I spent the weekend with friends including a gay couple and we had long discussions on hot button issues. They weren’t too interested in the gay marriage topic. I got the impression that they think the whole thing is a meaningless distraction from real issues.
It is convenient for both sides to “rally the base” and raise money.
I still think it is a silly attempt to redefine reality.
Some sort of civil union to set inheritance rights etc is perfectly acceptable and should have been implemented long ago but in todays society an important part of marriage is procreation and child rearing.
All other things being equal I think a straight couple should have the not over a gay couple when it comes to adoption, custody of children etc.
[/quote]
You make some valid, but unfortunately in this case, completely non-sequitur points. If you think about it you will conclude that what other people choose to call themselves is none of your business, and neither you nor I, nor the government has any legal basis for denying anyone the right to call themselves ‘married’ and assume the privileges associated with marriage. The constitution does not guarantee us pussy-pounders the right to deny bunghole-pounders anything.
To your statement about ‘changing reality,’ language is fluid and evolves. Marriage has meant many things to many cultures over the eons. Your defense, like mine was, is rooted in emotion. If you are honest with yourself you will realize that you feel that gay marriage somehow cheapens your own marriage. You just have to be rational and get over it.
Beebuddy, it’s nice to hear there are genuinely open minded people out there. [/quote]
Translation: “open minded” means “agrees with me”.
Of course, the argument wasn’t a red herring and you continue to misstate (intentionally?) the argument.
The argument has never been “we can’t accommodate non-traditional relationships because of the administrative burdens”. As has been repeated to you over and over, the argument goes thusly:
Gay marriage is based on a principle that consenting adults relationships should be honored with the same privileges as traditional relationships
Q: can the law create those legal privileges for all the consenting adult relationships that want marriage rights recognized? A: no it cannot because of the administrative burden (bureaucratic nightmare) of the sui generis issue created by the principle in #1, and the only way to equalize all relationships is to remove any legal privileges for relationships altogether, that is the only fair way, because one consenting adults relationship is just as good as another (the libertarian argument).
As such, operation by the principle in #1 leads us into endgame where marriage is “de-privilegized” in law.
I can only write it so many times - if you don’t comprehend it, it is not my problem to fix.
And now we see Forlife is nothing but a rank amateur.
Unable to defend the argument on the merits of what has been nothing but logical reasons (you’ll note my lack of appeal to any religious authority), you now turn to the fallacy of impugning the motives of your opponent - as in, all the arguments I/we have made aren’t the work of actual rational concerns, but they are bigotry disguised.
I could have clocked this eventual response with an egg-timer.
And yet. You are the one interested in “open mindedness”, but when pressed, it’s clear the closed mind isn’t necessarily your opponents - it’s yours. You reflexively assume bad faith without demonstrable evidence of it.
I was under the impression you were a serious considerer of the issues in this area. It’s a mistake I won’t make again.
And here we come to who you truly are - unprepared to defend your ideas on the merits, you create a straw man to attack: Christian fundamentalists. I haven’t made any appeal to Biblical teachings or religious objections to homosexuality, or even to homosexual activity at all. I haven’t said your lifestyle is wrong, bad, icky - but you created for yourself a convenient dodge.
You have been given “sold reasoning” and you haven’t measured up. You don’t have to agree with me, that’s fine, but you decided to take a rhetorical dodge by abandoning an argument on the merits - i.e., “sold reasoning” to counter my objections - and opted for a therapeutic “the real reason they object is not because of logic, but because of bigotry…”. You want “solid reasoning”, but you leave for yourself the sniveling defense of ignoring it in favor of impugning the motives of people who disagree with you.
It took me about 36-48 hours after being crushed to finally concede. Just let it sink in. This one was hard for me to let go. And I’m not being patronizing here. As I said, your initial argument had completely persuaded me. But you’re beaten my friend, as I was.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A: no it cannot because of the administrative burden (bureaucratic nightmare) of the sui generis issue created by the principle in #1, and the only way to equalize all relationships is to remove any legal privileges for relationships altogether, that is the only fair way, because one consenting adults relationship is just as good as another (the libertarian argument).[/quote]
So list these benefits lost, and we’ll go through those.
Fair enough. It should have been “almost all known ancient cultures”[/quote]
Even this overstates the issue - and what was “known” was not a widely accepted, normal institution.
