An Alabama Pastor's Epic Speech against Gay Marriage (Please finish drinking your beverage first)

[emilynghiem]

Dear Skylar
1. On the faith-based arguments, I see that as going in circles.
once Where_r_my_Keys has those beliefs they are not going to change.
the explanations WR gives are not going to work for you, the rebuttals you give
are not going to affect WR inherent beliefs. the Atheist is not required to justify reasons for
not having beliefs in God Christianity or the Cross in order to remove it. If this doesn't work,
it doesn't change the fact WR beliefs are valid as they are.

This line of questioning is not going to change anything
except maybe prove to WR that it's not going to work on secular gentiles.

Thanks for taking the time to demonstrate how this doesn't work.
Beliefs are just going to have to be respected as is, cannot always be justified to other people.
And with secular gentiles, concrete scientific proof is required or it's faith based.

2. on the arguments that other states support, the majority supports it, etc.

I wouldn't go with that, because the majority of the world still sees war and is
depending directly or indirectly on unfair labor, and those are still harmful things to avoid.

This line of reasoning does not substantiate things either,
especially with the notion 'this is NOT a popularity contest" that I think Seawytch posted.

What is going to humanize people and help us to STOP judging people for superficial conditions,
is to respect people's beliefs "as they come" and NOT require people to justify their beliefs.
Maybe explain them, but not base their rights or freedoms or defense on PROVING them.

Only if people require that of others, sure the same standard will apply back to them.
I am really hoping the point here is to respect people's beliefs as they are,
and if more proof is needed, then why not use science and not argue over why people believe what.

From what I see, when people have a belief they can't always explain it to other people.
It doesn't make it less valid, but it is frustrating, so I'd rather just respect it up front and not require
people to prove it to me in order to defend it by law.

I am concerned that people take responsibility for their beliefs; so if someone ran around claiming that marijuana use didn't damage the brain, but it turns out it does, I think those legalization advocates who misrepresented that to get laws changed should accept legal and financial responsibility for the damage caused.

If that is WR's concern, then we really need to get scientific studies and agree on what is going on.
If WR is concerned about abusive harmful conditions, those do need to be addressed as part of the RESPONSIBILITY of legalizing things that come with objections and consequences.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we are not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

I say: 'we are not talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it." And you run to imply that I said exactly the opposite of that.

That should tell the reader that the contributor, as noted earlier is not an honest broker, her reasoning shows a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable... which is to say that her reasoning is perverse; it demonstrates, unavoidably, idiosyncratic "beliefs" which are firmly maintained despite being contradicted by the record of this very thread... such which is typical of a mental disorder.

Remember that until the American Psychiatric Association was inculcated with Advocates of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, Homosexuality was recognized as a mental disorder and conclusion was altered NOT be any medical science, but by the simple vote of individuals who NEED the public to BELIEVE that such is true.

Yet... here we find in our own humble forum, evidence of the incontrovertible variety, a professed homosexual member presenting symptoms of a mental disorder.

Now, the Reader has seen this demonstrated by other homosexual members, time and again... demanding things to be true, when the very discussion in which the assertion was advanced establishes as fact, that such is FALSE.

So we see, in real terms, from a member of our own tiny community... advancing deceit, directly underneath evidence which refutes her public profession; which, as noted above, is the definition of delusion, a profound example of mental disorder.

So it turns out that the polled opinion of the subjective, altering recognition and respect for what is otherwise: medical certainty, has no effect on the reality that perverse reasoning, such as that which denies a profound deviation from the norm, in no way represents deviancy.

It's the product of a disordered mind and the medium exclusively used in the manifestation of evil.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys the impression I have of Skylar is of an honest open minded person who is simply biased, but even with that bias, is as even minded and transparent as can be expected. I don't think you will have problems working out as much as possible, so please do not fear there is any evil or ill intent going on here.

something as simple as "not forgiving" or "not knowing/understanding" other people, groups or beliefs
can cause these biases and twists in perception/representation to come out this way. Nobody here has anything to gain by obstructing the truth from being established, though mistakes may continue to happen.

It does not have to be a mental disorder behind it. Skylar and others here are much too articulate and consistent, and simply do not understand where we are coming from, which is to be expected.

