Defending the Truth

That was what they wanted to do.
But the reason that the amendment process required SO FEW signatures was because of the involvement of the legislator.
The "purpose" was putting it on the ballot, but the REQUIREMENT of the ballot is the congressional vote.
And if the congressional vote fails, the people have other means to force an amendment, which requires MORE SIGNATURES on the petition.
But the anti-gay bigots can't get that many, so they went this route.


It's a little over half the population.
And a LOT more than 170,000....


NO. You do not gar.
You pretend that being for gay marriage involves ignorance, but it is you who typically hides from the simple but tough questions, and eschews the knowledge of the experts.
The fact is that if a person knows another gay person in his/her life, they will be MORE inclined to support gay rights and gay marriage.
KNOWLEDGE LEADS to gay equality. Not away from it.
There is NO part of "growing up" which leads people away from gay equality.

And the trends over time PROVE my point. Over time, acceptance of gay equality has ONLY GONE UP. And the reason WHY it has gone up starts with the younger generation WHO DO NOT change their opinions.

ALL of this is fact. All proven!
Not "generalization".


Yet again you try that "we" crap.
Referring to your MARRIAGE with positive terms, but the subject of your "wife" has to be prompted for a comment on her.
You have NO idea how much you reveal about yourself and who you are. How much of a lonely schmuck you truly are...


No. It's a demonstration to my point.
WHY do you keep avoiding my questions?

Have you ever stopped to figure out WHY the children of 1960 wouldn't think about allowing gay marriage, but the young voters of 2007 ARE thinking about it?


And here we see the invariable response. A blind denial / contradiction, WITH NO SUBSTANTIATION for his position...


1) EXACTLY my point nitwit.
2) I thought it was an "equal right".
But it's a "heterosexual institution"?
You give yourself away Gar. You're just too dense to realize when you're contradicting yourself.


I'm sorry, but are you TRYING to prove my point that it is not equal?
No. The Chinese citizens DO NOT HAVE an equal right to enjoy U.S. citizenship.
It is NOT EQUAL at all.
THAT is the point.

Are you finally agreeing? Or just too stupid to realize you're proving my point?

I'm amazed at how often you fall into the trap of tossing out a claim that lacks any substantiation which does not also accuse you and your side of the same thing.

HOW do you classify anything gays have as a "special right"?

Special protection under the law.

For some reason, an attack on a gay person, whether verbal or physical, is considered as more serious than an attack on, say, an elderly, wheelchair-bound cancer victim.

Not even an attack, a mere throwaway quip is immediately pounced on as a slur

Gays are also demanding the right to redefine marriage, if we would let them have it

As usual, you lie your ass off.
Straights have this protection as well.


How is that a "special right"?
ANY group can demand to redefine anything.

GAWD you don't think ANY of this crap through at all, do you...

Yes any group can demand anything.

And if we grant those demands that group will have special rights

As with homosexuals who want to redefine traditional marriage to accommodate their unnatural cravings

Why do you consistently ask questions that have been ALREADY ANSWERED. REPEATEDLY.
1) There is no "terrified" involved. If it were 99% for gay marriage, the idea of voting on it would STILL be repugnant.
2) Voting on issues of civil rights is UNAMERICAN. We don't let the whim of the majority decide the rights of the minority.


Are you trying to pretend that the above answer has not been given to you REPEATEDLY?


And WHY, pray tell, would they do that?
That's just stupid.
Are you trying to tell me that people who oppose gay marriage are cowards who would lie about their own opinion in innocuous circumstances?


Garysher, I have absolutely NO jealousy over you or any lie you spin.


Gar, your statements have revealed, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it is YOU who have no clue on these issues.
I have no problem discussing things with others on the board.
The proof of your ignorance is in how YOU can't seem to comprehend what the women on this message board have been telling your misogynist ass on a VARIETY of different issues.


Oh my GAWD you're giving away the farm.
Bookmarks galore...

If homosexuals have to "draw up" a SEPARATE agreement that is NOT marriage, then we OBVIOUSLY DO NOT have equality in marriage.

The "equality" in this country IS NOT an "equality" for Joe Schmoe to get a right from the government, but then Johnny Lately has to go to a lawyer because he can't get that right from the government.
If that is the case, then it is UNEQUAL.


Man! You REALLY can't see how you're painting yourself into a corner.
The Chinese, or gays in this analogy, DO NOT HAVE these rights UNTIL they become American, or heterosexuals...
I'll say it again.

By your analogy, you ADMIT that the gays DO NOT HAVE the rights of heterosexuals because we first HAVE TO BECOME heterosexuals to get those rights.

What redefiniion? Do you mean trad. marriage will no longer be trad. marriage? Boy you are wacked out man.

We don't.
We demand EQUALITY.

Do you deny that straights are ALSO covered by hate crime legislation?


You're back to the boring ploy of trying to fixate on how you imagine my emotion to be.
You must start to realize you're losing...
Badly...


So when blacks were given a right to vote, that was a "special right".
When Japanese Americans were allowed freedom instead of internment camps during WW II, that was a "special right".

You come up with the DUMBEST definitions I have ever seen, but it's necessary to justify the idiotic pretense that granting equality is somehow a "special right"...