This is just plain ignorant. Of course intelligent people operate by the principle “oh, it might not work, we shouldn’t do it” - my God, what principle should people operate by?
For every chance the change that produces a change for the better, there is a chance the change produces a change for the worse - adults grasp this. That doesn’t mean no change ever occurs, but be serious.
Well, based on what you have typed over the 30 some odd pages, you as much a parrot of the thoughtless groupthink line as the people you claim to stand against.
Sloppy, and incorrect - one of my arguments centers around not experimenting with the institution on the basis of the rational information available and the expectations of their end results, not just an aversion to “change”. But that is just one argument.
So list these benefits lost, and we’ll go through those.[/quote]
C’mon, man - stop wasting time. We ran through these arguments pages ago. Go catch up. I asked you some pointed questions - but you got distracted by something shiny when the lifting got heavy on your end.
This thread seems to move in a circular fashion, with the gay marriage advocates wanting to start over every 10 pages or so.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
C’mon, man - stop wasting time. We ran through these arguments pages ago. Go catch up. I asked you some pointed questions - but you got distracted by something shiny when the lifting got heavy on your end.
This thread seems to move in a circular fashion, with the gay marriage advocates wanting to start over every 10 pages or so.
[/quote]
I don’t recall running through your so called lost benefits. Let’s hear 'em.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I can’t do everything for you - at some point, you have to take the training wheels off. I went through the purposes marriage serve pages ago.[/quote]
I’m not talking about your so-called purposes, I’m talking about these Government provided benefits that would be lost because gay marriage was made a reality.
Q: can the law create those legal privileges for all the consenting adult relationships that want marriage rights recognized? A: no it cannot because of the administrative burden (bureaucratic nightmare) of the sui generis issue created by the principle in #1, and the only way to equalize all relationships is to remove any legal privileges for relationships altogether, that is the only fair way, because one consenting adults relationship is just as good as another (the libertarian argument).
[/quote]
We have to start with the fact that one function of the constitution is to guarantee liberty, but it in no way defines the word “marriage.” Thusly, until the constitution is changed the argument remains valid as an issue of civil liberty. It seems you understand that so we move on to the fact that it is VERY easy to remain skeptical of the premise that this administrative burden will necessarily lead to marriage becoming “de-priviligized.” For one, the system is already in place so accommodating extra marriages is a simple issue of hiring extra labor, secondly every single one of these men could potentially marry a woman making your argument moot if we consider that current legislation has placed the burden of providing these privileges on state, local, and federal government already. And third I remain skeptical of this ‘overwhelming burden’ simply based on my observation that the IRS functions well enough under extreme burden… But the funny thing is that NONE of that even matters. It’s just the icing on the cake.
The real issue is that if the government continues to issue marriage licenses, they have no legal basis for denying people who wish to consider themselves ‘married’ the way my wife and I do. Since abolishing marriage privileges is equally as irrational as denying a man power of attorney over his dying (male) lover it is therefore the burden of the government to overcome these so-called “overwhelming burdens” in whatever manner necessary.
Where we are now is at the issue of fairness and justice. If a person demands equality under the law the constitution says it is unjust to deny him, and as we know there is of course no constitutional basis to deny him fairness under the law because there has been no ‘language amendment’ which defines marriage (which is laughable anyway as it would violate the second ammendment).
What we are left with is a situation in which the government is left with no choice but to either beginning issuing marriage licenses to gays, or get out of the marriage business completely. The government can not get out the marriage business though because it remains irrational to abolish the system of lineage that we have now because it would need to be replaced with a system so similar that it would be indistinguishable for most intents and purposes.
HOWEVER! (lol, yes I have more) Not ALL privileges of marriages are impossible to abolish. I believe, as a gentlemen, that you will concede that it is truly unjust to deny a man access (and lineage rights) to his dying lover, and that it is irrational to strip this privilege from presently married individuals. The tax-related privileges of marriage however, are not so sacred, although arguably equally important to the fabric of our society… Considering this, I do not see the problem with offering these tax-related privileges to ALL married couples that either have children, or plan to have children within the first 8-10 years of their marriage. This would of course apply to children introduced to couples via, surrogate, adoption, etc… In this case the only problem we run into is a possible shortage of surrogates and adoptees… This, however, will be offset by the 8-10 year window that ALL married couples have to have or obtain a child.
