Meeeeow. I suppose you simply must live up to the stereotype?

1. The comparison between the CA mayor and the 10 Commandments judge is valid because in both cases the officials went against their own pledges to uphold the law (in the latter case because Moore refused to remove the plaque after the ruling came in). So: if it's OK to break the law in pursuit of "equal rights" for homosexuals it must be OK to break the law in pursuit of other perceived rights, whether those happen to be liberal as in the case of the homosexual lobby or conservative as in the case of the 10 Cs. Anyway this part of the debate has been obsoleted by events as the SF mayor has acceded to the court's demand that he stop violating CA law.

2. Health data: Twice now on this forum alone the data I've presented has been dismissed as "ridiculous" or "biased" but nobody offers other data other than their own anecdotal evidence (and in your case an ad hominem to boot). I sincerely doubt the Dutch (where 'gay marriage' is legal) are secretly in the pay of Jerry Falwell. If you have other data, show it. Not "I do this" (which nobody can verify and nobody wants to) or "everyone I know is" but some actual studies on behavior and longevity. The data I have indicates that rflagg, if his statement is true, is the exception. It's a very odd thing that on any given message board every homosexual asserts themselves to be involved for some number of years in a monogamous relationship but all the available data says that homosexuals are on average quite promiscuous.

3. Let's, however, assume that there are two monogamous homosexuals who wish to become married. If the definition of marriage is flexible enough to permit this, exactly what is the defense used when the polygamists show up for their day in court? Does society say well, it was ok when these two ladies were here yesterday, but buddy you want to marry three women and THAT'S JUST SICK? What about when two brothers show up, or brother and sister, father and (adult) daughter? No, we have no basis to contest their wishes, since we'd already admitted that marriage is whatever we want it to be on any given day. The upshot is no matter where you may say is enough, there's someone out there who wants to redefine things even farther, until the whole idea is lost. Or, we say ok, it has to mean something, which means that a line is drawn and we say this IS marriage and this is NOT marriage. As stated before, this was already done under Clinton and in CA under Davis, both of whom signed legislation defining marriage as one man, one woman. Maybe if you don't like it you should stop voting for Democrats

4. It's very amusing when un-Christians start lecturing Christians on who goes to hell and what Scripture means. One, in Christian belief everyone's guilty of sin (and hey, guess what, buggery is not close to the deadliest sin) so we're all in that boat; your "HA HA" criticism missed the mark (plus, you were factually wrong in your assertions). Two, it's very easy to pick at someone else's beliefs but I have yet to meet a anti-Christian critic who can defend his own philosophy, much less present it. When a critic shows up with a complete, documented statement on their beliefs covering all aspects of life, and then allows me to take bits out of context and fire off critiques of their life, then they can do the same to Christians.

5. Yes, you're here, you're queer, and you're in everyone's face about it. Congratulations, you managed to stir up the fly-over country who is sick of hearing gay gay gay gay gay on every sitcom and cable show and news broadcast and they're pushing back. Nobody wants to hear about your *** any more.

6. I didn't see a question on the registration form asking if I'd yet bought a Prius or Insight as a requirement for posting. I in fact came here trying to get more information for a future purchase. Shame that this and the Insight board are politically next-door neighbors to the Democratunderground madness, that's always a nice disincentive for at least half the populace. But hey, is it more environmentally friendly to drive one fairly-efficient conventional car for 14 years or to order a new hybrid every three years, incurring the environmental costs of the steel production, factory work, and land &/or sea shipping five times over?