Still showing how honest you are by keeping your pledge not to reply to me I see.

You misrepresent the situation. I understand that your opinion is an opinion, but you think it's the "truth" which you try to push on the rest of society and will not let them decide their own truth with a popular vote.

Not only do you call disagreement with you a violation of your rights, your advice here is hypocritical. Your <i>teaching</i> are to do what you say, not do what you do. You constantly tell me what my beliefs are, over what I'm telling you they are, but you do not want the same done to you. That's hypocrisy and you should stop pretending it's not.

Strawman arguments are your specialty, which you've been employing on this thread.

WRT your first point, let's go along with your citing of the Loving case. Let's accept that marriage is a right for the sake of argument. Marriage is a right, so long as you qualify for a marriage. It's sort of like saying that a driver's license is a right if you qualify. Bearing arms is a right if you qualify (you are the appropriate age and you are not a criminal or mentally insane). Voting is a right if you qualify (again if you are not a criminal and are of the appropriate age).

Obviously, you still don't use logic. The situation in Massachussetts has nothing to do with your personal political agenda.

Again, you are engage in hypocrisy, criticizing others of using talking points while using them yourself.

That's not my logic, since I don't accept that gay marriage is a right. That's your bad assumption.

Put your ignorance and blinders aside for a moment. Gay marriage is not a right, as I explained above.

The Tokugawa shogunate was founded and lasted 300 years in Japan. It lead to a prolonged period of peace, but of isolation for Japan. Japan would not encounter foreigners against, until American steamships forced them to trade in the late 19th century. The results of this gunboat diplomacy would eventually lead to Japan copying the UK's model for empire, which lead to an eventual clash with the United States. So gunboat diplomacy should be avoided

(1) Do your own homework.
(2) Don't make personal attacks and then feign outrage.

By my mentality you would be an upstanding decent person. You obviously do not use my mentality.

ROFLMAO? Are you looking in the mirror again? Then the reaction might be to cry then. Mmmm, never mind.

Several members of the Westboro bigots, including yourself and others have called me a troll, because that is their way of releasing their hatred from years of rejection and failure in society. I pity them and you.

Indeed, I was not aware that he did. However, I think that only a fool would assume that people view every single word in a very long copy-paste, especially considering that I was already busy providing citations of all of the insults Jason made.

Being a hateful hypocrite doesn't change that my assesment was correct in calling out your lack of facts and your abundance of substituting your opinion for facts. It's also dishonest for you to make rude remarks and then complain about supposed ad hominems.

You're lying (again?). Actually there were two anti-gay marriage posters who commented. One was supportive of what I've said, and the other was not. You show considerable delusion when you believe that winning popular support for yourself by championing gay marriage in a thread full of rabid gay marriage activists has any meaning whatsoever.

Well aside from hypocrisy, and dirty debate tactics, I suspect that you chronically lie, so your suspicions don't carry much weight.

Misrepresentation is your game, not mine, as I've pointed out on numerous occasions on this thread. Well since you are dishonest, you are more interested in making personal attacks on me, then debating the issue. I am more interested in the latter. As for my attitude, I think it's squarely in the center of American politics. You are on the rabid side of the left.

Why not? Your arguments are weak, and your personal attacks are easily overridden. Also, it would be wrong for me to let you and the other Westboro boys intimidate me as you do to all who oppose gay marriage.

You have made insults and have had a rude attitude from the start. Your behavior is to insult those who disagree with you, thus baiting them, and then feign outrage when they return the favor. So tell me, have you called jyoshu a biggot yet? Have you implied that he is stupid or not telling the truth yet? How many people who have opposed gay marriage have you belittled and called bigots?

You believe your opinions are the truth and that anyone who disagrees with you is confused. That is your arrogance and delusion. Since you believed that my disagreement was confusion on my part, instead of just trying to deal with my disagreement, you invented something for me to be "confused" on. I told you that I had not confused what you said I was confused on, and you continue to try to say that my disagreement with you is merely confusion. You try more to attack your opponent, than to actually understand or debate what they say.

Your thought process does not show the intelligence to realize that wishing something to be true does not make it so.

