7 states pass marriage amendments

[Gunny]

Even the Catholic church is struggling with the question of ordaining celibate men with homosexual tendencies as priests. The Vatican put forth policies that disagree with your position that it's only about behavior.

I don't base my argument on religion, nor does the Vatican hold any sway with me. I am not Catholic. The Vatican can disagree with me all they want. I consider its opinion to be an incorrect one.

All I can say to your statement from a religious POV is that it is not a church's place to revise the Word of God to conform to political correctness.

I will again say, there is absolutely no evidence to prove homosexuality is anything more than behavioral. You say you base your opinion on common sense, but there is absolutely no evidence to support your opinion other than the speculation of those who WANT to say its genetic because they believe it will somehow legitimize it.

As I already posted, my mind is not closed to evidence that proves homosexuality is genetic .... if and when some is produced. Until that time, my opinion is going to be based on actual fact, and the evidence we DO have.

What do we do with any other type of genetic defect? We try and correct it. IF homosexuality is genetic, it is just another defect, not a special one that deserves special laws.

Either way, genetic or behavioral, it STILL isn't normal, so IMO from that standpoint, the issue is moot anyway.

 

[CockySOB]

Where did I say that you don't have a right to have an opinion? As for the bolded part, that knife cuts both ways...you have none to back up your opinion either. I am quite content to call my opinions on the matter just that, my opinions. You, however, like to claim your opinions as the absolute truth.

Gee. Care to show me where I've said my opinions are absolute truth? I think I've reiterated numerous times that I will wait and see because all the scientific evidence isn't in yet.

To correct you, what I said was that homosexuality isn't a choice a heterosexual would make. I don't think sanity/insanity has anything to do with it.

Thank you for clarifying your position. It had been some time since we discussed the topic of homosexuality.

In other words, if evidence IS found, you will consider homosexuals to be vile, repulsive, perverted, disgusting, sick sub-humans who were born that way.

OK, dumbfuck alert! If definitive evidence is found supporting the hypothesis that homosexual tendencies are significantly influenced by hereditary or environmental biochemical factors, then I'll look at homosexuality just as I would any other mental/biological condition which affects the ability of the individual to function in society (think chronic depression, mania, psychosis, etc). Perhaps you realize that your opinion is so unfounded that you have no other response than to childishly lash out with an emotional and bigoted response.

Thanks for the laugh! I base my arguments on common sense. There is very little religious doctrine that makes sense, common or otherwise.

No, you based your arguments in the case on a purely emotional and non-scientific ideology. If you had one iota of intellectual honesty (or intellect period), you'd be able to see this fact. And with you lacking intellectual honesty, one must question your opinion, placing it in the realm of religious doctrine - which is taken on faith alone.

 

[MissileMan]

I don't base my argument on religion, nor does the Vatican hold any sway with me. I am not Catholic. The Vatican can disagree with me all they want. I consider its opinion to be an incorrect one.

I have no affinity for the Pope's opinion either, I presented it only in the light that it contradicted your opinion.

I will again say, there is absolutely no evidence to prove homosexuality is anything more than behavioral. You say you base your opinion on common sense, but there is absolutely no evidence to support your opinion other than the speculation of those who WANT to say its genetic because they believe it will somehow legitimize it.

On the contrary, my inability, as well as the inability of countless others, to make the choice to engage in homosexuality is my evidence. And it's just as concrete as your "behavior" evidence.

 

[CockySOB]

Even the Catholic church is struggling with the question of ordaining celibate men with homosexual tendencies as priests. The Vatican put forth policies that disagree with your position that it's only about behavior.

Actually the Catholic Church is having problems with the idea of celibacy, period. Many of those who want to serve the Church are unwilling to adhere to the celibacy requirements, and like much of America these days, they prefer to blame [insert anyone/anything other than one's self] rather than simply admit that they made a mistake or a poor judgment call. Or do you think that Catholic priests are NOT banging their female parishioners as well?

BTW, got links to the documents you say the Vatican put out? If you would, please use cites to the official website for the Holy See. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but then I'm not a big fan of the Catholic Church either (much to my sister-in-law's chagrin).

 

[MissileMan]

OK, dumbfuck alert!

Thanks for warning the rest of us.

