NY activist judges allow same sex marriage

[mattskramer]

Bully if somebody posts a piece from Hannity or Limbaugh and does not post a link I will be on their ass too, this has nothing to do with ideology.

You try and post stuff from other people and pass it off as your own, this is commonly called plagiarism(sp?) and will get you fired from a job and kicked out of school and in the case of this board get Jimmy a big fat lawsuit.

I'm sure you can agree that the rules on links are just and fair and thusly I apply them to everyone.

Johnny has posted nothing but his opinion(I think this is quite obvious from the wording) and therefore is not required to post a link. You may be prejudiced to think that Limbaugh and Hannity word their things and feel the same way as Johnny but you know that is not true. In fact you'd be hard pressed to get past the first 5 minutes in an intellectual debate with either of those two before getting knocked down for the 10 count.

Get a dictionary you lazy wimp. LOL. the word is "plagiarism". You are still up there in your own world, OCA. Come down off your imaginary cloud and face reality. You are so easy to debate that it is nearly not challenging enough to keep me interested.

 

[Johnney]

It is not good to not allow homosexuals (people who are sexually attracted to people of the same sex) to get married to the the people that they want to wed while allowing heterosexuals (people who are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex) to get married to the people that they want to wed. In general, under mutual informed consent, people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others by force or fraud. With this in mind, homosexual marriage is an equal rights issue and not a special rights issue.

no this is a special rights issue. you people want us to create soemthing that isnt there. and its revolting. mother nature will take over sooner or later and you will disappear from the face of the earth.

ps...yes we are the good guys

 

[OCA]

Sigh. It seems as though you haven't changed. I answer your questions and you brush them off with no sound and logical rebuttal. What makes my analogy inane and have nothing to do with the topic. I not only answered your question but also provided a perfectly sound analogy.

I'll make the point again: The naturalness and normalcy of something is in the "eye of the beholder". What might be normal for one may not be normal for another. A loving and sexual attraction that a couple of men or women have for each other may seem to be the most natural thing for the individuals involved. On the other hand, some individuals may consider the very idea that they could be attracted people of the same sex to be very revolting.

Similarly, some think that it is natural and normal to smoke cigarettes. Some think that such behavior is abnormal and revolting.

As for your statistic, as I said before, popularity does not make something right. So you are the "good guys"?!?

It is not good to not allow homosexuals (people who are sexually attracted to people of the same sex) to get married to the the people that they want to wed while allowing heterosexuals (people who are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex) to get married to the people that they want to wed. In general, under mutual informed consent, people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others by force or fraud. With this in mind, homosexual marriage is an equal rights issue and not a special rights issue.

One might argue that homosexuality / homosexual behavior is a choice. If such is the case, heterosexuality / heterosexual behavior is a choice. If one chooses to love and have sex with a person of the same sex, isn't it logical that one chooses to love and have sex with a person of the opposite sex?

Finally, while I was gracious enough to give a "straight" answer to your question, I have yet to see your answer to my questions: (1.) Is smoking a "natural" behavior? (2.) Even if (and this is a big "If") we assume for the sake of argument, that such behavior [sodomy] is not natural, what difference does it make? (3.) Should there be a law declaring all unnatural activity illegal and never to be legalized?

LMFAO! Still trying to compare homosexuality to things such as smoking. Severity Matts severity. Society must run with parameters and limits, while 1 may deem smoking as unnatural society has allowed it because of its severity, in other words its stigma, well it has no stigma and in no way is perverse. Homosexuality on the other hand by all accounts is perverse and vile and society has said no, that is does not fall within the parameters and is not conducive and vital to a functioning society.

Sodomy being unnatural betwen same sex partners makes a huge difference, should we then allow people to sodomize animals at will. I mean if we allow perverse action such as this, then who are we to tell others that they cannot practice the perversion of their choice.

No there should not be a law declaring all unnatural behaviors illegal, it should be taken on a case to case basis, such as is the case with queers.

