Wren wrote:

tfarrell wrote:

Marriage is and has always been defined at the state level in the United States, so you're flat wrong that only
I knew you would fall for it.

OK, you can go ahead now and admit you can admit you can't win in the federal court system.


I'd go skiing in hell first. (And I hate skiing.)

All I need to win in the federal court system is a case to show that one state is refusing to honor the contracts of another, and that the federal anti-gay-marriage law is illegal because it violates article 4, section 1 of the constitution. These facts are fairly undeniable.

Thus, let's leave it to the local state courts and the state legislative/amendment procedure. Yes, the Massachusetts voters will get their day.

That's what they said some years ago when the president of the state senate simply refused to bring it up for a vote and gaveled closed the legislative session for the year, and the anti-gay folks discovered there was nothing they could do about that.

You don't have human, civil, or constutitonal right to marry someone of your own sex, thus the burden of proof is on you to prove such rights.

You don't understand a single thing about how the constitution works, do you? I have the right to do ANYTHING I WANT TO, including marry a man, until a law is passed saying I can't. Then the government can be forced to defend that law in court, and it's the government's burden to prove the law to be necessary.

Your mouth is now hanging open as do your friends here everytime I end the debate with my conclusion.

It's difficult not to be stunned by your bigotry and stupidity, I admit...

No faith and no hope exist that you can ever win permanently on this issue.

Quite the contrary: all of my fears in this regard are for the short term. In the long term, I feel entirely certain we'll win and it will stick. I'm just worried about whether or not it will happen while I'm young enough to enjoy it.

'Nuff said.

You know, that's the bit that always makes you look stupidest.

tfarrell wrote:

fefifofob wrote:

[b]Here's a test for anyone who wants to try it.[/b]

Go to these web sites and compare the personal ads.

http://www.gay.com (go to the personals)

http://www.match.com

Do a random search for both a gay friend on gay.com and a straight one on match.com.

See if you notice any difference. Are they all upstanding respectable pillars of society or is one different from the other?

Yhe both want uou to sign up pretty quickly, so pay attention.


The difference is that match.com censors its personal ads (rather strongly), gay.com does not. If you want an actually valid comparison, compare the straight personal ads on match.com to the gay personal ads on match.com . But given that it's you, I assume you don't really want a valid comparison.

I tried to post a personal ad on match.com in which I said that I don't have sex on the first few dates. It was rejected as "too explicit". I removed that line and the ad was accepted.

I, for one, refuse to condemn a personals site for allowing its members more freedom of speech.

And again, match.com isn't a straight personals site, it's for everyone, so your comparison has no relevance to this discussion.

Oh, and a sample size of 1 is statistically meaningless.


When I talk to people with drug, alcohol, personal, marital or criminal problems, a lot of the time the response I get is 'No problems here, if the rest of the world would just change to accommodate me, everything would be just fine.' It looks like that is the answer here too. It's a waste of time talking to people like this, all they want to do is blame others.

You can't negotiate with people like this, just like you can't negotiate with terrorists. All that happens is that they end up wanting more and more and the problems are still there.

You don't understand a single thing about how the constitution works, do you? I have the right to do ANYTHING I WANT TO, including marry a man, until a law is passed saying I can't. Then the government can be forced to defend that law in court, and it's the government's burden to prove the law to be necessary.

tfarrell, What land do you live in? Marriage certificates are only issued, except in mass., to allow a man and a women to marry.

Do you think you know more than the the judges in New York, Washington, and New Jersey about the constitution? A fundamental right is one that is deeply entrenched in tradition of the United States. Gay marraige has never been important to the United States, we've gotten along fine without it.

Sexual preference never dictated rights. Preference of any kind has never dictated rights.

In my opinion, the thing that will seal the deal is children. The percieved right of a child, in the general case, to be raised by a mother and a father will always allow the legislature to define marriage between a man and a woman.

That being said, I hope you find peace and happiness somehow. I guess this is a case where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I am sure it does not seem fair or just from your position.

fefifofob wrote:

tfarrell wrote:

fefifofob wrote:

[b]Here's a test for anyone who wants to try it.[/b]

Go to these web sites and compare the personal ads.

http://www.gay.com (go to the personals)

http://www.match.com

Do a random search for both a gay friend on gay.com and a straight one on match.com.

See if you notice any difference. Are they all upstanding respectable pillars of society or is one different from the other?

Yhe both want uou to sign up pretty quickly, so pay attention.


The difference is that match.com censors its personal ads (rather strongly), gay.com does not. If you want an actually valid comparison, compare the straight personal ads on match.com to the gay personal ads on match.com . But given that it's you, I assume you don't really want a valid comparison.

I tried to post a personal ad on match.com in which I said that I don't have sex on the first few dates. It was rejected as "too explicit". I removed that line and the ad was accepted.

I, for one, refuse to condemn a personals site for allowing its members more freedom of speech.

