I want to be sure I have this straight: You feel you are justified in insulting me, because you answered (in your own opinion) the arguments of others that I re – stated simply to explain why others (not myself) oppose gay marriage, and I failed to respond to you appropriately (in your opinion).

Is that about it?

I’d hate to call you a condescending oaf for nothing, so I want to be sure I have it right..

Gonna pull out the ‘ol ‘arrogant wannabe Nazi prick’ insult, Frank? C’mon, you’re dying to type the words!

I’ve been with my husband for thirteen years, and we’ve adopted two sons. We own our home together, we are legal co-parents to our children, we’re the sole beneficiaries of each other’s life insurance (and if there’s a purer expression of trust than falling asleep next to your sole beneficiary, I don’t know what it is*), and yet, in the eyes of the state, we’re legal strangers.

I’m not asking the state to force a church to marry us. Which is ironic, seeing as we’ve already _been_ married by a Baptist minister. I’m asking the state to grant legal acknowledgement that we are who we are – a married couple.

*This is a joke. Given Frank’s utter humorlessness, as demonstrated here, I thought it apropos to point that out.

As I said before, I was only attempting to state the opinions of others.

Perhaps I could have avoided all the insults and name calling, if I had simply said, “I do not oppose gay marriage,” and let it go at that.

I have no idea why the idea that gay people can marry should produce such vitriol. I can only guess, as I said before, that the liberal idea of tolerance is that you accept their beliefs without question.

mambochicken: Your latest comment surpasses all the rest in immaturity.

Once again,I risk being banned if I continue to respond to your juvenile, disgusting comments.

Meanwhile, you appear to be defending the views of people who equate homosexuals with pedophiles. While I might be crude with some of my language, YOU are demonstrably a terrible human being. If there was a Hell, I’m sure they’d welcome you.

Eat shit.

You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Either they are defunct, or they’re not.

Evidence indicates that they are defunct – if you have evidence that they’re not, please present it.

Given that actual evidence hasn’t changed your mind, I can’t see how ridicule could hurt. If rational Europeans had made fun of people for believing the blood libel a few hundred years ago, it could only have helped. Believing that gay men typically, routinely and customarily bugger little boys is no more rational a belief than that.

As for your ‘opinion’ line – if your ‘opinion’ is that the only reason why I became a foster/adoptive parent is to molest my children, then yes, you have something wrong with you.

You know less about me than you do about most things. You are very good at pretending you are intelligent, but you’re not fooling me.

Most of us know that the insults and name calling are because you really have nothing to say.

How sad for you.

NAMBLA, even if they are still in operation, is not a reason to prevent gay marriage. Is it legitimate for men to fuck/marry underage girls? No. So why is it different if the two parties are the same sex. Answer: It doesn’t. People who want to equate NAMBLA with all gays are bigoted, idiotic assholes whose opinion shouldn’t matter anyway.

This part is REALLY important, Frank, so look sharp. I readily admit that EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion. People can be opposed to gay marriage, and I’m ok with that. People can be racists, sexists, or any other kind of bigot you care to mention. However, bigotry should NOT be written into the law. Discrimination based on sexual preference is overt 100% bigotry. If they think that homosexual behavior is sinful, and because of this belief they oppose gay marriage… then they’re bigots! It’s not that hard, even for you Frank.

I honestly did apologize for the previous insult, because it was probably not true (e.g., you probably have a dick, but I can’t be certain of that, can I?). However, there’s NO question that you’re a dick. Therefore, it’s not really an insult, just a statement of fact. Just like if I were to say that you’re a crabby old man who’s just pissed off that the world has passed you by, so you get your amusement from displaying your dick-ness to the world on political blogs. That’s a fact.

Mambochicken has decided, before I insulted anyone, that I am a dick.

Question, mamboing chicken: Is being a dick a step up from being dickless, the name you called me the previous time you insulted me before I insulted you?

You don’t consider your pusillanimous mewling the “force of reason”, do you? That makes me want to, as ‘Monk’ would say, “LOL out loud.”

Robert, you may be right about NAMBLA, but ridiculing people’s fears doesn’t make them go away.

The problem with liberals is that they can’t distinguish an opinion from a fact. They just can’t believe someone thinks differently from them, without assuming there is something “wrong” with them.

Folks, face it – NAMBLA, as a organization, is as dead as the Whig Party. If you want to argue that ‘well, if we let adult gay men marry each other, they’ll be NO GOOD REASON why we can’t let adult gay men marry eight year old boys! And sheep!’ you’ll have to learn to do it without waving the NAMBLA banner.

And you Jedi mind tricks don’t work on me, by the way.

Two homosexual men equivalent (or at least analogous) to men fucking young boys? Frank says yes.

Frank has no leg to stand on. he’s being unreasonable, and when you call him on it and use the force of reason, he insults your intelligence and ignores the arguments.

What a dick.

Yes, it is. Is it a relationship between 2 consenting adults? Yes or no? Because if one of those males is not of legal age, then it’s a criminal act.
So again, NAMBLA+Gay Marriage =/= equivalent.

the relationship between a man and a boy can be legitimized also, yes?
No.

Not the same. Trying to equate the two weakens your case.
Interestingly, being a pedophile, and not acting on it, is no crime, yes?

Is it sinful?

So if gay marriage can be legitimized, despite the objections of millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims, the relationship between a man and a boy can be legitimized also, yes?

Interestingly, being a pedophile, and not acting on it, is no crime, yes?

But it doesn’t. One has nothing to do with the other.

But I guess being a pedophile and acting on it are also 2 different things too, yes?

Let me attempt to clarify: Being gay (i.e., thinking of oneself as gay,believing that one has no choice, but is instead, born gay) is no sin. Being what you are is not a sin. However, in the view of many Christians (not just fundamentalists), Jews and Muslims, committing homosexual acts is sinful.

Were the government to arbitrarily permit gay marriage, they would then, in effect, be sanctioning homosexual acts.

Most Christians, many Jews, and all Muslims would be upset if that happened.

Still confused?

Now, imagine that you think acting gay is sinful, but being gay is not. How would you feel about the government’s sanctioning that relationship (i.e., it’s not just OK to be gay, now it’s OK to act gay)?

What in the name of holy FUCK?