We once agreed to put it to a vote of the people(we still live in a represenative democracy, remember?) well it happened and your side lost. And yes it is a special rights issue as homosexuals lifestyle perversionists are arguing for a right they never or anybody else has ever had or needed.

Come back when you have something fresh.

 

[OCA]

Get a dictionary you lazy wimp. LOL. the word is "plagiarism". You are still up there in your own world, OCA. Come down off your imaginary cloud and face reality. You are so easy to debate that it is nearly not challenging enough to keep me interested.

Warning #1 Matts, check the rules and check my status on the board. You are non productive to this board and therefore dispensible(sp?)

Also is not plagiarism what I posted. Give me the opportunity to punish you, I relish the moment.

 

[Johnney]

Warning #1 Matts, check the rules and check my status on the board. You are non productive to this board and therefore dispensible(sp?)

Also is not plagiarism what I posted. Give me the opportunity to punish you, I relish the moment.

M, isnt there something in the rules about flamin the mods anyway?

 

[Yurt]

LMFAO! Still trying to compare homosexuality to things such as smoking. Severity Matts severity. Society must run with parameters and limits, while 1 may deem smoking as unnatural society has allowed it because of its severity, in other words its stigma, well it has no stigma and in no way is perverse. Homosexuality on the other hand by all accounts is perverse and vile and society has said no, that is does not fall within the parameters and is not conducive and vital to a functioning society.

Sodomy being unnatural betwen same sex partners makes a huge difference, should we then allow people to sodomize animals at will. I mean if we allow perverse action such as this, then who are we to tell others that they cannot practice the perversion of their choice.

No there should not be a law declaring all unnatural behaviors illegal, it should be taken on a case to case basis, such as is the case with queers.

We once agreed to put it to a vote of the people(we still live in a represenative democracy, remember?) well it happened and your side lost. And yes it is a special rights issue as homosexuals lifestyle perversionists are arguing for a right they never or anybody else has ever had or needed.

Come back when you have something fresh.

Matts,

He is right. But you probably won't admit it.

Following the logical path of your thinking, we should then allow all things because to one person it is natural. The beastiality point is a good one. What say you?

Your line of reasoning ultimately ends up with arnarchy, save for your belief that it must be "consentual." There are society norms for a reason.

Also, you are wrong that acts of homosexuality are a "not" a choice. They are. Acts of heterosexuality are a choice. There are celibate people Matt my boy. While having homosexual feelings may be "natural" acting upon it is not the same thing.

Good luck you...

 

[CivilLiberty]

Again anybody who doesn't agree with Civil is a bigot, talk about your intellectual void.

No, never said that. Bigot is defined as:


big·ot **(bgt)
n

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


Dr. Cameron is intolerant, as evidenced by his lies and misrepresentations. Therefore he is a bigot.


Regards,

ANdy

 

[nakedemperor]

Matts,

He is right. But you probably won't admit it.

Following the logical path of your thinking, we should then allow all things because to one person it is natural. The beastiality point is a good one. What say you?

Your line of reasoning ultimately ends up with arnarchy, save for your belief that it must be "consentual." There are society norms for a reason.

Also, you are wrong that acts of homosexuality are a "not" a choice. They are. Acts of heterosexuality are a choice. There are celibate people Matt my boy. While having homosexual feelings may be "natural" acting upon it is not the same thing.

Good luck you...

Yo. What I'ma say I've said many times on different threads, but I think it definitely bears repeating.

The reason that gays point to homosexuality in nature is to point out that animals have neither the cause nor the ability to make a "choice" about sexuality. Their societies are not effected by self-awareness or any of the other external environmental factors that anti-gays believe lead to a "choice" in people to be gay. Therefore, the same could be (and is) true among homo sapiens.