The benefit of all of this is that men who wish power of attorney over each other including all lineage rights etc… will be treated justly while maintaining the purpose of some of the other tax-related benefits of marriage… Namely, to facilitate the building and functioning of the family unit, traditional or not. This type of legislation is FAR more just than the current system.
Now you may be asking yourself “how does that solve EPIC administrative burden?” Well I hope you would have seen by this point that the burden of licensing extra marriages should already be within the means of the government of overcoming because of the fact that presently every gay who wishes to marry someone of the same sex could easily marry someone of the opposite sex. Either way, it is the burden of the government to overcome the possibly ‘over-burdensome’ process of legally binding these gays because it is clearly an injustice to do otherwise in terms of their rights of attorney and lineage. Finally, there is simply no legal basis for denying gays the right to legally marry and join themselves.
Now I want to quickly address the fact that “Forlife” was responding directly to a statement I made admitting that only a few days ago I did not hold the view I do today. I admitted that my reluctance was in fact motivated by emotion and not reason. I may have taken too much liberty in assuming Zap was similarly motivated, but I am confident that I am not the only person who has felt that “if faggots can marry each other, then my marriage is cheapened” and consequently made unreasonable arguments as a result. Either way, “Forlife” was simply confirming his own suspicion based on my admission. If anything I was the one to take too much liberty in my assumption that Zap had done the same thing. Illogical or not, it is clear that this issue has been influenced, if not dominated by irrational motivations which I myself have been (and still am to some degree) affected by.
I’m not talking about your so-called purposes, I’m talking about these Government provided benefits that would be lost because gay marriage was made a reality.
Let’s hear 'em.[/quote]
That is precisely what I defended when asked why marriage should remain a public institution. The basic idea - that benefits w/r/t to marriage are primarily about children and the family - gets undermined by the addition of alternatives that are more about the adult relationship. The introduction of other forms - namely gay marriage - sends a different message, that marriage is primarily about coupling. That tends do a few things, one being a grant of privileges to relationships that don’t procreate or order children in a child-rearing manner we prefer, thus eroding that connection to the incentives that civilize men and keep them tied to the woman he procreated with (so does no-fault divorce, btw). Further, it tends to chip away at the social and moral opprobriums that accompany the power of a publicly recognized institution when you change the nature of the institution. Again, we hashed it out pages ago - if you were distracted when we were hacking away at these, it’s not my problem to remedy.
You’ve already committed to the “let’s get marriage out of the public realm” school - what, have you changed your mind?
We have to start with the fact that one function of the constitution is to guarantee liberty, but it in no way defines the word “marriage.” Thusly, until the constitution is changed the argument remains valid as an issue of civil liberty. It seems you understand that so we move on to the fact that it is VERY easy to remain skeptical of the premise that this administrative burden will necessarily lead to marriage becoming “de-priviligized.” For one, the system is already in place so accommodating extra marriages is a simple issue of hiring extra labor, secondly every single one of these men could potentially marry a woman making your argument moot if we consider that current legislation has placed the burden of providing these privileges on state, local, and federal government already. And third I remain skeptical of this ‘overwhelming burden’ simply based on my observation that the IRS functions well enough under extreme burden… But the funny thing is that NONE of that even matters. It’s just the icing on the cake. [/quote]
Like Forlife - and probably because of Forlife - you miss the argument that the “bureaucratic nightmare” was a part of. The argument is not that we should deny gay marriage on the basis that it would administratively difficult.
To a more important point, your contention on the Constitution is hopelessly incoherent - the Constitution guarantees no right to a certain kind of marriage. The issue is one of public policy, not a right under the Constitution.
Exactly wrong. The government absolutely has a legal basis for denying alternative forms of marriage under the Constitution and always has. And, further to your error, the government has no such high burden in this area - and never has. You may want it to - that doesn’t mean it does.
A better question - why come in here and announce as a “truth” that the “government has no legal basis for…” when that is factually false?
At the risk of just plain insulting you, you couldn’t be more wrong. The government treats different classes of people differently all the time, and as long as it survives a “rational basis” test, the law isn’t unconstitutional.
Your ignorance on this issue is unquantifiable - and maybe this is why you were so easily persuaded in short order by your friend.
