad."
American Citizens Abroad ACA NU116b
Basically what I'm saying is that when/if America as a whole endorses homosexual marriage at the State level word of this will spread quickly across the globe and will fall on some ears that really don't want to hear it, in a bad way. There are such fanatic's and fanatical groups out there that already hate America and homosexuality both, as you yourself have stated before, that when they hear this to them it would appear to be another extreme exertion of the "American Imperial Death Grip On The World" and lash out violently. There are 4.1 million opportunities<see above statistic> that are present outside the US that anybody looking to exact a revenge for this move,as in this thread, on of from. Americans who may not even know or care one way or the other as to the goings on of the "Homosexual Marriage Plight." Can you feel me now, Bacon Guy? Is 4.1 million chances enough to equate to even a moderate probability of what I'm talking about happening?
This is actually a theory I would LIKE to have shot down but I don't think anybody can, sadly.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy The criteria, that of the ability to reproduce or to raise a family, is not met by infertile couples (and is in actual fact met by gay couples but we’ll get to that later). However, you would still grant the benefits of marriage to the infertile couple, hence the inequality.

Another one of your games I have to now pull the plug on.
This criteria of yours ummm, where did you get it from? It surely did not come from me. I'm fairly sure I have not used the word(s) child(ren) at all in any of my posts. This is the Bacon Guy's criteria and he has put it forth< on and for my behalf somehow> to give himself grounds to debate with me over. Intersesting, flawed but interesting none the less. The criteria, here in New York, to receive a Marriage License is as follows; provide a Social Security Card, provide a Birth Certificate,Photo I.D, provide proof of eligibility to wed<meaning are you divorced and can prove it> and oh yeah, you need to be a man and a woman as per deffinition. States used to test for infectious disease and some may still do so.
Here, check it out. marriage license requirements
Nothing about being able to procreate. So ummm Bacon Guy are you done with this silly little charade?

Quote by: The Bacon Guy So once more your argument has gone round in a lazy, meandering, month-long circle.

Of course; what did you expect? I have been watching you circle me like a dog chasing its tail. Allow me to explain. After I layed out my four items, as you mention two of them above, you fired back with a retort pertaining directly to item number three. Now read again if you wish but item number three did not contain the word family, it actually pertained more to services rendered. In my return retort to you in regards to your reply on item number three, which you just said is essentially the same as number four and also does not contain the word family, the very first declarative sentence has been copied here for you to look at again..."On what grounds do you/the gay community persue an action that by reactions would dig deeper into my wallet thus reducing my right,my ability, to provide for myself and for my family?"......to provide for myself and my family. The two subjects are connected by "and" and either subject can stand alone. So, if it is "myself" that rules out the whole children thing alltogether and makes all your prattle about children after this point both futile and moot. Or, the word "family" which does not necessarily constitute the presence of children, but that is the definition you extrapolated from it to,again, give yourself grounds,somhow from my behalf, to debate me on. The word "family" could just have simply meant wife.....<I have been choosing my wording with great care since the "mother nature fiasco>.From that point on, as you pointed out, my argument seemed to spin in a circle, intentionally it did, I had noticed what you did then and there and I wanted to watch you, metaphoricaly speaking, build a mountain then climb onto so I could smash it out from under you..............How do you like me now?
I just "cut your taill off". You have no grounds,Bacon,and I had placed you here about twenty posts ago.........check mate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consecutively, Nikkums, you are next.

[The Bacon Guy]

Your posts, particularly in the erotica area, are becoming so full of condescending, ad hominem nonsense that I’m going to attempt to condense this debate slightly.

Quote by: Elminister The bottom line is you have offered no proof; that's the bottom line.

When I said this:

"I would also ask you how, if not through biology or conditioning, do you believe homosexuality comes about? Do you honestly believe that someone makes a conscious decision to be sexually aroused by something? Did you for example choose to find women attractive?"

You replied by identifying the choice factor of homosexuality as the action; not the attraction. That has since been the basis of our discussion, and has been stated several times without dispute. It is only now, when your argument is failing, that you are attempting to cast doubt upon this.

Quote by: Elminister What the hell is this " predisposition which is the activated by conditioning" supposed to mean anyway?