This is not an argument for or against whether or not homosexuality is "right". It argues that homosexuality is "natural"-- arguments which are mutually exclusive. However, proving that homosexuality is "natural" and not a psychological manifestation in human beings that has its roots in external environment factors is an important thing to assert, because so many people believe otherwise.

re: homosexuality being "right": it does not harm anyone (unless the partcipants participate in unsafe sex and don't screen the partners, but that's true of everyone); and it is a *natural* expression of love, sexuality, and romanticism that is part of a healthy, caring existance.

 

[Yurt]

Yo. What I'ma say I've said many times on different threads, but I think it definitely bears repeating.

The reason that gays point to homosexuality in nature is to point out that animals have neither the cause nor the ability to make a "choice" about sexuality. Their societies are not effected by self-awareness or any of the other external environmental factors that anti-gays believe lead to a "choice" in people to be gay. Therefore, the same could be (and is) true among homo sapiens.

This is not an argument for or against whether or not homosexuality is "right". It argues that homosexuality is "natural"-- arguments which are mutually exclusive. However, proving that homosexuality is "natural" and not a psychological manifestation in human beings that has its roots in external environment factors is an important thing to assert, because so many people believe otherwise.

re: homosexuality being "right": it does not harm anyone (unless the partcipants participate in unsafe sex and don't screen the partners, but that's true of everyone); and it is a *natural* expression of love, sexuality, and romanticism that is part of a healthy, caring existance.

NE,

I appreciate your response. Let's break this down.

The reason that gays point to homosexuality in nature is to point out that animals have neither the cause nor the ability to make a "choice" about sexuality. Their societies are not effected by self-awareness or any of the other external environmental factors that anti-gays believe lead to a "choice" in people to be gay. Therefore, the same could be (and is) true among homo sapiens.

Following this logic, I would then assume that these same gay people that point to nature as an example of "ok" behavior, must then also believe that no matter what an animal does, it must be "ok" because it is "natural." It is interesting to me that in your second sentence, you keenly point out that these animals have no self awareness, like homo sapiens have. It is very important to understand what you are saying.

This logic then dictates that anything an animal does, must be ok, afterall, it is natural. If you say that, well, no the animal just feels "gay" I would love to see the proof on this. So, it is fair to assume you speak of animals exhibiting so called homosexual behavior.

This is not an argument for or against whether or not homosexuality is "right". It argues that homosexuality is "natural"-- arguments which are mutually exclusive. However, proving that homosexuality is "natural" and not a psychological manifestation in human beings that has its roots in external environment factors is an important thing to assert, because so many people believe otherwise

I am glad you realize that this is not about whether this is "right." For if it was, then you must accept that anything an animal does is "right," because it is natural. For example, lions eating their young, animals attacking humans and eating them, I could go on, but you get the point.

The argument of "natural," is only mutually exclusive if one does not believe in God the creator. If one goes that route, the argument as you imply, takes a different route. However, again, if you accept one thing an animal does as "natural" being "ok", then you must accept all, else you place your own "self awareness" of what is right or wrong on it. Regardless of whether you believe in God, one has to admit, humans are above the animals (in most cases).

re: homosexuality being "right": it does not harm anyone (unless the partcipants participate in unsafe sex and don't screen the partners, but that's true of everyone); and it is a *natural* expression of love, sexuality, and romanticism that is part of a healthy, caring existance

I want to foremost mention my bias when it comes to health related gay arguments, women can not spread the same diseases men can. I believe it to be truth, if I am wrong, ok.

I take it by your statments that if a man wants to have anal sex, then this is ok, as long as he wears a condom. If, so, you really need to some research on anal sex. Not going to go into it, but it injures the person recieving as well.

To equate the rest of your statement with "natural" love, must mean that you are equating this "natural" love the "love" animals in so called homosexual acts experience. If so, we need to talk.