Please let us keep working on removing fear and unforgiveness issues from this equation,
and I believe we will see much more clarity in how we hear and understand each other. Thanks!
I will keep all this in prayer as we move toward fuller understanding and hear each other out. Yours truly, Emily

 

[Skylar]

Dear Skylar
1. On the faith-based arguments, I see that as going in circles.
B. once Where_r_my_Keys has those beliefs they are not going to change.
the explanations WR gives are not going to work for you, the rebuttals you give
are not going to affect WR inherent beliefs. the Atheist is not required to justify
not having beliefs in God Christianity or the Cross in order to remove it.

Oh, I have no illusions that I could ever change Keyes mind on, well, anything. When you begin with an assumption that your beliefs are universal and objective truth, that doesn't leave much room for new information. I don't post for Keyes. But for anyone who might be reading his claims.

Pointing out wild inconsistency and profound subjectivity in what is being offered as 'objective moral truth' tends to take the polish of the 'moral truth' apple.

2. on the arguments that other states support, the majority supports it, etc.

I wouldn't go with that, because the majority of the world still sees war and is
depending directly or indirectly on unfair labor, and those are still harmful things to avoid.

This line of reasoning does not substantiate things either,
especially with the notion 'this is NOT a popularity contest" that I think Seawytch posted.

In terms of practical rights, its amazingly substaintial. What you may pay perceive as a popularity contest is actually hundreds of thousands of people able to exercise their rights. There is a tangible, real world value in terms of justice, equal rights and benefit to these individuals.

Better yet, the rising approval of their unions among the public demonstrates that the rather dehumanizing characterizations of them by folks like Keyes just isn't sticking. He may consider them 'abhorred' and 'despised' and 'loathed' and talk about how they may all need to be executed. But that's an increasingly rare and marginalized position.

I consider the support for gay marriage an indication of recognition of gays as folks. And their rights as valuable and worth protecting. The higher the support goes, the more profound I'd argue that recognition is. So I'll gladly cite popular support among my many arguments. It matters.

What is going to humanize people and help us to STOP judging people for superficial conditions,
is to respect people's beliefs "as they come" and NOT require people to justify their beliefs.
Maybe explain them, but not base their rights or freedoms or defense on PROVING them.

I don't consider all beliefs worthy of support. I wouldn't consider someone who argued that Christianity should be banned in the US anymore worth respecting that someone who insisted that all Mosques and Korans should be purged. So when someone expresses such sentiment, I'm going to point out why and how they're wrong. As I don't want to see beliefs like that proliferate.

Some beliefs are quite destructive.

From what I see, when people have a belief they can't always explain it to other people.
It doesn't make it less valid, but it is frustrating, so I'd rather just respect it up front and not require
people to prove it to me in order to defend it by law.

I don't consider a belief's existence to be worth respect. I consider the content, rationale and practical effects of a belief the basis for respect. Many beliefs are destructive. Many beliefs are baseless. And I won't give them equal weight or recognition with sound reasoning using verifiable evidence.

Take....modern medicine and your 'spiritual healing'. You may believe that spiritual healing is as good as any surgery or medication. But the evidence doesn't support this. And the outcome of trying to pray the coronary blockage away rather than putting in a stint isn't likely to be equal. In fact, its likely to be far, far worse.

I see many religious folks as trying to laud the value of belief without evidence because they can't actually verify or demonstrate the veracity of what they believe. They want their faith to be viewed as being as valid and predictive as evidence and experience. And generally speaking, it isn't. Not in terms of real world outcome.

In virtually every instance, if you try to walk on water, you're gonna get wet. No matter what you believe.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

Huh... So the issue here is 'is Sexual Abnormality is a mental disorder; whether or not such represents a deviation from standard human reason.

To test that, let's examine the Contributor's veracity. Let's see if we can spot anything in her public professions which could reasonably be recognized as deviating from the standard of 'honesty', a trait essential to human viability... and which is essential to sustaining cultural viability.

So the contributor has advised the Reader that the concepts "Private and Secret" are not just distinct concepts, but that these two concepts represent 'an ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE'!


Private: not shared with or revealed to others

Secret: not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others

Now Reader, do you see an 'ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE'?

Do you see how advising someone that such is the case, is a perversion of the such?