You fail to realize that me "saying that over and over again" addresses what you've said.

It was your first attempt to elevate your comments from your normal childishness of saying things are true because you say they are. You are indeed no better than the Westboro Baptist Church though. You can throw that on top of my reply to your attempted logic.

Again, you're being dishonest. You imply that I deny Massachussets has gay marriage. Quote me where I said this.

So your saying that you predicted I would not look at what you present, even though you have never presented me with anything to look at? It is likely that you are typically rude to everyone who opposes gay marriage. Thus, you and your Westboro brothers are the trolls here.

Your response is based on your egotistical and egocentric view of the world. You believe that your opinions are the truth, and that therefore anyone who disagrees with you is "confused." The fact that I have informed you that you mistake your opinions are not the truth, does not mean that I am confused. Your inability to differentiate your opinion from reality is a childish conceit.

Look up.

You don't actually argue your positions. Not really. You just spin and omit information that you find inconvenient. Your attempt to reason is based on spin, bias and hypocrisy. You present others insulting me (which is just you insulting me by proxy) and then feign outrage over the unkind marks I make in return. You make further insults and rudeness, don't list those and then don't show your insults.

It is funny to you that I do not try to argue against your assessments. That is because your assessments are based on the dishonesty and immaturity of the person who made them, and thus I make my own assessments of you instead. That's a better use of the site's bandwidth, than your drivel.

If you were not such a charlatan, using strawman debate tactics, you wouldn't be using silly quotes and passing them off as something I said or agree with. You would be naked though, without your infantile bag of tricks, so I don't expect you'll stop now.

The comments and yourself and the other Westboro boys has been mainly to attack me personally more than to debate the issue, so you chose not to ask me for any facts on laws or statistics or other things. The fact that you lower the level of the debate means that the outcome of such a debate rests is your doing. You tell lies, misrepresent my comments, and make strawman arguments, so perforce my replies will be to supply the facts which debunk your attacks.

I don't demand anything, except that you try to backup your personal attacks. It's also dishonest of you to make personal attacks, anticipate me calling you on your personal attacks, and then to imply that because you knew I would call you out on those attacks, that this somehow makes your attacks valid. It's really too bad that all you have to go on are these dirty debate tactics. Ah well, maybe at least I can let some of the air out of your cheap ego.

Again, you're being the dishonest demagogue. You're talking about what I say to "people"? Is the discussion between you and I, or are you speaking on behalf of the Westboro boys?

As far as this "discussion" is concerned, you're not capable of discussion. Your logic is poor and dishonest, you think you're being subtle with your insults, but you're not. Even if you were, they'd still be insults. Basically, you have an extreme emotional commitment to this issue and you just to personally wrapped up in this to view disagreement with you as anything but an attack on you personally.

I'm betting it's the drugs.

Again, only you are interested in discussing your personal life. The fact remains that gay marriage is prohibited in 30 states.

They could have been based on federal laws, state laws or what churches defined as marriage. Are you ignorant of those as well, or is your expertise merely limited to "paraphilias"?

You really need to understand something.
I know my opinion better than you.
You are trying to tell me my opinion is something that I have been definitively telling you that is NOT my opinion.
You are wrong in your claim.


Enough of this garbage.
Quote me.
Quote where I "called disagreement with me a violation of my rights".


Wrong.
I have told you that your OPINION is wrong.
If you can show me a precise issue where you BELIEVE one thing, and I claim you BELIEVE something else, then please do so.
Otherwise, your replies are nonsense.

This is getting real old. Roesgen's posts are typically filled with sweeping generalizations and summary claims, but habitually NO SUBSTANCE can be found for the claim.
A bit like saying "John hates blacks", but then the person making the claim can't point to ANY instance of John hating blacks.
Below is a list of unsubstantiated claims, which Roesgen needs to start ponying up and providing the proof!



I'm sorry, but "qualifications" are just another form of discrimination.
Suppose somebody wrote a "qualification" that says "The new desk clerk must be a Christian". That is discriminatory.
Suppose somebody wrote a "qualification" that says "Marriage applicants must be of the same race to marry". That is discriminatory.

"Qualifications" (as you call them) must satisfy the "legitimate state interest" test.


