[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by PKRWUD :

You used to ridicule people that wanted to leave a thread topic if you still had something to say.

I had hoped you had matured to the point where you could rest on your prior comments and not use my leaving the thread as a vehicle for a snide comment. But no. That isn't going to happen, I see. You are who you are. So be it.

That is the most ridiculous thing you've said yet.
Any "man" that wouldn't be a responsible father and marry his child's mother, simply because he feels that the act of marriage has been tainted by gay people being allowed to do so is beyond ridiculous.

Tell that to the Dutch, where same-sex marriage has been legal for some time and marriage rates are down, noticably. As it is, in America, the percentage of (hetro) couples cohabitating has increased near-exponentially over the past decade. Once you take the sanctity and specialness out of marriage by calling almost any adult coupling 'marriage' you will inevitably weaken it in many ways. Playing games with the legal definition of one of the basic building blocks of society and expecting this will 'make no difference' is naive - and ridiculous.

He puts more value in his version of what the word means than in the well being of his child and it's mother. And you want to blame that on gay marriages. Oh my God, Jim. You can't be serious.

Save the puerile dramatics for someone who is impressed with them, Chris. They're wasted on me.

've given you valid, legal reasoning, and you come back with that.

You gave me the standard talking points for same-sex marriage Chris, nothing more, and I've responded with a host of valid and cogent answers for my point of view, most of which you ignore, totally, and try to find one point that you assume is weak and then hammer it. Nice try, buddy.

You know what, you come up with scientific "proof" that everyone is born heterosexual, and maybe some folks will agree to let your amendment go forward so that you can custom taylor things to suit your beliefs. You can't do it because the simple fact is that some people are born homosexual, whether you like it or not. If you are too afraid to admit this fact, then that's your personal issue.

Oh, Chris, you're so off here. Homosexuals demand that they be accorded the legal right to marry and call it 'discrimination' when it's refused. They try to co-opt the black civil-rights movement to do it but, as I explained in great detail - and you were quite careful to ignore - homosexuality is not close to race because race is determined by genes and homosexuality is not. That, whether you and the other same-sex advocates agree with it or not, is a scientific fact, Chris. Not my opinion. A fact. Your side just yells: we ARE SO born that way!!! I say: fine, prove it, scientifically, and I'll join the same-sex marriage side. You can't do it, Chris. That you are too 'afraid' to admit this fact - a scientific fact, at that, is apparently your 'personal issue'.

Heterosexuals are no better than homosexuals, and vise-versa. You are still going on the idea that homosexuals are bad, and even refer to their behavior as "deviant". Who the hell died and gave you the right to decide what kind of sexual behavior between legal American citizen adults is deviant? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's deviant.

Chris, you make this too easy for me. First, the same-sex marriage issue isn't about who is 'better'. That's junior-high school thinking and pure emotion with no basis in reality. It isn't about 'liking' or not liking people and for you to attempt to reduce the argument to that level is indicative of the inherent weakness of the whole argument for permitting same-sex 'marriage'. Homosexual sex is termed 'deviant' because it deviates from normal male-female sexual behavior, as I patiently explained - and again, that you carefully ignored in your reply.

What makes this a great country is that someone like you, with a very narrow view of what is and is not acceptable, cannot dictate your beliefs over the masses. This country offers equal rights to all, INCLUDING their consensual sexual behavior among adults.
There are a few oddball 19th century laws that haven't been overturned yet in a few remote southern counties, which every man I know has broken (including you, I'd be willing to bet), but by and large, sexual behavior between consenting adults is a matter of choice, and whether or not you agree with it doesn't make any one form better, or more or less deviant than the other.

See above reply. Also, despite your blustering about it, I never said homosexual sex acts between consenting adults should be illegal (under a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, they aren't), only that we should not alter the legal definition of marriage because one group of people, homosexuals, simply say we should. It isn't about whether I find homosexuality 'acceptable' but whether I believe that America should change the legal definition of marriage. I do not, and for logical, sound reasons, all of which I've described and explained to you - and which you have carefully ignored and insisted on continuing to debate this issue even after we've said all we really have to say. Now you're devolving into personal attacks and name-calling, which I'm willing to hand right back to you but which I know you don't really want to get into, Chris. Do you?

That's a nice theory, but the justices have already spoken. Individual means individual, it does not mean man and woman.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court justices, in a 5-4 vote, handed down an interpretation of the state constitution that you happen to agree with. That does not make it correct. 'Negros' were once ruled to be seven-eights human by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bet you wouldn't have agreed with that, Chris, so don't try to pretend that a slim majority of liberal state judges settle the issue. They, like you, are playing the 'discrimination card' and trying to sell the idea that since marriage is fundamental to society (true) any adult who wants to be married to another adult must be allowed, legally, to do so, regardless of gender and to not allow it is 'discrimination'. The ruling flies in the face of logic, not to mention human biology. The majority of the residents of Massachusetts disagree, for good reason, and that is one of the most politically liberal states in the union, having both John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy as it's Senators. That should tell you something about this foolishly biased ruling, written by a woman judge who was a featured speaker at a gay rights conference in the not too distant past. By the court's interpretation, anyone can do almost anything in Massachusetts and call it a 'right'. That's wrong.

Meanwhile, the legislators of Massachusetts are going to hold a referendum to change this distortion of the Massachusetts constitution so badly used by biased judges pushing an agenda. No wonder special-interest groups run to the liberal courts when they know they can't get their ridiculous ideas passed by legislators, answerable to the citizens. Judges, appointed for life, can hand down these absurd rulings with no personal consequence and make drastic changes in the laws of society and do great damage to that society while the people have no voice. That isn't democracy and the fact that most of our bad laws came to us this way is also telling.

I can't believe I'm having this argument.

You're preening as some caring, compassionate lover of freedom is getting tiresome, Chris. You wanted to continue the discussion so don't complain about it. I'm more than willing to drop it at this late date - I've made my case - but you apparently won't let it go. Why? I'm not going to agree with you (nor you with me) and launching personal attacks on each other do nothing to sell our point of view, so why keep the debate going? Let your points speak for you and stop trying to beat this to death. I've made it clear that I have little interest to further engage in this thread but I won't allow you to call me 'ridiculous' and attack me and my positions with no reply. I ask you now to knock it off.

I wish you and yours nothing but the best as well, Jim. I truly hope 2004 is your best year yet.

Take care,
~Chris

A great way to finally end this discussion once and for all.