Do you see that such represents a deviation from the standard of truth?

Do you understand that this is the sort of things that demonstrate the realities of mental disorder... in real terms, witnessed by YOU, before your very eyes, perpetrated against: YOU.

And do you see why normalizing that, is dangerous? And not just dangerous in the generic, far away sense, but in the very real, here and now sense... to YOU!

And do you see the similarity between what you witnessed here, the deceit fraudulently advanced as a means to influence you, on the premise that YOU are too ignorant, too foolish to know the difference between that which is 'private' and that which is 'secret'... towards selling you on the idea that Sexual Abnormality is PERFECTLY NORMAL!

It's the same species of reasoning that advised you that 'we'll need to pass the bill to know what's in it' and 'If you like your plan you can keep your plan'. It's the same mindset which determined to encourage tens of millions of indigents to illegally cross the US border; many of whom are carrying insidious, crippling disease long ago beaten back by sound federal and state policy, requiring immunization... it's the same deviancy which brings people with little to no skills to the US, illegally, then pays them to stay here with the monies it confiscates from people who busted their asses the earn it... and which then registers those illegals to VOTE.

And it's the same perversion that manipulates the judiciary to set judges who operate on the same deceitful premise... to decide that sound state legislation violates the US Constitution... and its the same way of 'thinking' that fraudulently advises YOU, the reader, that such judicial 'rulings' represents the popular opinion in those states wherein the vast majority of the people voted to elect the vast majority of the legislators who passed the bills that were signed by the vast majority of the Governors, which was overturned by a hand full of individuals... .

Do you see how THE perverse reasoning such as the above cited contributor is dangerous to YOU?

 

[Skylar]

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

Huh... So the issue here is 'is Sexual Abnormality is a mental disorder; whether or not such represents a deviation from standard human reason.

The act you consider a 'mental disorder' is private. They're not engaging in any homosexual acts in public. You're demanding they keep the mere attraction to people of the same sex a secret. And they have no obligation to do so.

Your personal opinion that homosexuality is a 'mental disorder' is irrelevant. As you define nothing in their lives, nor create any obligation upon them or anyone else. Your beliefs are yours. Your folly is in assuming that because you believe something, someone else is obligated to do something.

They really aren't. We aren't going to strip gays and lesbians of any rights based on your opinion.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

Huh... So the issue here is 'is Sexual Abnormality is a mental disorder; whether or not such represents a deviation from standard human reason.

To test that, let's examine the Contributor's veracity. Let's see if we can spot anything in her public professions which could reasonably be recognized as deviating from the standard of 'honesty', a trait essential to human viability... and which is essential to sustaining cultural viability.

So the contributor has advised the Reader that the concepts "Private and Secret" are not just distinct concepts, but that these two concepts represent 'an ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE'!


Private: not shared with or revealed to others

Secret: not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others

Now Reader, do you see an 'ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE'?

Do you see how advising someone that such is the case, is a perversion of the such?

Do you see that such represents a deviation from the standard of truth?

Do you understand that this is the sort of things that demonstrate the realities of mental disorder... in real terms, witnessed by YOU, before your very eyes, perpetrated against: YOU.

And do you see why normalizing that, is dangerous? And not just dangerous in the generic, far away sense, but in the very real, here and now sense... to YOU!

And do you see the similarity between what you witnessed here, the deceit fraudulently advanced as a means to influence you, on the premise that YOU are too ignorant, too foolish to know the difference between that which is 'private' and that which is 'secret'... towards selling you on the idea that Sexual Abnormality is PERFECTLY NORMAL!

It's the same species of reasoning that advised you that 'we'll need to pass the bill to know what's in it' and 'If you like your plan you can keep your plan'. It's the same mindset which determined to encourage tens of millions of indigents to illegally cross the US border; many of whom are carrying insidious, crippling disease long ago beaten back by sound federal and state policy, requiring immunization... it's the same deviancy which brings people with little to no skills to the US, illegally, then pays them to stay here with the monies it confiscates from people who busted their asses the earn it... and which then registers those illegals to VOTE.