All you do is rephrase LEGAL discrimination methods as "qualifications" in order to ignore the question as to whether or not THIS discrimination method is "legal" or not.

There are legitimate state interests in the "qualifications" you describe.
There is no legitimate state interest in discriminating against gay marriage.


WRONG!
I criticize YOUR CRITICISM of me using "talking points".
You CAN USE "talking points" if you like, but don't criticize others for doing that WHEN YOU DO THAT YOURSELF...


The obvious retort would be that I don't see it as a right for you to vote on my rights.
Ergo, you aren't losing any rights either...


I am not talking about gun-boat diplomacy.
Your reply was pure nonsense.

I repeat my unaddressed point...
Jim Crow laws were VOTED into place, then courts removed them.
Interracial marriage laws were VOTED into place, then courts removed them.
Segregation was VOTED into place, then courts removed them. Laws that discriminate against rights without a legitimate state interest are NOT constitutional.


So "by your mentality", I would be changed. You admit that.
By MY mentality, you are free to have what opinion you like. No legislation can or should change that.

You are obviously more controlling than I, yet you try to pretend that I am the one controlling "beliefs"...


No. I am not.
Like I said, show me any post showing a similar assessment for me. Otherwise, stop pointing playing this lame "I am rubber, you are glue" game.

I repeat what you have avoided...
RG, in your short posting time you have had a quick assembly of people identify you as a troll.
I challenge you to show me another poster who has identified me as a troll.

It isn't me that people have tuned out...


I seriously doubt you "pity" anybody.
People don't mock and label people they pity as "degenerate".


"Lack of facts"?
I have supplied statements that you have failed to refute.
You claim "lack of facts" while you give menial rephrasing like trying to claim "it's qualifications" instead of recognizing how the law REALLY works.

(Just out of curiousity, have you ever seen ANY court say "it's just a qualification and thus exempt from 'legitimate state interest' requirements of the 14th amendment? Of course you haven't cause you have no idea what I'm talking about...)


There is no "supposed" here. Don't be dishonest in not admitting that you ARE perpetuating obvious ad hominems.
And your claims of "rude remarks" are in a completely different situation.
If I don't hold an OPINION in high regard, that is not the same thing as calling people "degenerate".


No. I am not.
Your follow-on commentary does not even talk about what I said. It's like me saying "You called Jack an #####", and you respond by saying "Mark and Jill did something".
That doesn't make me pointing out that you called Jyoshu an ##### a lie.

Here is what I said.
There has been one anti-gay marriage poster (jyoshu) to comment on you, and it was negative.
You responded by calling him an #####.

What part of what I ACTUALLY SAID is a lie?
Cause the truth is that what I said is documentable fact!
Your reply is a "dirty debate tactic"...


You trying to tell me what my opinion is IS NOT "misrepresentation".


That is grotesquely inaccurate.
1) What "personal attacks" have I made?
2) I have debated this issue on MULTIPLE fronts that you are dropping when your position is exposed as fallacious.
You claim I am trying to "legislate truth", but now you have dropped that argument.
You claim that gay marriage will take away people's "freedom of belief", and you have dropped that claim as well.


1) Quote what you label from me as an "insult".
2) Quote what you label from me as a "rude attitude"


If you do a search, you will see that I habitually avoid using the word "bigot" in the first place.
People like you love to dwell on that word and complain about the label, loudly protesting so that you can obfuscate how wrong it is to discriminate against gays.
I don't believe I have ever called jyoshu a bigot.



Again, you throw out a criticism that you yourself are guilty of.
Furthermore, I have repeatedly explained that I do not talk about this issue in terms of "truth". Allowing gay marriage as an acknowledgement of constitutional equal rights has nothing to do with "truth".
It's about respecting the Constitution.


You are wrong.
I don't see your "disagreement" as confusion.
I see certain claims you make as BEING confused, and I EXPLAIN WHY they are confused. That explanation has nothing to do with you just "disagreeing".

Like your claims that gay marriage somehow takes away people's "freedom of belief". That is you being confused, cause your claim is nonsensical.