A genetic factor (such as the ones in the Wikipedia article I linked you to some time ago) which increases the individual’s probability of becoming attracted to members of the same sex. This predisposition is then activated by environmental factors. No conscious thought involved.

Quote by: Elminister Also found pages listing simular events in Cuba and Brazil could not get the pages to open, however. I'm sure you get the point I'm trying to make. There is a global hatred of homosexuality. Now read this and connect it with the above using the equation;we<people out in the world> don't like you Americans<American policy> and am going to make a connection of that to you< exact my anger about and of it on you> USATODAY.com - Ugly sentiments sting American tourists Another conjoining example: I’m American….Shhh!! Don’t tell! "for the 4.1 million civilian United States citizens living and working abroad." American Citizens Abroad ACA NU116b Basically what I'm saying is that when/if America as a whole endorses homosexual marriage at the State level word of this will spread quickly across the globe and will fall on some ears that really don't want to hear it, in a bad way. There are such fanatic's and fanatical groups out there that already hate America and homosexuality both, as you yourself have stated before, that when they hear this to them it would appear to be another extreme exertion of the "American Imperial Death Grip On The World" and lash out violently. There are 4.1 million opportunities<see above statistic> that are present outside the US that anybody looking to exact a revenge for this move,as in this thread, on of from. Americans who may not even know or care one way or the other as to the goings on of the "Homosexual Marriage Plight." Can you feel me now, Bacon Guy? Is 4.1 million chances enough to equate to even a moderate probability of what I'm talking about happening? This is actually a theory I would LIKE to have shot down but I don't think anybody can, sadly.

This hatred of Americans has not been linked directly to homosexuality. Of course half the world hates you, but I’ve yet to see evidence that the introduction of gay marriage will affect this significantly enough to increase the chances of attacks on US citizens. America already endorses homosexuality by making it legal, yet I have never seen an international terrorist attack linked directly to this.

Quote by: Elminister Another one of your games I have to now pull the plug on. This criteria of yours ummm, where did you get it from? It surely did not come from me. I'm fairly sure I have not used the word(s) child(ren) at all in any of my posts.

Your rationale for opposing equality for gays was:

The benifits you speak of are given to me to ease the financial burden of raising a family.This is something I dare say the vast majority of the wannabe homosexual newleyweds do not want to do……By their choice<see below> of sexual lifestyle they cannot even procreate on their own. This whole process is actualy starting to look like a mock form of extorsion,dare I say.

And now you deny this when it becomes untenable. Have a little honesty and acknowledge when your argument fails.

Quote by: Elminister The criteria, here in New York, to receive a Marriage License is as follows; provide a Social Security Card, provide a Birth Certificate,Photo I.D, provide proof of eligibility to wed<meaning are you divorced and can prove it> and oh yeah, you need to be a man and a woman as per deffinition. States used to test for infectious disease and some may still do so. Here, check it out. marriage license requirements

Ok, so now you are using the current system to prove that the current system is just? Perfect circular logic.

Quote by: Elminister ..."On what grounds do you/the gay community persue an action that by reactions would dig deeper into my wallet thus reducing my right,my ability, to provide for myself and for my family?"......to provide for myself and my family. The two subjects are connected by "and" and either subject can stand alone.

That wasn’t where I drew the family argument from, so I won’t bother with the rest of your rant, amusing though it was.

[Zinkovich]

I just want the same tax breaks and legal benefits/conveniences as heterosexual couples get for me and my future partners- tell me, is that so wrong? I'm not asking for marraige or acknowledgement, I'm asking not to be legally or financially discriminated against, whch is something that goes against the core ideals of America and capitalism in general in the first place.

I'm tired of hearing about my friends having to show a marraige certificate to visit thier partner was dying in the hospital when the hospital knows full well the reason why he cannot produce one. I'm tired of hearing of my friends being pushed out of thier partner's legal will and social security when he dies by his relatives. I'm tired of the other hundreds of little things you'd never expect to come due to this discrimination hitting me and my partner in the goddamn face like the legal equivalent of a semi. That is all, really. I could care less about heterosexual traditions, heterosexuals can have sex with themselves and thier sisters and snakes and oxen for all I care, I just want my rights- no "encroaching" from me