And again, match.com isn't a straight personals site, it's for everyone, so your comparison has no relevance to this discussion.

Oh, and a sample size of 1 is statistically meaningless.


When I talk to people with drug, alcohol, personal, marital or criminal problems, a lot of the time the response I get is 'No problems here, if the rest of the world would just change to accommodate me, everything would be just fine.' It looks like that is the answer here too. It's a waste of time talking to people like this, all they want to do is blame others.

You can't negotiate with people like this, just like you can't negotiate with terrorists. All that happens is that they end up wanting more and more and the problems are still there.


Stop trying to change the subject. You're claiming that a comparison of gay.com to match.com shows that gay people are - what, immoral? disgusting? not respectable? Something like that. I pointed out that the comparison is invalid because the rules of the sites are different, and also because match.com is not in fact a heterosexual personal site, and also because you're asking people to use a sample size of 1, which is so meaningless as to be outright stupid.

Now, address those comments are not, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with you talking to people with drug, alcohol, personal, marital, or criminal problems. I notice that every time I point out the complete meaninglessness of something you said, you try to change the subject. It's rather telling.

tfarrell wrote:

fefifofob wrote:

tfarrell wrote:

fefifofob wrote:

Here's a test for anyone who wants to try it.[/b]

Go to these web sites and compare the personal ads.

http://www.gay.com (go to the personals)

http://www.match.com

Do a random search for both a gay friend on gay.com and a straight one on match.com.

See if you notice any difference. Are they all upstanding respectable pillars of society or is one different from the other?

Yhe both want uou to sign up pretty quickly, so pay attention.


The difference is that match.com censors its personal ads (rather strongly), gay.com does not. If you want an actually valid comparison, compare the straight personal ads on match.com to the gay personal ads on match.com . But given that it's you, I assume you don't really want a valid comparison.

I tried to post a personal ad on match.com in which I said that I don't have sex on the first few dates. It was rejected as "too explicit". I removed that line and the ad was accepted.

I, for one, refuse to condemn a personals site for allowing its members more freedom of speech.

And again, match.com isn't a straight personals site, it's for everyone, so your comparison has no relevance to this discussion.

Oh, and a sample size of 1 is statistically meaningless.


When I talk to people with drug, alcohol, personal, marital or criminal problems, a lot of the time the response I get is 'No problems here, if the rest of the world would just change to accommodate me, everything would be just fine.' It looks like that is the answer here too. It's a waste of time talking to people like this, all they want to do is blame others.

You can't negotiate with people like this, just like you can't negotiate with terrorists. All that happens is that they end up wanting more and more and the problems are still there.


Stop trying to change the subject. You're claiming that a comparison of gay.com to match.com shows that gay people are - what, immoral? disgusting? not respectable? Something like that. I pointed out that the comparison is invalid because the rules of the sites are different, and also because match.com is not in fact a heterosexual personal site, and also because you're asking people to use a sample size of 1, which is so meaningless as to be outright stupid.

Now, address those comments are not, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with you talking to people with drug, alcohol, personal, marital, or criminal problems. I notice that every time I point out the complete meaninglessness of something you said, you try to change the subject. It's rather telling.


I've looked at more than a sample size of 1. I used match.com & gay.com because they were the most popular in the google searches I did and they didn't contain the [b]total filth I found elsewhere. I found a few web sites for 'adults' that were pretty disgusting and I noticed that most of those they didn't care which gender they got their kicks from. I guess that makes them bisexual. Are you in favor of bisexual marriage?

I'm not going to post any of those web addresses here. I'm sure if you wanted to put one ounce of effort into it, you could find dozens of examples like what I found. I have no idea how much effort it would take to refute my example because I didn't find any, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada which I would be willing to show to my 9 year old daughter. But all you want to do is snivel about is how my sample size is only one. Well, I've got news for you, your sample size is exactly zero.

I know you understand exactly what I'm talking about, but you refuse to admit that my argument has some basis. Maybe I was wrong about you being in denial. Maybe you're just willing to sacrifice your integrity for your agenda.

tfarrell wrote:

tfarrell wrote:

It took you that long to decide? You opposed gay marriage without having what you considered to be a good reason in the first place?


Yes, I was opposed to it because I understood that there were many problems associated with this lifestyle. Since it has become a national issue, I have researched this and talked to others (including gays & supporters) in attempt to understand whether my opposition was justified.

Do you make a habit of opposing people's rights before coming up with a reason for doing so?


Yes, I believe the evidence of my eyes and ears. Once it becomes important, I ensure that my thoughts, feelings and opinions have a good basis in reality. It looks to me like this is a lot more than most people do.

tfarrell wrote:

Homosexuality is already protected. You have the right to practice it. What you are asking for is for society to embrace and support it. I don't think this is the right thing to do.

I am asking for nothing. I am demanding that this nation give me the equal protection of the law that is my birthright as an American, by allowing me to marry the person of my choice, my mutual consent, like everybody else can.