[quote=I told you that I had not confused what you said I was confused on, and you continue to try to say that my disagreement with you is merely confusion. You try more to attack your opponent, than to actually understand or debate what they say.[/quote]
Your STATEMENTS being confused is a comment on your STATEMENTS.
You improperly internalize that criticism OF YOUR ARGUMENTS, and think it's about you.

It's rather obvious even by your description that you cannot take disagreement without you claiming it as an "attack".


Quote me.
Where did I ever say *things are true because I say they are*?


I never implied any such thing!
I imply that you fail to recognize REALITY when two things are shown to you.

It's like somebody saying "sunlight causes statues to crumble".
I point to sunlight on a standing statue.
Then you respond by telling me that I am implying that you don't think statues are real???



This is a perfect example of the "non-reply" method when Roesgen's statements are exposed as fallacious.

I just proved Roesgen08 wrong.
Roesgen08's response is to ENTIRELY IGNORE MY ARGUMENT and instead personally attack me...

Here is what I said taht Roesgen did not address...
It's an ANALOGY.
I never said you said "The sun is yellow and heats the earth"

In fact, if you READ what I actually said, you would realize I was NOT IMPLYING that you said that...
foundit66: "If somebody says "The sun is yellow and heats the earth", your reply could conceivably be "There is no logic"."

Logically, if I say "somebody says" something that YOU could conceivably REPLY TO with something else, then you are obviously NOT the original "somebody".

From here on out, I think it best if I just ignore your non-sequiturs.
I make a point.
You reply by insulting me and making false claims of "personal attacks" against you.

You do it OVER and OVER and OVER again...

The funny thing is that you have supplied nothing from your side.
You have stated your OPINION that homosexuality is repugnant, and your opinion of this and your opinion of that, but you supply no facts of your own.

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

I didn't say I was talking about you. I have had extended exchanges with Jake over this issue (no, I'm not going to go back and try to find those conversations, sorry), and clearly he views mere objection over this as anti-gay. IOW, in his thinking, objection over gay marriage can't EXIST without being anti-gay. Whatever that means.

Frankly, I suspect there are many in your movement who can't get past the idea that disagreement of ANY kind on this IS a form of extremism; whether they would admit it or not, I don't know. That's just my opinion.

Sure, why not? It seems to me that to if someone says something, it can only be helpful if they are SPECIFIC about what they MEAN. Don't you agree?


No, no, I'm not talking about cases where someone says "gays are inferior." I'm talking about cases where someone opposes gay marriage because their moralistic religious view can't allow for marriage outside of being between one man and one woman. And yet this seems to be commonly the reason for the objection.

how many times do I have to say that I agree gays are discriminated against? I have not ignored that. I have agreed with it. You're engaging in a falsehood to say so. What do you expect here ... an 'I-agree-gays-are-discriminated-against' type statement in my signature so it will literally be said in every post? Would that appease you? Done. But I suspect you'll still look for reasons to complain.

Sure. At least you're finally putting some qualifiers out there, even if you ARE doing the rhetorical equivilent of kicking and screaming, to boot. It's progress, at least. (Though it seems to me that specifying what people really MEAN becomes even MORE important if there are issues they want halted. Unless of course, they're trying to intentionally keep the buzz-phrases vague ... )

My view is that a phrase like "anti-gay" speaks more to MOTIVATIONS than anything else. THAT'S how I would define it--if someone INTENDS to be against gays. So I think a person can be against gay marriage without being "anti-gay" if their reasons aren't rooted in being against a person out of prejudice--if they have OTHER reasons that have nothing to do with that PERSON.

And of course I agree with you second qualifier.

For now though, I think I'll keep putting the phrase anti-gay in quotes. Er ... I mean, um, "anti-gay".

__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

You know what your opinion is, but you don't know what you consider it as. You've demonstrated that you believe your opinion and the truth are interchangeable parts.

Obviously not enough, as there is no sign that your writings have improved. Do a keyword search on the word "right" under your posts and you will have several examples.

lol You told me my OPINION is wrong. So your opinion is the truth and my opinion is false. Your opinion is truth and your word is proof apparently. Why are you referring to me in the third person? More of your cheap demagoguery amongst the 5 gay dudes rooting you on? Like I said, you never had any intention of honest debate.