And what the hell are you talking about w/r/t the “language amendment” and the 2d Amendment, which covers the right to keep and bear arms? Did you mean the 1st Amendment? And did you know if there ever was a “language amendment” added - presumably you mean an amendment defining marriage - it wouldn’t violate the 1st Amendment because it would be on equal footing because both would be amendments? And how would it even violate the 1st Amendment, even if it was a lesser federal law?
My God, man - I can’t not insult you. What you offered is plain confusion and stupidity.
Completely false. Where do you come up with this?
No, you don’t - not worth responding to.
I see now how you were so easily persuaded - you have no idea what you are talking about, and your mind is sully putty…not because you now support gay marriage, but because your reasoning - or lack thereof - is bizarre to the point of cartoonishness.
It’s terrible, Beebuddy - and I am being charitable. That “language amendment” garbage is beyond ridiculous.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That is precisely what I defended when asked why marriage should remain a public institution. The basic idea - that benefits w/r/t to marriage are primarily about children and the family - gets undermined by the addition of alternatives that are more about the adult relationship. The introduction of other forms - namely gay marriage - sends a different message, that marriage is primarily about coupling.[/quote]
Ah, but now you’re assuming every married couple want children. Marriage IS about coupling. It’s a system designed to draw two (or more) people even closer together.
To say that traditionally marriage was ALL about children is naive at best.
So a couple who chooses to NOT have or raise children would then not be allowed to call their union marriage? I’m just going of your logic here. And what about couple where one or both partners are sterile? Is their union less legitimate?
Do you honestly think all men are barbaric upright chimpanzees who think solely with their penis? Did you realize that males have a psychological need to bond with their children for the first 2-3 years of their child’s life? Do you also realize that after these 2-3 years, if the father has no feelings toward the child, marriage isn’t going to “fix” that?
With 6 billion of us on this planet and resources running out/ being monopolized as they are do you really think child bearing is that important?
Slow down champ, use smaller words and clearer sentences. The big words might sound impressive, but they tell me you’re trying to intimidate your opponents.
Ah, but now you’re assuming every married couple want children. Marriage IS about coupling. It’s a system designed to draw two (or more) people even closer together.[/quote]
Ah, but no I didn’t - again, you are starting over with the same arguments that were raised pages ago. It is a system designed to draw two people together for a very specific reason - otherwise, why in the hell would society want to just “being two people together”? What magical purpose does that union of two people serve in a vaccuum?
None, genius. We want to encourage coupling for the reason of promoting and ordering the family.
Do you ever get any better?
And, just because a couple chooses not to have children doesn’t mean that marriage isn’t about it - and the law always defaults to overinclusiveness.
Heh. So what grand historical purpose did it serve to encourage permanent unions between two people? Can’t wait to hear your answer.
Nope, for a number of reasons, one being the nature of overinclusion in legal categories.
The most important reason and I’ll type slowly - when a man is in a marriage where he chooses not to have children, he is still “off the market” with other women, thus preventing him from going out and siring kids out of wedlock. He may not choose to have kids in the marriage he is in, and that is fine, but the purpose of his marriage, even though childless, still serves the purpose to ensure that he isn’t out “wandering the streets”, fathering children without accountability. A childless marriage still furthers the purpose of marriage w/r/t the child raising and ordering of procreation.
Geez, you really should try some of that “independent thinking” you have heard about. This has become unsporting.
Child bearing, raising, and the ordering of families is more important than ever - don’t take my advice, just look at what the disintegration of those package of principles has done to inner cities.
And, even if we indulge in your “apocalypse of natural resources” scenario, it would make even greater sense that we tighten up and make sure folks are taken care of in orderly fashion - after all, fewer resources means less margin for error in the feeding of mouths.
I am doing none of the above - I have been as clear as can be. I don’t expect my “opponents” to be intimidated, but I do expect them to be competent.
Marriage is part of our social tool of Shame - as in, we morally or socially disapprove and make you feel bad when you do antisocial things, i.e., things that hurt society. When you start changing the nature of that tool in order to accommodate alternatives that don’t engage in the antisocial behavior, i.e., gay couples don’t produce out of wedlock children, as a rule, then you lessen the authority of the traditional tool to work its disapproval, which we don’t want.
thunderbolt23 do you feel like your trapped in a never ending circle? It seems that the gay advocates just can’t legitimately counter the facts that you’ve presented. You reach a certain point in the debate and they start once again from the beginning. [/quote]
It’s getting uninteresting fast.