And it's the same perversion that manipulates the judiciary to set judges who operate on the same deceitful premise... to decide that sound state legislation violates the US Constitution... and its the same way of 'thinking' that fraudulently advises YOU, the reader, that such judicial 'rulings' represents the popular opinion in those states wherein the vast majority of the people voted to elect the vast majority of the legislators who passed the bills that were signed by the vast majority of the Governors, which was overturned by a hand full of individuals... .

Do you see how THE perverse reasoning such as the above cited contributor is dangerous to YOU?

The act you consider a 'mental disorder' is private.

Yet another deceitful deflection, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

We're not discussing the act manifested from the mental disorder... we're discussing the mental disorder which rationalizes that the abnormal act is normal and the innumerable rationalizations which convey falsity as truth and the harm that such does, axiomatically, to every single person into which it comes into contact, not the least of which, are those who have succumbed to such.


For instance, your statement:"Your personal opinion that homosexuality is a 'mental disorder' is irrelevant." , conveys that there is no evidence of Sexual Abnormality is the consequence of a mental disorder and THAT is absolutely false.

You're a professed homosexual and in this very thread, you have just this evening demonstrated that your own reasoning is perversely disordered, posting one falsity after another, demanding that such is truth.

So while I do hold the opinion that homosexuality is a consequence of mental disorder, I do so on the basis that science demonstrates such to be the case... which you, fraudulently seek to minimize through the cozenage, that implies 'opinion' denotes falsity; while your duplicity requires that your own opinion must be accepted as bedrock fact.

LOL!

But thanks for another demonstration of how mental disorder works, what it does and why the culture is foolish for tolerating it.

 

[beagle9]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the fuck up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the fuck up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

HUH!

Ya know... I 'believe' such parades ARE public.

Of course, the problem there is that such is just my opinion... and well, yours... . And according to the gospel according to perverse reasoning, because it is our opinion and we're in the perceived minority, this has no bearing on the reality that exists within the fantasy that such is purely a private matter.

Such is the nature of delusion... it rests upon deception. Just as such is the nature of evil. And only evil would promote the idea that those who celebrate deviancy through chronic dupery, demanding sweeping changes to public policy while demanding that such is a private matter.

 

[Skylar]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the fuck up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

Neither of the times I went to Pride were there any gay sex in the parade. They keep that private.

As for keeping their sexual orientation a secret, no one is obligated to do that.

 

[Skylar]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the fuck up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

HUH!

Ya know... I 'believe' such parades ARE public.

Of course, the problem there is that such is just my opinion... and well, yours... . And according to the gospel according to perverse reasoning, because it is our opinion and we're in the perceived minority, this has no bearing on the reality that exists within the fantasy that such is purely a private matter.

Such is the nature of delusion... it rests upon deception. Just as such is the nature of evil. And only evil would promote the idea that those who celebrate deviancy through chronic dupery, demanding sweeping changes to public policy while demanding that such is a private matter.

Isn't this the gospel you arbitrarily ignore whenever its inconvenient....the same gospel that calls for death for sodomy or adultery?

Yet when I ask you if those parts of the Bible are to be followed, you give me excuses for why god can be ignored. Er....'interpreted' around.

Any theist can do the same. Which is why religion is so relativistic and subjective.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the fuck up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

One would say this post is irrelevant idiocy.

 

[Skylar]

Yet another deceitful deflection, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

We're not discussing the act manifested from the mental disorder... we're discussing the mental disorder which rationalizes that the abnormal act is normal and the innumerable rationalizations which convey falsity as truth and the harm that such does, axiomatically, to every single person into which it comes into contact, not the least of which, are those who have succumbed to such.

But thanks for another demonstration of how it works, what it does and why the culture is foolish for tolerating it.

Your personal opinion that homosexuality is a 'mental disorder' is irrelevant. As you define nothing in their lives, nor create any obligation upon them or anyone else. Your beliefs are yours. Your folly is in assuming that because you believe something, someone else is obligated to do something.

They really aren't. We aren't going to strip gays and lesbians of any rights based on your opinion.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the fuck up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

One would say this post is irrelevant idiocy.

One might, if one did not understand the meaning of relevant... or where one's reasoning was steeped in an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

 

[Skylar]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the fuck up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

One would say this post is irrelevant idiocy.