If definitive evidence is found supporting the hypothesis that homosexual tendencies are significantly influenced by hereditary or environmental biochemical factors, then I'll look at homosexuality just as I would any other mental/biological condition which affects the ability of the individual to function in society (think chronic depression, mania, psychosis, etc). Perhaps you realize that your opinion is so unfounded that you have no other response than to childishly lash out with an emotional and bigoted response.

And just think, so unable to function in society that they could never rise to the position of Senator or the influential leader of 30 million church-goers...I guess you're on to something there.

 

[Gunny]

I have no affinity for the Pope's opinion either, I presented it only in the light that it contradicted your opinion.




On the contrary, my inability, as well as the inability of countless others, to make the choice to engage in homosexuality is my evidence. And it's just as concrete as your "behavior" evidence.

Your inability and the inability of others to make that choice is evidence only of your inability and the inability of others to make that choice. While I CAN see your reasoning, it is flawed. The fact that I, and everyone I have ever talked to would not choose to bunjie jump does not mean nobody would choose to bunjie jump.

And it is NOT as concrete as behavior as evidence. Without behavior on this topic, you have no issue to discuss.

 

[CockySOB]

And just think, so unable to function in society that they could never rise to the position of Senator or the influential leader of 30 million church-goers...I guess you're on to something there.

First, the dumbfuck alert was for you. You're doing nothing but shoveling bullshit and you damned well know it.

Second, I never said "unable" you twit, I said "affects the ability of the individual to function in society." This would be a concrete example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Third, there you go again making blatantly emotional appeals because you don't have one shred of evidence to support your stance. Lacking any form of logical support, you turn to rhetoric and slander.

Give it up, MissileMonkey, its morons like yourself who are actually a detriment to homosexuals at-large because your blather and balderdash is so transparent (yet voluminous) that you drown out any real, certifiable scientific evidence which might further understanding of homosexuality.

 

[mattskramer]

Thats a stupid example. One cant be right or wrong about voting for a person, its not a MORAL QUESTION. Some behaviors can be immoral and/or distructive to individuals or society as a whole.

Perhaps that was a poor example. The point is, again, that just because most people think that something is moral or immoral does not necessarily make it so. There was a time when many people, if not most people, at least within a region, thought that interracial relationships were immoral. People condoned slavery and thought that it was wrong to allow women to vote. The bottom line is that to appeal to popularity is to commit a fallacy.

Perhaps some behaviors are immoral and/or destructive to individuals or society as a whole. Smoking may be one such behavior but it is still allowed in many situations and locations. Whether or not behaviors are immoral and/or destructive to individuals or society as a whole, I doubt that gay marriage (or gay civil unions) falls well within that category of destructive and immoral behaviors.

You brain dead, guilt ridden liberals need to wake up.

Now you stoop to ad hominem attacks. Isn’t petty name-calling beneath you? Besides, if you know my position on many other subjects such as national defence, the justice and prison system, and our tax system to name a few, I doubt that you’d consider me to be a liberal. Also, I’m wide awake and not guilt ridden about anything.

Our current society as a whole does not support institutional discrimination unless its for a valid reason. In fact, if anything, we cater to make sure persons aren’t discriminated against. That being the case, and since that same society is still overwhelmingly rejecting same sex marriage, that must be telling you its based on sound reasons other than just emotional reactions, such as racism is.

Such was not the case just a short time ago. America has a history of gross and unnecessary discrimination. Anyway, I don’t see that gay marriage should continue to be outlawed. The only thing that society’s rejection of gay marriage tells me is that many people don’t like the notion of gay marriage.

Just as some "rights" are inherently obvious, so are some behaviors inherently immoral and destructive. Can you tell me why you would think practicing beastiality is not healthy for someone? Or do your instincts just strongly tell you there is something wrong with it?

Okay. I have not resolved the issue of bestiality. Man an animal is not equal. An animal, such as a horse can’t give informed consent. There is not an equal power structure. It is the same as with the relationship between an adolescent and an adult. Therefore children and animals need a certain degree of protection. Yet, we kill frogs for high school lab experiments. It is wrong to kill your family cat but it is okay to kill a catfish. What animals are we allowed to abuse (flies, cockroaches, spiders, ants, snakes, rats.) and what animals are we not allowed to abuse and take advantage of (cats, dogs, horses, parakeets, etc.)? Such issues are very relative and subjective.