So then we "discriminate" against people who are underage and against criminals and the insane for voting rights and guns? We "discriminate" against people for showing their competence at driving when issuing them a drivers license?

More strawman debate tactics. I never said a word about desk clerks and Christians nor interracial marriages. That's all you.

Says who?

All you do is misrepresent what I say. You criticize me for not putting the cart before the horse. It had to be established first that some certifications issued by the state need to have qualifications. You still seem to be grappling with that concept, so it makes no sense for you to say that I should have already talked about whether or not marriage is applicable to gays.

I'd like to see some proof that any certification or recognition by the state must have a "state interest." I'll tell you what, I'll give you a state interest: democracy and the 14th amendment. Contrary to your beliefs, your opinions are equal to mine, not superior, so the government should treat our opinions equally. We can vote on the word marriage. The outcome will be what gay unions are called in a given state. The state interest is our democratic ideals and the equality of each person's influence on their government.

So you admit that you use talking points?

You have no retort to this point. You made a false assumption, namely that I believe two rights are competing with each other (gay rights vs democracy). Gays have a right to a legally recognized union. They do not have an inherent right to have that union recognized as marriage, so for me there is no conflict. There is no retort for your distorting my argument, only another opportunity for you to try to go on the offense again by using a strawman argument or perhaps misrepresenting something else I said.

I was not talking about blacks and the KKK.
Your reply was pure nonsense.

I repeat my unaddressed point....
Tokugawa united Japan and became its shogun.
This lead to peace for 250 years.
Japan had an isolationist policy.
The US came in and forced their ports open.
Japan decided to imitate the West, and set the UK as a model for imperialism.
Japan became imperialist and that led to war with the US.
Since gunboat diplomacy is a bad idea, so is implementing gay marriage without a popular vote.

No, you just don't see that I am throwing a bomb at you every time you throw one at me. I've been doing that for a while now. Most people would have noticed by now.

I highly doubt all of that. People have replied to me dozens of times on this thread. I haven't been tuned out, though I wouldn't mind that so much among you Westboro bigots. I do believe that by the list someone posted on this thread, that you have identified about 5 people on this forum you consider as bigots (you act as the spokesman for the Westboro bigots, so I'll give you credit for all of your members comments) and I'm sure they've tuned you out as well.

Well look, you can call me a troll all you want. Most of the people on this thread are gays who aggressively seek gay marriage. You thinking you beat me here is no different than you doing a rap in Harlem, me playing a country song, and you saying that we can determine who is the better musician by asking the locals whose best. I give you more credit than you deserve by not commenting on how lousy you play your own music, but you get the point.

You're right about the first part. That was just another putdown.

Awesome. I merely rephrase, while you the great foundit have provided "statements that you have failed to refute." Wow I definitely could not make statements. Only your amazing intellect can do that. I never made any statements in all my posts. You're amazing.

Sorry, I'm not a liar like you. You are rude to me, I am rude to you. As for dishonesty, you criticize me for insults. I notice you've been silent on this:

http://www.4forums.com/political/350199-post2.html

Obviously, you cannot be objective on this issue. Neither can the other Westboro bigots. You are all gay and your acceptance in society hinges on the very issue we debate. You are not capable of objectivity, honesty or civility on this issue. For you, this issue is life and death, that's why you cannot be civilized. For me, I'll be fine one way or the other. I'm not motivated to insult, you and your boys are.

I believe Archangel or whatever his name is defended my comments. You omitted that, which is a lie by omission.

You define my beliefs as you wish, I extend you the same courtesy.

(1) Well you just called me dishonest in this very post. You've made indirect insults calling me stupid.

(2)
You believe marriage is a right for all people. That is your truth. You want it legislated without any vote whatsoever. You believe it should be passed on a federal level, never mind state courts or state capitals. You never said that but it's the logical extension of your deluded belief that gay rights parallels the Civil Rights Movement. That is how you want to legislate your truth.