One might, if one did not understand the meaning of relevant... or where one's reasoning was steeped in an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

An argument that might work if we recognize your subjective personal opinion as 'reality'. Or 'objective moral truth'. Or 'natural law'. Or 'nature'. Or 'god'.

Which I don't believe anyone does.

 

[Syriusly]

Should we re-criminalize homosexual sex?

If gay marriage can be pushed as a belief, why not other people's beliefs about sexuality?
"

Marriage is a right- not a belief.

What same gender couples are asking for is to be treated equally under the law.

There is nothing about 'beliefs' involved.

^ Right to marriage is a political belief ^

No- right to marriage is an established legal concept


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Sure that is a political belief passed into law because people agree to it..

No- those were court rulings regarding how marriage is a right- not a 'belief'- actually it was the Supreme Court overturning popular State laws- overturning laws that the people agreed to, because we have a right to marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.

ROFLMNAO!

You can't BUY that level of delusion...

I mean THAT is a 'person' who claims that "THE SEAS ARE RISING"... when in reality, the seas are not rising and "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!", when in reality... the caps melt and freeze... as Ice Caps do.

But most importantly, this 'person' claims that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but deviates as FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... does not deviate from that standard normality AT ALL!

In other words, that 'person' is perpetuating a perversion of human reasoning, presenting profound DELUSION.

And it further demands the RIGHT to have those delusions be EQUAL to the 'views' of EVERYONE ELSE! Claiming the such a right is protected in the 14th amendment which protects the rights of racial minorities to not be treated any differently than racial majorities.

Again... she's nuckin' futs.

Name one unique harm that legal same sex marriage would do to society.

So you're requiring that for a harm to be valid, the harm that such has caused needs to be 'unique; being the only harm of its kind; a harm unlike any other harm', for it to be considered?

So pedestrian 'harm', which would naturally occur as a result of redefining normality to include abnormality, would therefore not be something which would concern you?

Seems a tad subjective to me; unreasonable, distinct from any sense of the sort which serves viable citizenship... .

But, I would add that a culture that normalizes perverse reasoning, will quickly become perverse, as human history has proven repeatedly... with the landslide into decay and debauchery over the last 22 years has proven once again.

Would you care to offer a potential upside to a culture which embraces perversion?

Where_r_my_Keys and NYcarbineer

Where is the harm caused by a Cross or a Bible that an Atheist sues to remove from public property
because it promotes a belief they don't have?..

The problem with any specific religious symbol on public property is that the government is then promoting a religion.

Like I said- not a big issue for this atheist- but I understand the concept.

 

[Syriusly]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the fuck up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

I live in San Francisco- we have several parades a year- including a Gay Pride Parade, a Carnaval Parade and the Chinese News Parade.

All use the same process to apply for- and get a permit for a parade.

And none of the parades are either right or wrong- they are parades of people celebrating.

 

[Syriusly]

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

Huh... So the issue here is 'is Sexual Abnormality is a mental disorder;

That is your uneducated and untrained opinion.

In the opinion of the medical community, you are stupid.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hello Emily,

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the fuck up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

One would say this post is irrelevant idiocy.

One might, if one did not understand the meaning of relevant... or where one's reasoning was steeped in an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

An argument that might work if we recognize your subjective personal opinion as 'reality'. Or 'objective moral truth'. Or 'natural law'. Or 'nature'. Or 'god'.

Which I don't believe anyone does.

Huh... you believe that popularity is relevant to truth, when in reality, popularity has absolutely no bearing on truth.

But such is a tenet is Relativism... and such cannot be considered to be possible, except through subjectivism.

LOL!

Now what CAN we make of THAT?

 

[Skylar]

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the fuck up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

One would say this post is irrelevant idiocy.

One might, if one did not understand the meaning of relevant... or where one's reasoning was steeped in an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

An argument that might work if we recognize your subjective personal opinion as 'reality'. Or 'objective moral truth'. Or 'natural law'. Or 'nature'. Or 'god'.

Which I don't believe anyone does.

Huh... you believe that popularity is relevant to truth, when in reality, popularity has absolutely no bearing on truth.

More accurately, I don't see your relativism, logical fallacies and wildly inconsistent processes producing objective 'truth'. But merely your personal opinion.

So what else have you got?