Fake Data: Changing Minds Regarding Gay Marriage

[Kathianne]

Hmmm:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/virginiahughes/data-faked-in-study-about-gay-canvassers


A study claiming that gay people advocating same-sex marriage can change voters’ minds (http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/scientists-report-gay-people-are-the-best-at-changing-minds#.mmnAWLZD7) has been retracted due to fraud.The study (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6215/1366) was published last December in Science, and received lots of media attention. It found that a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage. Not only that, but these changed opinions lasted for at least a year and influenced other people in the voter’s household, the study found.

Donald Green, the lead author on the study, retracted it on Tuesday shortly after learning that his co-author, UCLA graduate student Michael LaCour, had faked the results.

“I am deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewers, and readers of Science,” Green, a professor of political science at Columbia University, said in his retraction letter to the journal, as posted (http://retractionwatch.com/2015/05/20/author-retracts-study-of-changing-minds-on-same-sex-marriage-after-colleague-admits-data-were-faked/) on theRetraction Watch blog.

...

[darin]

Will not matter. That piece of crap survey/study will be quoted for decades. politicians will run on it. And the idiot voting base will not question it.


"HOW they got the results doesn't matter! The results PROVE the study is valid!"

:(

[DragonStryk72]

Ah, Christ, and this is the shit that gets me into trouble with other people in favor of gay marriage.

... sigh, I just don't get this angle that the pro-gay-marriage people take. I mean, seriously, I don't see the tactical point in just continuing to try and piss in people's Wheaties.

There are far better, and less vitriolic ways to convince people of gay marriage being okay, or even a good thing going forward, but no, let's just keep trying to fuck the whole thing up cause we want it to look like a perfect wonderland.

[Gunny]

Ah, Christ, and this is the shit that gets me into trouble with other people in favor of gay marriage.

... sigh, I just don't get this angle that the pro-gay-marriage people take. I mean, seriously, I don't see the tactical point in just continuing to try and piss in people's Wheaties.

There are far better, and less vitriolic ways to convince people of gay marriage being okay, or even a good thing going forward, but no, let's just keep trying to fuck the whole thing up cause we want it to look like a perfect wonderland.

It's simple. The gays, not the normal people, made an issue of the term "marriage". About 65%, IIRC, didn't care about gay civil union. But like any other minority, special interest group, the gays refused "civil union" and demanded the word "marriage". And like any other minority, special interest group, they're forcing their abnormality on the majority via judicial legislation.

The biggest problem in this nation to this day is the "silent majority" is SILENT.

[fj1200]

"Civil union" means nothing in this country.

[DragonStryk72]

It's simple. The gays, not the normal people, made an issue of the term "marriage". About 65%, IIRC, didn't care about gay civil union. But like any other minority, special interest group, the gays refused "civil union" and demanded the word "marriage". And like any other minority, special interest group, they're forcing their abnormality on the majority via judicial legislation.

The biggest problem in this nation to this day is the "silent majority" is SILENT.

If civil union had the same rights and privileges as marriage, then fine, it's just a distinction. However, that's not the case, legally speaking, such as in case of being able to go see your SO in the hospital, and other legal points that are restricted to marriage.

Them living their private lives does not, in any, force anything on anyone, anymore than your heterosexual marriage is forced on anyone.

The biggest problem, really, is that people continue to use the worst possible argument, on both sides, with both trying to essentially rip one another apart.

[Jeff]

"Civil union" means nothing in this country.

Either does Marriage any longer, hell you love your rake, Marry it, love your goat, Marry it. Not much means anything in this country anymore.

[Jeff]

If civil union had the same rights and privileges as marriage, then fine, it's just a distinction. However, that's not the case, legally speaking, such as in case of being able to go see your SO in the hospital, and other legal points that are restricted to marriage.

Them living their private lives does not, in any, force anything on anyone, anymore than your heterosexual marriage is forced on anyone.

The biggest problem, really, is that people continue to use the worst possible argument, on both sides, with both trying to essentially rip one another apart.

I agree with this all the way, I think everyone knows my stance on the whole gay marriage thing but it is what it is, but what you do in private is your business, that is between you and your partner ( and God IMO ) I no more want to see John and Lisa having sex at the local parade as I do John and Lou.