Similarly, it is okay to vote once you reach a certain age but you are not allowed to drink alcohol until you reach a different age. You can smoke cigarettes by a certain age but you can’t take marijuana. Can you tell me why we pick certain ages instead of different ages for each activity? Also, why did we prohibit alcohol consumption only to allow it a few years later? Society and/or government changed its mind. Perhaps, in due time, it will change its mind about gay marriage.

 

[mattskramer]

Until it is proven that homosexuality is a genetic/inherited trait, homosexuality must be considered to be a choice. We've danced this dance before, so I expect you remember the steps.

What is the relevancy in the genetic/choice debate? You choose your religion and there are laws to protect people against discrimination based on religion. In certain areas interracial marriage was not allowed. People, at least in modern America are free to choose to get married to a person of the same race or to a person of a different race. Smoking is a choice. Perhaps we should prohibit smokers from getting married.

 

[red states rule]

Of course the unbiased liberal media is ready to report the news and not slant it in any way


Cafferty Finds Bigotry in 'Gay Marriage' Amendment, Avoids His 'Ching-Chong' Past
Posted by Ian Schwartz
On the 4pm hour of Friday's The Situation Room, CNN anchor Jack Cafferty lambasted the Bush administration's push for a national gay marriage ban. However, what Cafferty did not inform the audience of is his own bigoted past.


JACK CAFFERTY: Hi, Wolf. Guess what Monday is? Monday is the day President Bush will speak about an issue near and dear to his heart and the hearts of many conservatives. It's also the day before the Senate votes on the very same thing. Is it the war? Deficits? Health insurance? Immigration? Iran? North Korea? Not even close. No, the president is going to talk about amending the Constitution in order to ban gay marriage.

This is something that absolutely, positively has no chance of happening, nada, zippo, none. But that doesn't matter. Mr. Bush will take time to make a speech. The Senate will take time to talk and vote on it, because it's something that matters to the Republican base. This is pure politics. If has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in gay marriage. It's blatant posturing by Republicans, who are increasingly desperate as the midterm elections approach. There's not a lot else to get people interested in voting on them, based on their record of the last five years. But if you can appeal to the hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in some people, you might move them to the polls to vote against that big, bad gay married couple that one day might move in down the street. Here's the question: Is now the time for President Bush to be backing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? E-mail your thoughts to [email protected] or go to CNN.com/caffertyfile -- Wolf.

Video link - .WMV More follows. Oh goody goody gum drops, this is gold, pure gold. Jack Cafferty, the man who made a series of "ching" and "chong" sounds is calling those against gay marriage bigots! I mean, seriously:

It should be noted that Cafferty has a history of insensitive remarks towards many minority groups, not just Arabs and Muslims. In November of last year, he allegedly went as far as to crudely mock the Japanese language through a series of “ching” and “chong” noises. ADC urges you to contact CNN and American Morning about these effects of these comments (see contact information below).
Also, it should be important to note that this incident used to be noted in his Wikipedia profile, until some liberal Cafferty sycophant removed it. (old version that noted the remarks)
http://newsbusters.org/node/5669

 

[Gunny]

What is the relevancy in the genetic/choice debate? You choose your religion and there are laws to protect people against discrimination based on religion. In certain areas interracial marriage was not allowed. People, at least in modern America are free to choose to get married to a person of the same race or to a person of a different race. Smoking is a choice. Perhaps we should prohibit smokers from getting married.

Do you EVER give up on your irrelevant analogies?

There happens to be a special law to protect gays against discrimination. It's a hate crime law that is a Federal crime that carries a stiffer punishment than say if some gay beats up some white dude. That's just state-level assault and battery.

Race has nothing to do with aberrant sexual behavior. The two are not comparable.

Smoking is a choice and smokers are legally discriminated against. It is also irrelevant to the topic of marriage.

You bring out this same weak bullshit ad nauseum. It gets shot down every time. You need to go back to your relativist drawing board and come up with something better and at least NEW.

 

[mattskramer]

I dont recall anyone saying the PROOF that same sex marriage is wrong is that the majority opposes it. I do recall some of us bringing up the fact that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, legally, because thats what the majority wants.

You are splitting hairs. Read your comment on # 49:

That being the case, and since that same society is still overwhelmingly rejecting same sex marriage, that must be telling you its based on sound reasons other than just emotional reactions, such as racism is.