Makavali suffers from some phenomenon like Bill Murray in “Groundhog Day”, ready to start everything from scratch with his selective amnesia every 20 posts or so.
Forlife is doing his best to win the “CappedAnd PlanIt Lifetime Achievement Award” by waving a magic wand and declaring all arguments against gay marriage null and void on the basis we are all bigots.
And BeeBuddy…well, I am really trying to not be mean-spirited, but there is little reason to respond to his posts in any substantive way until he resolves his grand confusion.
How dare you make a metaphorical reference to something Biblical - do you remember the day you became a bigot?
Kidding aside, I don’t mind if someone disagrees with me, that is why I have remained in this thread - for a good debate. But my interest and patience are wearing thin.
Living in Canada I have to laugh at a lot of these replies. We have had gay marriage for quite awhile now, it hasn’t destroyed any families. No one has tried to marry a goat or cow.
All the moral arguments tend to stem from a judeo-christian viewpoint which invalidates them because the judeo-christian viewpoint is not objectively correct.
Like Forlife - and probably because of Forlife - you miss the argument that the “bureaucratic nightmare” was a part of. The argument is not that we should deny gay marriage on the basis that it would administratively difficult.[/quote]
Since you’re so charitable you’ll have no problem stating with brevity exactly what the argument is.
No of course it doesn’t, which is the point. It does however guarantee equality under the law. If gay activists choose to define their right to marriage, or lack thereof, as an issue of equality that’s their prerogative. To argue otherwise is not only petty in the extreme, it ignores the legitimacy of the position. By that I mean that you don’t have to agree with the position to end up in court.
The legislature is of course charged with writing laws which may or may not deny alternative forms of marriage. I thought it was common knowledge that laws written regarding this issue are potentially litigable. Did you think otherwise? And the “burden” is real and refers to the government’s need to put services in place for my (and your) personal satisfaction. In other words because I (and the rest of the nation) demand the government bear that burden, it MUST bear that burden or face replacement by more effective representation. Or do you foresee a scenario in which the institutions we’ve become accustomed to become insufficient and or completely demolished? Of course not…
[quote]
At the risk of just plain insulting you, you couldn’t be more wrong. The government treats different classes of people differently all the time, and as long as it survives a “rational basis” test, the law isn’t unconstitutional.[/quote]
Again, were you not aware that this issue is considered litigable?
[quote]
Your ignorance on this issue is unquantifiable - and maybe this is why you were so easily persuaded in short order by your friend.[/quote]
We debated for over two hours and I did not concede for another 48 hours or so after that. Please don’t waste my time with these comments. I would appreciate a little more artfulness.
[quote]
And what the hell are you talking about w/r/t the “language amendment” and the 2d Amendment, which covers the right to keep and bear arms? Did you mean the 1st Amendment? And did you know if there ever was a “language amendment” added - presumably you mean an amendment defining marriage - it wouldn’t violate the 1st Amendment because it would be on equal footing because both would be amendments? And how would it even violate the 1st Amendment, even if it was a lesser federal law?[/quote]
Yes I was obviously confused there and meant to refer to the 1st amendment. Either way, the idea that a constitutional amendment defining marriage could ever be passed is ludicrous. So whether or not it would even be considered constitutional is irrelevant, I think there is a case for it’s unconstitutionality, but I don’t know your position on “civil union” or whatever it’s being referred to. If you’re against that too, I can see why you’d disagree with my contention.
[quote]
My God, man - I can’t not insult you. What you offered is plain confusion and stupidity.[/quote]
You haven’t insulted me, I would berate you if you did.
[quote]
Completely false. Where do you come up with this?[/quote]
You failed to follow the argument. Read it again.
[quote]
It’s terrible, Beebuddy - and I am being charitable. That “language amendment” garbage is beyond ridiculous.[/quote]
Enlighten me, is there not discussion of a constitutional amendment defining marriage? Do you believe such an amendment has a snowball’s chance in Hades? Do you fail to see the argument that such an amendment violates a gay person’s free speech (more broadly freedom of expression)? Again, if you are also against the civil unions then we must agree to disagree because allowing for civil unions and not marriage is certainly also a litagable issue. I don’t know what your position is because this is the first day I have posted in this thread. If you are also against civil unions you could argue that there is no constitutional issue. I would win that argument in court, but your argument would at least be respectable.