Look, I can somewhat see where you are coming from, not personally, however, I can understand. This is why I do my best not to bring up religion, for that is easy, that ACT of sleeping with a man as a woman, is an abomination. I am not saying that to experience feelings for the same sex is an abomination, but from a religious point of view, this feeling is a direct result of sin. As are the feelings/acts of hetros cheating, anal sex, dropping your seed on the floor (most likely masturbation), wanting to kill your brother, desiring a 5 year old, and so on. The point, well, I am off topic.

However, we ALL have a choice in our actions.

Yurt out...

 

[musicman]

No, never said that. Bigot is defined as:


big·ot **(bgt)
n

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


Dr. Cameron is intolerant, as evidenced by his lies and misrepresentations. Therefore he is a bigot.


Regards,

ANdy

I distinctly remember a study whose findings were that homosexuals committed 25-40% of child molestations. However, Dr. Cameron's study now puts the low end at 20%. In other words, it would appear that the numbers have been revised downwards.

So, we have one study group policing itself in the interest of accuracy, and the other - which won't even concede that male-on-male sex constitutes homosexuality ( boys were being molested by men who were involved in heterosexual relationships with the boys' mothers, therefore, it wasn't a homosexual assault??!!)????!!!! One group has respect for the numbers, the other manipulates language in order to make the numbers come out "right".

I'll trust Dr. Cameron's findings, thank you.

 

[Johnney]

Yo. What I'ma say I've said many times on different threads, but I think it definitely bears repeating.

no it doesnt

The reason that gays point to homosexuality in nature is to point out that animals have neither the cause nor the ability to make a "choice" about sexuality. Their societies are not effected by self-awareness or any of the other external environmental factors that anti-gays believe lead to a "choice" in people to be gay. Therefore, the same could be (and is) true among homo sapiens.

im going to go out on a limb here and assume you can walk up right, have an apposable thumb, and you have the power of speech. now with the assumptions out of the way, do you really compare yourself to the animal kingdom? if you do, then did you eat your siblings when you were younger? do you shit in your front yard? can you lick your own ass? can you fly? can you lay eggs, get the picture?
if you answered no, then the same can not be true among homosapiens.

This is not an argument for or against whether or not homosexuality is "right". It argues that homosexuality is "natural"-- arguments which are mutually exclusive. However, proving that homosexuality is "natural" and not a psychological manifestation in human beings that has its roots in external environment factors is an important thing to assert, because so many people believe otherwise.

no its in your head. no doubt about it. but then again, you compare yourself to the animal world.

re: homosexuality being "right": it does not harm anyone (unless the partcipants participate in unsafe sex and don't screen the partners, but that's true of everyone); and it is a *natural* expression of love, sexuality, and romanticism that is part of a healthy, caring existance.

 

[Yurt]

No civil unions. Nothing that gives them a sense of being recognized as legitimate. Why don't we then recognize people as special who like to piss on each other, no difference.

No civil unions?

OCA, then to you no person would have any right to be married. Marriage is recognized by the Church. Divorce is recognized by the Church (depending on the church, most frown, but recognize).

A divorce, a marriage, is completely, a civil union in the US. Notwithstanding those that sanctify this union in a church (which is an entirely seperate process than the legal formality). Why then do you have to sign the paper and file it with the state? This makes that little paper, and then that little divorce decree (hope no one gets one) a legal document that gives you certain rights).

What say you about "vegas" marriages? Under God? Looney Spears? Her marriage valid?

What about the guy that marries more than one women (pilot guy in the 80's that married something like 3 women)? Are all those "legally recognizable marriages?" No. The latter two would only get "punative" spouse regards, assuming, they did not know about the first legal marriage, and the husband did hold them out to be married. Point is, the LAW, would absolutely not recognize them as married, as such, the first married spouse, would have all the legal rights, period.

You say, great. I say, what about the second wife that had no idea? Are her legal rights lessened? Easy answer: yes, she is second. But, is she? What about her understanding of her marriage with this lying bastard?