My point is that just because the majority thinks that something is wrong, does not mean that something is wrong. The only conclusion that can be drawn by the fact that most people think that something is wrong is that most people think that something is wrong.

Our laws are not based solely on the idea of right and wrong, but also on what is or isnt good for society at large, and if that goodness or badness is sufficient enough to overide areas of personal freedom. Its always a balancing act, and for you to make the statement that "majority isnt always right" is like saying "red isnt always a bad color",, so what???? I think you just like saying things that are meaningless but sound good cuz you think it makes you sound intelligent, but guess what, it doesnt.

Our laws are based on what people think to be right and wrong. It is also based on what people think is good for society at large. I agree that it is a balancing act. People think that there should be age limits for certain behaviors. The question then becomes: What age is too young? People think that although smoking is an unhealthy behavior, people should be permitted to smoke but to not take marijuana. I think that we are in agreement on this. I just don’t like it when people seem to imply that since most people think that gay marriage is wrong, can be concluded that it is in fact wrong. It is illogical to arrive at that conclusion.

 

[Gunny]

You are splitting hairs. Read your comment on # 49:

My point is that just because the majority thinks that something is wrong, does not mean that something is wrong. The only conclusion that can be drawn by the fact that most people think that something is wrong is that most people think that something is wrong.



Our laws are based on what people think to be right and wrong. It is also based on what people think is good for society at large. I agree that it is a balancing act. People think that there should be age limits for certain behaviors. The question then becomes: What age is too young? People think that although smoking is an unhealthy behavior, people should be permitted to smoke but to not take marijuana. I think that we are in agreement on this. I just don’t like it when people seem to imply that since most people think that gay marriage is wrong, can be concluded that it is in fact wrong. It is illogical to arrive at that conclusion.

No, what is illogical is making irrelevant comparisons to suit your morally bankrupt relativist arguments.

 

[mattskramer]

Gosh. This is so easy. My 12-year-old neighbor presents more of an intellectual challenge. Okay, here we go:

I don't care who you were talking to. Idiots like you are fair game when and where found.

Then it was not fair for you to criticize CharlestonChad. Perhaps he did not care whom you were talking to. I will not stoop to name-calling. If you read my posts more carefully, you will notice that I did not label you a hypocrite.

Your reasoning is sound for relativist morons. When one abandons right/wrong and/or good/bad, one stands for and believes in exactly NOTHING except being against anyone believing in anything. That fits you to a "t."

My reasoning is perfectly sound in this case. The bottom line is that merely because people think that something is wrong does not mean that the thing is wrong. I think that some things are right and I think that some things are wrong. I think that it is right for adult American women who do not have a felony conviction to be allowed to vote. I think that it is wrong to deny civil union status for gay couples. Therefore, you are incorrect again. I stand for things.

And I must've missed where you substantiated your allegation that I am a hypocrite. If you're going to call me names, please choose one that is applicable to me like I do you ...moron.

Please read more carefully. I did not call you a hypocrite though you are practicing hypocrisy in a sense. Pay attention and follow:

(1.) In post # 18, I replied to glockmail’s comment. It was in keeping with the title of the thread.

(2.) In post # 20, You butted in and started the name calling when you jumped in and declared my reasoning disjointed without providing any proof.

(3.) Following your fine example, CharlestonChad jumped in and participated in the mane calling with post # 21.

(4.) You apparently took offence at that and criticized him for butting as you posted # 22.

Oh, so THIS is your deal?

Oh. You are finally catching on. By the way, if you pay attention you should notice that I was responding to trobinett. I was not talking to you.

I have not once stated that anyone who posts on this board cannot do as they please, and even if I did, I have no means to enforce such a statement.

Uh. Hello. I never said that you claimed that people couldn’t do as they please. I never said that you apply rules (unfairly or otherwise). Please try to pay attention.

So if THAT is your problem, pleae address THAT without trying to sensationalize it adding your own lie. That way I can more easily understand what the F- you're talking about and address your REAL problem:

If you don't like me butting in ... tough shit.

Let me know if I need to clarify my response for your addled brain.