So, basically you nitpicked a few minor errors, missed the point of my post entirely and failed to make yourself clear. Frankly, I couldn’t care any less if you want to continue as I’m certain I’ve said what I wanted to and I’m quite confident in my position. If you do respond though, please try a little harder to avoid dismissing what you’ve read before you understand it. I tried, in earnest, to show you that respect.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ah, but no I didn’t - again, you are starting over with the same arguments that were raised pages ago. It is a system designed to draw two people together for a very specific reason - otherwise, why in the hell would society want to just “being two people together”? What magical purpose does that union of two people serve in a vaccuum?
None, genius. We want to encourage coupling for the reason of promoting and ordering the family.
Do you ever get any better?
And, just because a couple chooses not to have children doesn’t mean that marriage isn’t about it - and the law always defaults to overinclusiveness.[/quote]
Because… every married couple has children?
Social status. I never said grand historical purpose either. But please - feel free to add words in on my behalf. And again, you’re thinking that all married couples in “the past” had children.
[quote]Nope, for a number of reasons, one being the nature of overinclusion in legal categories.
The most important reason and I’ll type slowly - when a man is in a marriage where he chooses not to have children, he is still “off the market” with other women, thus preventing him from going out and siring kids out of wedlock. He may not choose to have kids in the marriage he is in, and that is fine, but the purpose of his marriage, even though childless, still serves the purpose to ensure that he isn’t out “wandering the streets”, fathering children without accountability. A childless marriage still furthers the purpose of marriage w/r/t the child raising and ordering of procreation.[/quote]
And the sterile couple? Even if the man is… “off the market” he can’t have kids anyway. Still a legitimate marriage? By your logic it’s not.
[quote]Geez, you really should try some of that “independent thinking” you have heard about. This has become unsporting.
Child bearing, raising, and the ordering of families is more important than ever - don’t take my advice, just look at what the disintegration of those package of principles has done to inner cities.
And, even if we indulge in your “apocalypse of natural resources” scenario, it would make even greater sense that we tighten up and make sure folks are taken care of in orderly fashion - after all, fewer resources means less margin for error in the feeding of mouths.[/quote]
Argh! What apocalypse?! I never said we were going to run out COMPLETELY. We do have a problem with EXTRACTING resources and it’s getting to a stage where it will be TOO EXPENSIVE to get a lot of the resources we depend on. Although I’ll admit I should have worded that better.
Sigh.
“That fact remains that people allowed themselves to be tricked and led by so-called “religious officials”. I’d call that being blind sheep. You see, unlike most “anti-gay” people, I am quite capable of changing my opinion if I’m presented with logical facts and proof. All I’ve seen from your side of the argument is “what if’s” and the word “faggot” thrown out a few times.”
That’s what I said before, you don’t really give me any reason not to think otherwise. The decision to take away the right to marry from gays was made by Christians.
As for discouraging cheating, your system has worked GREAT so far.
[i]Some authorities (for example Frank Pittman in ‘Grow Up’ Golden Books) observe infidelity is involved in 90% of first time divorces. A 1997 study with Kristina Gordon found ‘more than half of the marriages that experience infidelity ended in divorce’. By contrast John Gottman with his 35 years of research into marriage, is reported as saying “Only 20 percent of divorces are caused by an affair. Most marriages die with a whimper, as people turn away from one another, slowly growing apart.” Fifty United Kingdom divorce lawyers were asked to name the most common causes of their cases in 2003. Of those who cited extramarital affairs, 55% said it was usually the husbands and 45% said that it was the wives who cheated.
In addition between 10-15% of children are conceived as a result of an affair.[/i]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali suffers from some phenomenon like Bill Murray in “Groundhog Day”, ready to start everything from scratch with his selective amnesia every 20 posts or so.
Forlife is doing his best to win the “CappedAnd PlanIt Lifetime Achievement Award” by waving a magic wand and declaring all arguments against gay marriage null and void on the basis we are all bigots.
And BeeBuddy…well, I am really trying to not be mean-spirited, but there is little reason to respond to his posts in any substantive way until he resolves his grand confusion.[/quote]
Personal attacks. Spectacular.
I think Beebuddy is right - I believe you do think your marriage is cheapened just because your a bit squeamish about two men having sex.