Having the government recognize gay marriage over the will of the people influences people's children into thinking gay marriage is acceptable. It damages the rights of people to believe what they wish, since you have the government telling people what it believes is true. That government belief is not based on popular belief, it is contrary to popular belief. That makes that infringement on the beliefs of people's families wrong.

I decline. It's a waste of my time. You act so smart. You should know how to behave. I don't need to waste my time teaching you how to behave. You keep up your attacks, I'll keep up mine. Practically all of my attacks are triggered by your rudeness, so they'll probably cease when and if you start to behave.

People like you like to say that everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, so that you can pass legislation to repeal laws against child molestation, so that you can expand your "lifestyle" further in that direction.

As for you and jyoshu, I have found no evidence that you ever called jyoshu a bigot. Congrats.

You've been doing that from the start, despite me calling you on it multiple times. Pot meet kettle.

I would like to do a few things. First I would like to marry my houseplant Steve. Then I want to marry my next door neighbor Susie and my other next door neighbor Roxanne. After that I want to marry my dog Rover. Lastly, I want to marry this hole I have in my barnyard door. You do believe I should have the right to do this, yes?

You really are arrogant. Seriously. Your ego is far larger than your actual intelligence. Seriously. It would have been awesome if you actually were as smart as you think you are. If you had, you could have outmaneuvered me in this debate and I would have enjoyed that. Instead, you make idiotic strawman assumptions, and when I tell you that your assumption is wrong, you say that you don't see why you should believe that your assumption is wrong. I've seen better at arguing the pro-gay marriage argument.

I can think of two spots on this post right here. One where you say my opinion is wrong, which implies you believe that the mere fact that you believe something makes it right. The second is where you say I am wrong because you believe that gay marriage is a right. I'll go along with marriage being a right (as you showed with the Loving ruling) but you didn't make the jump from marriage being a right to gay marriage being a right.

Well again, it would be nice if you were as smart as your condescending remarks indicate. Sadly, you are not. You believe that since you are you, that your opinions are right, and since your opinions are right only you know what reality is. You argue like a child.

An analogy is basically a weak argument. Given the fact that you use strawman debate tactics and misrepresentation so much, they are especially so in your case. I can pull an analogy out of my hat right now and say look that's you. In your book, that means you win. Not in mine.

As for insults, you'd have to be disingenuous to say that you haven't been using them on me. Therefore, I am morally free to use them on you.

You have supplied nothing from your side. Your comment is hypocrisy and the usual blindness you display when it comes to self-reflection.

And demanding segregation of blacks could be perceived as not "anti-black"?
In the modern realm, we have recognized that segregation (without a good reason) is prejudicial.
The position is not without merit.


If we were dealing with JUST that type of situation, I would be more inclined to agree.
But since we're dealing with one group that wants to discriminate against gays, and the other side wants to stop them, to summarize the situation by just talking about "disagreement" is obfuscating the bigger issue...



If you're dealing with a boundary issue, sure.
But as the point of this thread has established, we are nowhere near any such boundary situation.


No. It is not "commonly the reason".
As evidence of that, I point to the "approval/disapproval" ratings when it comes to JUST CIVIL UNIONS.
If you look at the numbers for those who "disapprove" of gay marriage, and then examine the percentage of those who "disapprove" of civil unions, you'll easily see that most people who disapprove of gay marriage ALSO disapprove of civil unions.

So if it were JUST about "one man, one woman", then WHY such a large disapproval of civil unions?
If it were JUST about "one man, one woman", it would be obvious to GRANT civil unions as an EXISTING alternative. Yet in state after state, it is fought.

You can see a lot of the "anti-gay marriage" legislation EXTENDS PAST just marriage to prevent a "civil union" recognition (marriage-like benefits) as well.


It's not an issue of CONTRADICTING that gays are discriminated against as much as it is RECOGNIZING and ADMITTING that fact where relevant and pertinent.
Like earlier in this post, where you concentrate on "just disagree" when there is a much larger issue at stake.


BLOWI.
I said you IGNORE it, specifically in cases where it should be recognized as the MAJOR bone of contention, and you pick at the splinters...


I consistently make a point at putting qualifiers in.
If you think I have missed somewhere where it belongs, point it out.
Otherwise, your claim is without substantiation...