Ha ha ha – (Let me clarify that for you. I was laughing.) No. I do not have a problem with the application of rules – particularly since my comments had noting to do with the application of rules. I was merely making light of the fact that you butted and then criticized CharlestonChad for butting in – committing a style of hypocrisy. Also, I did not sensationalize or lie about it. You would more easily understand communication and logic if you would read more carefully – particularly those posts that are not intended for your reply - and going back to school would probably help you.

 

[Semper Fi]

Sadly, I'm from one of those states and I didn't get to vote against that amendment.

Sadly, Im from one of those states and I couldn't vote FOR the amendment. Just another year and 2 months and I'll be of legal voting age!

 

[mattskramer]

Do you EVER give up on your irrelevant analogies?

There happens to be a special law to protect gays against discrimination. It's a hate crime law that is a Federal crime that carries a stiffer punishment than say if some gay beats up some white dude. That's just state-level assault and battery.

The law is designed to protect all people from crime based on hate. Anyway, I’m opposed to the hate crime law.

Race has nothing to do with aberrant sexual behavior. The two are not comparable.

Did you graduate from high school? Carefully re-read my post. I was not talking about race (one is born into a particular race). I was talking about choices that people have. You are free to get married to a Black person. You are free to get married to a White person. At least at one time in certain locations, you were not free to make such a choice. If you were to get married, you were required to get married to someone within your same race. The comparison applies.

Smoking is a choice and smokers are legally discriminated against. It is also irrelevant to the topic of marriage.

In some places and situations, smokers are discriminated against. In other places and situations they are not discriminated against.

You bring out this same weak bullshit ad nauseum. It gets shot down every time. You need to go back to your relativist drawing board and come up with something better and at least NEW.

Uh. Nope. My reasoning is sound. You attempt to put words in my mouth and twist my statements. These points of mine, as they stand, have yet to be shot down.

 

[red states rule]

The law is designed to protect all people from crime based on hate. Anyway, I’m opposed to the hate crime law.



Did you graduate from high school? Carefully re-read my post. I was not talking about race (one is born into a particular race). I was talking about choices that people have. You are free to get married to a Black person. You are free to get married to a White person. At least at one time in certain locations, you were not free to make such a choice. If you were to get married, you were required to get married to someone within your same race. The comparison applies.



In some places and situations, smokers are discriminated against. In other places and situations they are not discriminated against.



Uh. Nope. My reasoning is sound. You attempt to put words in my mouth and twist my statements. These points of mine, as they stand, have yet to be shot down.

Marriage fiat in Massachusetts
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
November 11, 2006


Only two days after voters in Arizona rejected a ballot initiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman and seven other states approved their own ballot initiative, Massachusetts lawmakers denied their constituents the opportunity to decide for themselves -- a blatant attempt to stop debate once and for all. In the process, they also trampled the state constitution.
Bay State legislators recessed Thursday without considering whether to place the 170,000-signatory marriage amendment on the 2008 ballot even though the state constitution requires that they vote, and even though the liberal state supreme court, which decreed same-sex "marriage" in the first place, had also previously ordered legislators to vote one way or another. But they wouldn't even put themselves on record as to whether to allow voters a choice two years from now.
To avoid intervention by Gov. Mitt Romney, lawmakers voted 109-87 to recess. Under the state's laborious constitutional-amendment rules, this all but kills the effort to let citizens have a say one way or the other. It deprives the measure of the second consecutive thumbs-up by 25 percent of lawmakers which the constitution requires for a ballot measure to go forward. That means proponents need to start over. The ballot measure must now garner tens of thousands of signatures again.
That, of course, is the easy part. According to opponents of same-sex "marriage," about three-quarters of state residents would approve a ban -- which, as it happens, is why lawmakers don't want to be on record opposing it, even as they quash it procedurally. This is hardly a profile in courage.
There is a fundamental conflict between what the state's political establishment wants and what state residents want. So, rather than following the will of the people, lawmakers are disobeying the constitution. Mr. Romney's reaction struck the right chords: "One-hundred-and-seventy-thousand citizens followed our Constitution's process to petition government. They followed the prescribed process to place an item of importance before the voters. They asked for democracy.
"But today, by effectively avoiding the constitutionally required vote on same-sex marriage, 109 legislators disgraced their oath of office. Each of them swore to follow the Constitution. The Constitution plainly states that when a qualified petition is placed before them, they 'shall' vote. By not voting, we have witnessed the triumph of arrogance over democracy. Whether or not you favor same-sex marriage, you should be very concerned that the rule of law and the sovereignty of the people have been trampled."
This is a sad day for democracy in Massachusetts, and a signal example of left-liberalism.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061110-090549-3070r.htm

 

[Gunny]

Gosh. This is so easy. My 12-year-old neighbor presents more of an intellectual challenge. Okay, here we go:



Then it was not fair for you to criticize CharlestonChad. Perhaps he did not care whom you were talking to. I will not stoop to name-calling. If you read my posts more carefully, you will notice that I did not label you a hypocrite.