I think I get where are you coming from, however, once you look at family laws in this country, you easily see how they do not relate to religion. Nor do they relate to anything fundamental (unless you are talking about the right to marry). When you get right down to the very laws, the very rights that marriage grants, you are talking about rights "created" by the state. Again, not fundamental.

Rights created, should be rights for all.

Gay "marriage?" I disagree with the name.

Rights? Absolutely. If there is a true seperation of church and state (another debate entirely, because I do not believe the government should be empty of church), however, these laws granted to those that "marry" are solely granted under a "contractual" law. Period. In the USA, this law of marriage is solely, a "contractual" law. There is no room for religion, that is why divorces are granted so easily. Don't believe me? Look it up. Want to change it, go for it.

Fact is, if is contractual, then you must recognize the right to have States/US NOT interefere with the rights of contracts.

This is biblical, this is USA legal reality.

Thank you.

 

[Johnney]

What say you about "vegas" marriages? Under God? Looney Spears? Her marriage valid?

anyone who takes anything she, or jessica simpson, or ashley simpson, or a host of others seriously (outside of musics( and if you even take ashley simpson seriously in any forum... your sick) needs medication.

What about the guy that marries more than one women (pilot guy in the 80's that married something like 3 women)? Are all those "legally recognizable marriages?" No. The latter two would only get "punative" spouse regards, assuming, they did not know about the first legal marriage, and the husband did hold them out to be married. Point is, the LAW, would absolutely not recognize them as married, as such, the first married spouse, would have all the legal rights, period.

You say, great. I say, what about the second wife that had no idea? Are her legal rights lessened? Easy answer: yes, she is second. But, is she? What about her understanding of her marriage with this lying bastard?

hmmmm....isnt any after the first void? sure it seems like she (or they) are getting fucked, its because they are. they can get a lawsuit after that.

I think I get where are you coming from, however, once you look at family laws in this country, you easily see how they do not relate to religion. Nor do they relate to anything fundamental (unless you are talking about the right to marry). When you get right down to the very laws, the very rights that marriage grants, you are talking about rights "created" by the state. Again, not fundamental.

Rights created, should be rights for all.

Gay "marriage?" I disagree with the name.

gay marriage/ rights/ whatever you want to call it isnt going to do a thing for me. im not going to benefit from it not one iota. and that would be a right created for sure. and i, for one, dont need it to be created. a regular hetrosexual marriage i benefit from alot.

Rights? Absolutely. If there is a true seperation of church and state (another debate entirely, because I do not believe the government should be empty of church),

do you believe that the church should have government in it as well then?

 

[mattskramer]

LMFAO! Still trying to compare homosexuality to things such as smoking. Severity Matts severity. Society must run with parameters and limits, while 1 may deem smoking as unnatural society has allowed it because of its severity, in other words its stigma, well it has no stigma and in no way is perverse. Homosexuality on the other hand by all accounts is perverse and vile and society has said no, that is does not fall within the parameters and is not conducive and vital to a functioning society.

Sodomy being unnatural betwen same sex partners makes a huge difference, should we then allow people to sodomize animals at will. I mean if we allow perverse action such as this, then who are we to tell others that they cannot practice the perversion of their choice.

No there should not be a law declaring all unnatural behaviors illegal, it should be taken on a case to case basis, such as is the case with queers.

We once agreed to put it to a vote of the people(we still live in a represenative democracy, remember?) well it happened and your side lost. And yes it is a special rights issue as homosexuals lifestyle perversionists are arguing for a right they never or anybody else has ever had or needed.

Come back when you have something fresh.

"Perverse" and "vile" are also subjective terms. Who is to say that smoking has no stigma and is not perverse? Don't you know that it is linked to bad health (and not only for the one holding the cigarette). It is a filthy and disgusting habit. I would much more strongly prefer that smoking be not permitted that the have homosexual marriage be not permitted. I'd much sooner associate with a homosexual than with a smoker.