I said what I said, and that's my motivation.
If you've got a kid who is tracking a couple pounds of mud from the outside, it makes no sense for the kid to demand the mother explain EXACTLY how much dirt and/or dust is allowable to be "dragged into the house".

The APPLICATION of these phrases should be obvious.
Furthermore, it is GLARINGLY obvious that you are NOT EVEN TRYING to argue against SPECIFIC examples of misapplication here.
Instead, you are insisting that we provide a precise definition, which detracts from the elephant in the room...


I disagree.
A person who wants segregation may argue that he is not "anti-black", but the EFFECTS of his efforts do detriment blacks.
Being indifferent or clueless to the effects of your actions is not a legitimate defense.
In the legal world, not realizing you were committing a crime isn't a defense against that. As such, not realizing that your actions were detrimental to gays is meaningless.

Do you think anybody asked Martin Luther King Jr what was "anti-black"?
No. Cause it wasn't relevant to the big picture.

By your approach, a person could "religiously" envelope themself in ignorance and sincerely believe that homosexuals were pederasts, and in the interests of protecting the children do some pretty vile actions.
The harm done (e.g. discrimination against gay school teachers, maligning gay people's reputation) may not be MOTIVATED by a desire to harm gays, but the actions are DEFINITIVELY anti-gay.

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

Leave it to the radical left to inject gay marriage into the Miss USA contest, and then not only diss the constestant when she gave a traditional answer, but then called her a "Dumb ----" too. That's really special.

If I were her I'd find him the next day and slap the little creep silly.

__________________
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

Trash blogger retracts apology to Miss California USA; invokes the “c-word”

On MSNBC (natural habitat of slimers), (Perez) Hilton says he takes back his apology for calling Prejean a “dumb b*tch” and then pours on even more slime by laughing that while he called her that epithet he was really thinking of the “c-word.”

Michelle Malkin Trash blogger retracts apology to Miss California USA; invokes the “c-word”

And that dumb "MSNBC host Norah O’Donnell says nothing to distance herself from the misogynist attack."

Where's the women's groups to go after that clod? Where's mainstream gay groups to denounce the creep?

__________________
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

That is a ridiculous assumption. It's like if I said all people who own guns are delusional and paranoid.

People, we are missing the point. NO ONE IS TRYING TO REWRITE OR REDEFINE marriage. If gay marriage advocates really wanted to do that they'd present legislation to do so, instead they are going to the courts to clarify how marriage is applied. If the institution of marriage is denied to people because of their sexual orientation, we are violating their civil rights. It's as simple as that. This has no affect at all on other people's marriage. This is no different then when segregation was struck down. No different at all. The reason some people are angry is because they have this moral standard/opinion that their view of marriage should be law, that is between a man and a woman. The anti-gay marriage people here keep arguing that gay marriage advocates are trying to force their views on them, when they are the ones that are trying to do that. Again, NO ONE trying to force anything down anyone's throat. Clearly, the civil rights act states that their shall be no discrimination to anyone based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion and gender. How some one can fail to understand this is beyond me.

Great post rider. It's because Leftist political correctness doesn't allow for anyone to actually feel free to stand against homosexual marriage today without falling into the ole teabagging red neck category according to these immoral condescending prigs. And they call this a free country with free speech. It is as long as you agree with them.

__________________
If god made human from dirt, how come there are still dirt around? ~ [obvious_child]

You know what, Archie is right. Evolution is a total scam. ~ [obvious_child]

If the universe were not as it is, it would be different. ~ [Penfold]

A great civilization is not conquered from without, until it destroys itself from within. ~ Durant

Wrong. Gay marriage is not a civil right, it's a special right that has to be conferred by the government.

It's also a Biblical abomination and shouldn't even be voted on.

And once you say two men are ok to wed, then you can't say no to three men and their pet carp. So there's no bottom to the mess.

Sure it is. Blacks cannot contol the pigment of their skin but gays can consciously keep their pants zippered.

Besides, it's not a sin to be black or white, but the act of gay sex is a sin. That's the difference.

__________________
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

Yeah; it wasn't one of the gay pride movement's better PR days, that's for sure.

__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson