In response to RockScully's comment:

You seem to be struggling with choices in life. 

If you choose to pursue two mutually exclusive things - you have to give up one of them. 

For example - if you choose to renounce your citizenship and move to Brazil - you can't also demand the be allowed to run for Mayor of Boston - because Boston doesn't allow citizens of San Paolo to run for Mayor of Boston.  (Yes, this is grossly discriminatory and arbitrary.  how horrifying!)

Similarly, if you choose to pursue a life of happy gayness - then you have renounced your ability to pursue marriage.

Liberals of course hate having to make choices (liberals are like children in that regard) - so they say well - let's just redefine marriage! 

Let's allow Brazilians to become the mayor of Boston!

This is "enlightened thinking" among the psuedo-intellectual class that run Massachusetts and brainwash people from K thru 12.

 

 

 

I have believed my entire life everything you've just said. Kudos to you.

Got to tell ya. I agree again. You're on a roll.

No he shouldn't apologize because he clearly doesn't mean it.  Does anyone think his views have actually changed?  I do not understand the obsession with trying to elicit an obviously insincere apology.

In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

 

 

 

 

Please provide evidence that being gay is a choice (there is none).  Your Brazilian example is a non-sequitur because the person chose to give up their citizenship.  More importantly all of this is irrelevant to the fact that marriage is a legal institution as well as a religious one.  So all of your moral/religious or whatever arguments have no standing.  There is no legal argument against allowing gays to marry in the eyes of the state and all the legal benefits it entails.  No one is obligating your local church to marry gay people.  Amazing how conservatives whine about the founding fathers and separation of church and state except when it doesn't fit their agenda.

In response to RockScully's comment:

Gay people have exactly the same rights as everybody else. What right that others have are they being denied?

In response to pcmIV's comment:

Please provide evidence that a proclivity to homosexuality cannot be effected by choice.

This post has been removed.

In response to pcmIV's comment:

There is no legal argument which prohibits states from disallowing gay marriage.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

The burden of proof is on people that think it is a choice if they think that justifies denying marriage rights to gay couples (which the poster I was responding to clearly does via the Brazil example he gave).  The fact that homosexual behavior has been observed in thousands of species of animals already calls into question the notion that it is a choice since animals clearly lack the same level of cognitive ability as humans.  Your argument is akin to claiming someone's innocence needs to be proved in court as opposed to their guilt.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

There is this pesky thing called the Constitution.  Specifically the 14th amendment.  There are probably others, but I am not a legal scholar.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

my friend there is this thing called socialization. its how any baby grows up to think (and even what's possible for it to think)and feel and behave hwo it does. cultural anthropology might be something to check into.

In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

you cannot mitigate genocide and apartheid of a state, because there is less prejudice toward non heterosexual people in israel.

In response to ricky12684's comment:

 

[/QUOTE]

 

 

Now I am accused of being too "black and white" - this comes from someone who desperately wants the Palestinans to continue to execute homosexuals while simultaneously arguing that homosexuals are oppressed by a defensive back on the 49ers.

 

In response to pcmIV's comment:

 

You must really hate Christians to have this kind of melt down.  I didn't make an argument based on religious authority - just logic.  When two things are mutually exclusive - you can't have them both.

 

Child.

 

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

 

In response to pcmIV's comment:

 

In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

 

 

You seem to be struggling with choices in life. 

If you choose to pursue two mutually exclusive things - you have to give up one of them. 

For example - if you choose to renounce your citizenship and move to Brazil - you can't also demand the be allowed to run for Mayor of Boston - because Boston doesn't allow citizens of San Paolo to run for Mayor of Boston.  (Yes, this is grossly discriminatory and arbitrary.  how horrifying!)

Similarly, if you choose to pursue a life of happy gayness - then you have renounced your ability to pursue marriage.

Liberals of course hate having to make choices (liberals are like children in that regard) - so they say well - let's just redefine marriage! 

Let's allow Brazilians to become the mayor of Boston!

This is "enlightened thinking" among the psuedo-intellectual class that run Massachusetts and brainwash people from K thru 12.

 

 

 

 

 

Please provide evidence that being gay is a choice (there is none).  Your Brazilian example is a non-sequitur because the person chose to give up their citizenship.  More importantly all of this is irrelevant to the fact that marriage is a legal institution as well as a religious one.  So all of your moral/religious or whatever arguments have no standing.  There is no legal argument against allowing gays to marry in the eyes of the state and all the legal benefits it entails.  No one is obligating your local church to marry gay people.  Amazing how conservatives whine about the founding fathers and separation of church and state except when it doesn't fit their agenda.

 

 

 

You must really hate Christians to have this kind of melt down.  I didn't make an argument based on religious authority - just logic.  When two things are mutually exclusive - you can't have them both.

 

Child.

 

 

When two things are mutually exclusive...? Wha... what!? Marriage and being gay may be 'mutually exclusive' in your mind, but that doesn't make it true.

 

People used to think (and still do) that interracial marriage was/is a sin. Is it right for them to say that marriage and the bonding of those of different races is 'mutually exclusive'. Or being black and having civil rights is 'mutually exclusive'?

Simply put, there are many legal benefits of marriage and to deny those to a group of persons based on an uncontrollable condition is discriminatory and shameful. And that's not even considering the human-rights aspect of the issue.

I just wrote a book claiming that those under 6'0" tall may not marry those over 6'0". I suppose we shall now make this public policy! 

Personally, after watching Cole trying to cover Boldin, I kind of miss Randall Gay . . . 

     Enough is enough!! This is getting as tiresome as the Mantai Te'o fiasco. Can't we at least be free of political correctness during SB week??

     This is ridiculous: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/31/terrell-suggs-says-ravens-would-welcome-a-gay-teammate/     

     Let's move on.