I think that you are moving into another implication. Is it that those behaviors that are not conductive and vital to functioning society should not be allowed. Wow! A list of such unnecessary activity could fill a dictionary.

Concerning bestiality, you may have over-looked the first part of one of my statements: "In general, under mutual informed consent, people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others by force or fraud."

Look at it again. I said "In general..." There may be limits that I would hold for my philosophy, as there are probably limits that you would hold to yours. I also said "...under mutual informed consent..." Animals, as well as children, are not in a position to fully receive information nor fully give consent.

Even after a vote is taken, and a winner is declared, people are still free to argue and debate the point. Laws have been re-written and court decisions have been reversed. I prefer a Republic to a dictatorship but that does not mean that the majority is right.

Homosexual marriage is an equal rights issue. When heterosexuals are allowed to get married to the people of their choice (by definition: people of the opposite sex) and homosexuals are not allowed to get married to the people of their choice (by definition: people of the same sex), the rights are not equal.

"And yes it is a special rights issue as homosexuals lifestyle perversionists are arguing for a right they never or anybody else has ever had or needed."

Wow! That argument is so faulty, I'll put it in my scrap book with the other lame comments I have read. Perversionisits being a derogatory and subjective term, are you saying that people should not be allowed rights that they never had or needed? Women and Blacks did not have the right to vote until recently. They don't NEED that right. White men can take care of voting.

 

[Johnney]

"Perverse" and "vile" are also subjective terms. Who is to say that smoking has no stigma and is not perverse? Don't you know that it is linked to bad health (and not only for the one holding the cigarette). It is a filthy and disgusting habit. I would much more strongly prefer that smoking be not permitted that the have homosexual marriage be not permitted. I'd much sooner associate with a homosexual than with a smoker.

I think that you are moving into another implication. Is it that those behaviors that are not conductive and vital to functioning society should not be allowed. Wow! A list of such unnecessary activity could fill a dictionary.

Concerning bestiality, you may have over-looked the first part of one of my statements: "In general, under mutual informed consent, people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others by force or fraud."

Look at it again. I said "In general..." There may be limits that I would hold for my philosophy, as there are probably limits that you would hold to yours. I also said "...under mutual informed consent..." Animals, as well as children, are not in a position to fully receive information nor fully give consent.

Even after a vote is taken, and a winner is declared, people are still free to argue and debate the point. Laws have been re-written and court decisions have been reversed. I prefer a Republic to a dictatorship but that does not mean that the majority is right.

Homosexual marriage is an equal rights issue. When heterosexuals are allowed to get married to the people of their choice (by definition: people of the opposite sex) and homosexuals are not allowed to get married to the people of their choice (by definition: people of the same sex), the rights are not equal.

"And yes it is a special rights issue as homosexuals lifestyle perversionists are arguing for a right they never or anybody else has ever had or needed."

Wow! That argument is so faulty, I'll put it in my scrap book with the other lame comments I have read. Perversionisits being a derogatory and subjective term, are you saying that people should not be allowed rights that they never had or needed? Women and Blacks did not have the right to vote until recently. They don't NEED that right. White men can take care of voting.

so we give them special rights that i cant get living with my finace'? **** you.
now why in the world do they need special rights? why ar ethey so special with all their ass ******* and blowing each other that we need to be forced into giving them what they want? as far as i see it, they have to much now! gay themed tv shows are disgusting to say the least. them drag the kids into it too. then try to take it into the schools, telling them that its alright to be gay? having gay day in school? there ya go. lets kill what little morals we have left in the US. whats next? wanting it legal to have sex on a school yard in front of a recess class? gays are disgusting. it wouldnt hurt my feelings what so ever if they all disappeared. like ive stated before, mother nature is trying her best to propagate HIV and AIDS among them. so what dick was the one that put the last nail in your coffin?

 

[musicman]

Homosexual marriage is an equal rights issue. When heterosexuals are allowed to get married to the people of their choice (by definition: people of the opposite sex) and homosexuals are not allowed to get married to the people of their choice (by definition: people of the same sex), the rights are not equal.

You're talking about conferring a right where no right now exists. Why would society want to to that in the furtherance of a behavior that is demonstrably dangerous to it? Homosexuality hurts people - INNOCENT people.

While homosexuals comprise only 1% to 3% of the population, they commit 20% to 40% of child molestations. Society needs to LEGITIMIZE this perversion?

 

[nakedemperor]

You're talking about conferring a right where no right now exists. Why would society want to to that in the furtherance of a behavior that is demonstrably dangerous to it? Homosexuality hurts people - INNOCENT people.

While homosexuals comprise only 1% to 3% of the population, they commit 20% to 40% of child molestations. Society needs to LEGITIMIZE this perversion?

I think the 20-40% number is vastly inflated; when you're offering data, you generally take the mean of the sampling. This 20-40% is based on one study done by a *since* discredited sociologist, and all other studies I've seen offer significantly lower numbers (and higher rates of homosexuality).

 

[musicman]

I think the 20-40% number is vastly inflated; when you're offering data, you generally take the mean of the sampling. This 20-40% is based on one study done by a *since* discredited sociologist, and all other studies I've seen offer significantly lower numbers (and higher rates of homosexuality).

Do a little research, NE. Dr. Cameron's numbers hold. And, it's no great feat to "discredit" a researcher - all you have to do is call him names.

I don't blame homosexual activists for attacking the facts - the facts are devastating to the homosexual cause. It is vital to the legitimization effort that the numbers be "adjusted" - the percentage of population upwards, the percentage of molestations down. But, look at who's doing it, and how. If you play fast and loose enough with language and numbers, you can make them say anything. That won't make it true. though.

 

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote><h1>AG backs legalizing same-sex marriage</h1>
<h2>Reilly says he'll oppose any constitutional ban</h2>

<b>By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | February 12, 2005</b>

After playing a key role in the efforts to fight legalization of gay marriage a year ago, Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly said yesterday that he now favors allowing legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and that he will oppose any efforts to ban them. (1.)</blockquote>

Well, I guess it's not a done deal after all. Same gender couples in Massachusetts who have married now hve the AG of that state proclaiming he will oppose any attempt to ban those unions. By the time an amendmant actually gets on the ballot in Massachusetts, same-gender marriage wil be <i>fait accompli</i> (<i>That's not French...It's Freedomese</i>). There will have been enough same-gender marriages that folks will see that the world has not come to an end and straight folks haven't woken up suddenly feeling the urge engage in hot monkey-love with someone of the same gender. In fact, folks will see that same-gender couple are really no different from any other couple.

From there, it's just a short step away from applying the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment nationally.

Citations:

(1.) <i><b>The Boston Globe</b></i>, Frank Phillips, February 12, 2005
Also found at: http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...ag_backs_legalizing_same_sex_marriage?mode=PF

 

[Bullypulpit]

Do a little research, NE. Dr. Cameron's numbers hold. And, it's no great feat to "discredit" a researcher - all you have to do is call him names.

I don't blame homosexual activists for attacking the facts - the facts are devastating to the homosexual cause. It is vital to the legitimization effort that the numbers be "adjusted" - the percentage of population upwards, the percentage of molestations down. But, look at who's doing it, and how. If you play fast and loose enough with language and numbers, you can make them say anything. That won't make it true. though.

There is no "Homosexual Cause" or "Agenda". Unless, of course, your talking about equal protection under the law. Your arguments regarding pedophilia and homosexuality are nothing more than a canard. One which bears a striking similarity to those used during the Jim Crowe era to justify anti-miscegantion laws. If you cannot prove demonstrable harm to the individuals involved in a same-gender relationship, or to society at large, you simply don't have a leg to stand on.

As for playing fast and loose with language and numbers, you need look no further than the current occupant of the Oval Office.