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.

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:

In response to pcmIV's comment:

Please provide evidence that being gay is a choice (there is none).

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

You're a moron.  Are you serious?  We already knew you were completely dumb here, but this one might take the cake.

Thump that bible on Sundays, too, Babe?

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

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. 

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'?

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to bredbru's comment:

that thought, along with insecurity about the existence of gay and bi men is placed in boys consciousness in a society such as ours. 

on a different note, if that is how you "feel", now you know how women feel about the constant unwanted sexual attetnion.

I already knew how women sometimes feel about unwanted sexual attention. And heterosexual men sometimes feel the same about such attention from women.

Though it is rather ludicrous to try and compare such attention from a gender the recipient of such attention might welcome to one they would definitely not.

It is simply outlandish opinion that any insecurity about gay men is  placed in boys consciousness by this society. It is simply that they would rather not be ogled by gay men.

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.

  Your argument is akin to claiming someone's innocence needs to be proved in court as opposed to their guilt.

In response to dreighver's comment:

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'?

Straw man.

 dude you are so random. when did i say anything about wanting palestinian homosexuals executed? 

In response to pcmIV's comment:

  Your argument is akin to claiming someone's innocence needs to be proved in court as opposed to their guilt.

Well, proof of innocence is a standard used in other civilized nations so drawing upon the American standard of that as a somehow universal truth is rather out of place.

And.... if you want standards changed that have been held in this country for centuries then the burden of proof as to why these changes must be certainly falls upon you.

In response to ricky12684's comment:

 dude you are so random. when did i say anything about wanting palestinian homosexuals executed? 

It seems random because you are a typical confused resident of Massachusetts. 

Think.  Think for yourself and stop repeating liberal slogans.

You are simultaneously posting under an Avatar demanding that the world should "Free Gaza" from the yoke of Israel AND you are posting in favor of homosexual marriage.

I am simply pointing out how those positions are ridiculous side by side - since a "free"  Palestine (you need to work on your understanig of freedom, but I digress) - a "Free" Palestine not only bans gay marriage, but executes and jails homosexuals.

This is the confused state your mind is in.  This is why you think mutually exlusive aspects of human life (homosexuality and marriage for example) are to be reconclied by changing the meaning of words.

This is the state of reason in Massachusetts:  If the liberal masters in politics and education declared "Asparagus is meat" - about two thirds of the citizens would start arguing that asparagus was a better cut than London Broil.

actually most advanced democracies adopt the standard of innocent until proven guilty. and that standard goes back centuries, to well before america even existed. 

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to dreighver's comment:

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'?

Straw man.

Far from it.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to pcmIV's comment:

  Your argument is akin to claiming someone's innocence needs to be proved in court as opposed to their guilt.

Well, proof of innocence is a standard used in other civilized nations so drawing upon the American standard of that as a somehow universal truth is rather out of place.

And.... if you want standards changed that have been held in this country for centuries then the burden of proof as to why these changes must be certainly falls upon you.

actually most advanced democracies adopt the standard of innocent until proven guilty. and that standard goes back centuries, to well before america even existed. 

We all knew you had a screw loose, but the fact you are a bible thumper makes a whole lot of sense to everyone here.

A lot of sense.

We all know now why you think 2+2 = 5.

MORON

Umm, no they don't.  If gay marriage isn't authorized from a federal level, that means the law isn't acknowledged in those states. That could be as something as simple as a gay person's partner not able to make next of kin decisions in a hopital, for example, in that state that does't acknlwledge it.

Get it, dummy?

So, no. Until it's considered on the same plane as heterosexual marriage/union, they DO NOT have the same rights under US law.

That's ONE of many issues.

As usual, you've failed to do your howework on a topic. 

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to RockScully's comment:

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to pcmIV's comment:

Please provide evidence that being gay is a choice (there is none).

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

You're a moron.  Are you serious?  We already knew you were completely dumb here, but this one might take the cake.

Thump that bible on Sundays, too, Babe?

Thump my Bible every day goofball. You have no proof junior. If there were proof it would be screamed from the rooftops 24/7. It isn't. Just like in everything else, facts are anathema to you.

We all knew you had a screw loose, but the fact you are a bible thumper makes a whole lot of sense to everyone here.

A lot of sense.

We all know now why you think 2+2 = 5.

MORON

In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

In response to RockScully's comment:

We all knew you had a screw loose, but the fact you are a bible thumper makes a whole lot of sense to everyone here.

A lot of sense.

We all know now why you think 2+2 = 5.

MORON

I can see you are like a lot of Massachusetts robots who when faced with other opinions go for the ad hominem attacks.  I guess its your only play to attack "Bible thumpers" while embracing asspounders.

But your Math history is abysmal.  For example, Blaise Pascal was a Bible thumper.

Orwell wrote "Freedom is the right to say 2 + 2 = 4" in 1984 - and he was commenting on how the state can use force to change truth.  And then OUTLAW anyone who clings to the old truth.

this is exactly what changing the definition of words is all about.  Marriage?  let's change the definition. 

You and your fellow drones in Massachusetts - GIVE that power to the state.  You allow the State to redefine truth.  Seems cool right now because you hate Bible thumpers. 

You are a very good prole; doubleplusgood!

Your right to vote should be rescinded.