It's not a right. The supreme courts of severals states have already agreed with the constitutionality of the laws banning same sex marriage. Doing exactly what you want is not a right.

tfarrell wrote:


Next, over the years I have seen homosexual behavior with my own two eyes, I have noticed that it has a lot of earmarks of an addiction. There seems to be a lot of obsessive compulsive behavior and addictive priorities in the persuit of sex.

I find that to be equally true of straight people, if not more so.


There's some, but it doesn't seem greater. I am a proponent of doing something to fix this problem rather than adding to it. If you care to offer a shred of proof, feel free.

tfarrell wrote:

Once again, you are justifying homosexuality on the basis of others bad behavior. I'm not buying it. Let's do what we can to fix the problem instead of adding to it.

If straight people can exhibit the same behaviors and still be permitted to marry, it can't be used as a justification for refusing marriage to gay people.

tfarrell wrote:
Frankly, I've seen far worse sexual behaviors from straight people than I've ever seen from gay people. I saw a straight couple, fully nude, having wild sex on the lawn of a church in full view of a high-rise apartment block. And she was a screamer, so believe me, everyone noticed. I saw a woman performing oral sex on a man on a subway car in front of 50 or so horrified onlookers. I've never seen gay people do anything approaching that.

Again, fix the problems that exist rather than using them for an excuse to create more.

tfarrell wrote:

tfarrell wrote:

Are you serously trying to claim that, say, "The Advocate" is more sexual than, oh, "Playboy"? Okay, Playboy has better articles, I know, I'm one of the few men who ever actually read them, but...


Open it up back to the personal ads. Now try to find anything like that in Playboy.

You're seriously claiming that personal ads, no matter how explicit the text, are more sexual than nude photos that were deliberately taken as pornography? Are you out of your mind?

Yes, I am seriously claiming that. If you can't post an ad looking for a friend without a nude photo or explaining what kind of sex you are interested in, then that tells me that all they are interested in is the sex. Not commitment, not responsibility, not trust, just sex. It's the whole point I'm trying to make here if you didn't understand that.

tfarrell wrote:
Here's a couple links to gay and straight 'dating' sites so you can compare for yourself.

http://www.gay.com/personals/?omni_campaign_id=5942&omni_placement_id=1925&omni_campaign_unit_id=15230

http://www.match.com/search/index.aspx?lid=2

Hey, I've got a personal on match.com. It's not a straight dating site. It's just a dating site. (And I used to have one on gay.com, but I took it down.)

Well, that narrows it down a bit. Aren't you the one who is tired of the dishonesty and those only interested in sex? If so, then you should be agreeing with everything I say here.

tfarrell wrote:
tfarrell wrote:

There's a lot of cross addiction, reclusiveness and reoriented priorities.

You're gonna have to explain that one before I even try to argue with it. It sounds like you're just trying to sound smart.


Here's one of the many links I found just by looking. It's not hard if you look a little.
A study in Seattle confirmed that methamphetamine use was widespread among the city's homosexual and bisexual populations. Of these groups, members using methamphetamine reported they practice sexual and needle-use behaviors that place them at risk of contracting and transmitting HIV and AIDS.

I don't think you understand. I was asking you to explain what the heck you were talking about, that original sentence of yours was something of a non sequiter.

But regardless, to try to back up the argument (instead of clarifying it) you provide a link purporting to show high drug use rates... from a company that's in the business of selling drug testing services to companies to test their employees. It's in their financial interest to promote the idea that there are lots of drug users out there, so of course they're going to make that sort of claim.


It's an example. There are hundreds of other ones out there. This little game you are playing of asking me for proof of everything I say, but providing none of your own is wearing a little thin.

tfarrell wrote:

Have you ever heard of a 'gay bar?' Why do you think they exist? Gays tend to socialize with others who will accept their lifestyle. They tend to avoid people who are critical of their choices.

Uh... are you stupid? Gay bars exist so gay people can have a place where they know they're safe to socialize, and where single gay people can meet other single gay people and express interest in them and know that the person they're trying to chat up isn't some bigot who will beat the crap out of them. We're not so concerned about avoiding people "critical of our choices" as we are about avoiding people with guns and knives.

There's an old but true joke in the gay community: why do gay leather bars always have a pad and pen on the bar? For the recipies, of course!

(And yes, I did once find myself in a gay leather bar, borrowing the bar's pad and pen to write down my fudge recipe.)


I did a search for the phrase 'hate crime' on this site. I got a Jewish hate crime, a 2 religious hate crimes, a disabled hate crime, 3 racial hate crimes, a change to hate crime law... OK, here's a gay hate crime article, but it happened in Massachusetts. Here's an arson that could possibly be hate crime, but they don't say who hates who. Another religious hate crime, An article about hate crime legislation undermining the 2nd amendment, more about the proposed hate crime bill. And I've made it to January 1st 2006. Eight months and zero hate crimes against homosexuals in Utah county.

I dunno, maybe there's another reason...