My reasoning is perfectly sound in this case. The bottom line is that merely because people think that something is wrong does not mean that the thing is wrong. I think that some things are right and I think that some things are wrong. I think that it is right for adult American women who do not have a felony conviction to be allowed to vote. I think that it is wrong to deny civil union status for gay couples. Therefore, you are incorrect again. I stand for things.



Please read more carefully. I did not call you a hypocrite though you are practicing hypocrisy in a sense. Pay attention and follow:

(1.) In post # 18, I replied to glockmail’s comment. It was in keeping with the title of the thread.

(2.) In post # 20, You butted in and started the name calling when you jumped in and declared my reasoning disjointed without providing any proof.

(3.) Following your fine example, CharlestonChad jumped in and participated in the mane calling with post # 21.

(4.) You apparently took offence at that and criticized him for butting as you posted # 22.





Oh. You are finally catching on. By the way, if you pay attention you should notice that I was responding to trobinett. I was not talking to you.



Uh. Hello. I never said that you claimed that people couldn’t do as they please. I never said that you apply rules (unfairly or otherwise). Please try to pay attention.



Ha ha ha – (Let me clarify that for you. I was laughing.) No. I do not have a problem with the application of rules – particularly since my comments had noting to do with the application of rules. I was merely making light of the fact that you butted and then criticized CharlestonChad for butting in – committing a style of hypocrisy. Also, I did not sensationalize or lie about it. You would more easily understand communication and logic if you would read more carefully – particularly those posts that are not intended for your reply - and going back to school would probably help you.

You HAD to have been dropped on your head as a child from the second floor. I hope your twelve years old neighbor is smart enough to not be alone with such an immoral piece of garbage like you.

Apparently simple English is not enough for you. There's nothing hypocritical about my posts. Not even close. Just some more of your twisting. If Chad doesn't like my response, he's got a keyboard. Simple as that. Matter of fact he DID respond.

What IS hypocritical is some fag-loving, buddy-fondling, incestuous piece of garbage like yourself pretending to be some kind of uprighteous intellectual. You're a freakin' joke and poor excuse for a human being. I have yet to see you make even an attempt at an honest argument, and this little rant of yours is just more of the same swill.

 

[Gunny]

The law is designed to protect all people from crime based on hate. Anyway, I’m opposed to the hate crime law.

What you are for or against is irrelevant. The law exists and provides unfair rights for certain groups, homosexuals being one of those groups.

Did you graduate from high school? Carefully re-read my post. I was not talking about race (one is born into a particular race). I was talking about choices that people have. You are free to get married to a Black person. You are free to get married to a White person. At least at one time in certain locations, you were not free to make such a choice. If you were to get married, you were required to get married to someone within your same race. The comparison applies.

Black people are born black. They do not choose to be, nor is their skin color considered aberrant behavior. So, your comparison does NOT apply.


In some places and situations, smokers are discriminated against. In other places and situations they are not discriminated against.

Smokers are legally discriminated against in every state in the US.



Uh. Nope. My reasoning is sound. You attempt to put words in my mouth and twist my statements. These points of mine, as they stand, have yet to be shot down.

Wrong. Your argument has been proven time and again to be irrelvant, and nothing more than dishonest moral relativism. Nobody needs to twist anything to prove THAT.

 

[mattskramer]

Wrong. Your argument has been proven time and again to be irrelvant, and nothing more than dishonest moral relativism. Nobody needs to twist anything to prove THAT.

Gawd. Help me out, people. Is GunnyL really this dense or is he just pretending? He doesn’t even understand the point I made about choosing someone from a different race. He supposedly confuses it with race, itself. He must be just playing games with me. I give up.