[Perianne]

This new generation expects the rest of us to accept what has weirded out people for thousands of years: homosexuality. The accumulated wisdom of hundreds of generations is wrong now? Only this group of liberals knows what is best? How I despise the leftist values!

[Kathianne]

"Civil union" means nothing in this country.

I don't know that's true, but if it is seems to be a better fix than what's happening on the marriage front, imo.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't know that's true, but if it is seems to be a better fix than what's happening on the marriage front, imo.

The agenda is to make gayness a norm and heterosexuality abnormal. There is a very militant gay agenda and united group behind all this crying out and demanding. And its not just gays--those radically opposed to Christianity on anti-religious grounds join in as a way to destroy America's Christian base culture. As do Globalists, Atheists, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists, Liberals and most dems. Each group has its own reasons but working together against Christianity is a way also to work to destroy this nation as it was founded--another goal may of them share.

I was introduced to an openly gay couple at a party 3 years ago. When I refused to shake hands and walked away the host later asked me why I offended them.
I replied--the damn offended party was me. I do not shake hands with or consort with sexual perverts my friend. You know that, so why insult me by introducing the scum to me..
I reminded him that as a Christian he is not to embrace evil and/or seek to promote evil to others...
HA, he ended up apologizing to me.... Good thing he did, as he too was about to be put on my ignore list..
I am so gentle and easy going now that people often forget just how hard I can be and how well I can back it up.. - ;)
I had scripture and verse memorized to back up my comments to him about his Christian duty and how he was not to embrace/endorse such evil.. . --Tyr

[fj1200]

Either does Marriage any longer, hell you love your rake, Marry it, love your goat, Marry it. Not much means anything in this country anymore.

If that's true, it wasn't the gays that made it so.

http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy441/trends/divorce.jpg


This new generation expects the rest of us to accept what has weirded out people for thousands of years: homosexuality. The accumulated wisdom of hundreds of generations is wrong now? Only this group of liberals knows what is best? How I despise the leftist values!

The accumulated wisdom of hundreds of generations made you the chattel of men.


I don't know that's true, but if it is seems to be a better fix than what's happening on the marriage front, imo.

I think legally speaking civil unions had zero effect at least at the Federal level where marriage is the definition that prevails. I think civil unions was just cover for the most part so that some can tell gay people that they just can't have "the word." IMO, any "married" person has a civil union and if you want to be "married" you should go to a church.

[fj1200]

The agenda is to make gayness a norm and heterosexuality abnormal. There is a very militant gay agenda and united group behind all this crying out and demanding. And its not just gays--those radically opposed to Christianity on anti-religious grounds join in as a way to destroy America's Christian base culture. As do Globalists, Atheists, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists, Liberals and most dems. Each group has its own reasons but working together against Christianity is a way also to work to destroy this nation as it was founded--another goal may of them share.

I was introduced to an openly gay couple at a party 3 years ago. When I refused to shake hands and walked away the host later asked me why I offended them.
I replied--the damn offended party was me. I do not shake hands with or consort with sexual perverts my friend. You know that, so why insult me by introducing the scum to me..
I reminded him that as a Christian he is not to embrace evil and/or seek to promote evil to others...
HA, he ended up apologizing to me.... Good thing he did, as he too was about to be put on my ignore list..
I am so gentle and easy going now that people often forget just how hard I can be and how well I can back it up.. - ;)
I had scripture and verse memorized to back up my comments to him about his Christian duty and how he was not to embrace/endorse such evil.. . --Tyr

So. Much. Hate.

[Kathianne]

...

I think legally speaking civil unions had zero effect at least at the Federal level where marriage is the definition that prevails. I think civil unions was just cover for the most part so that some can tell gay people that they just can't have "the word." IMO, any "married" person has a civil union and if you want to be "married" you should go to a church.

Pretty much has been my take. Churches shouldn't be 'forced' to perform marriages that don't adhere to their belief systems.

[Kathianne]

I'm pretty much a 'live and let live' sort of person, until others feel compelled to attack directly. I've no concern of whom sleeps with whom; whether one is vegan or eats bacon three times a day; or what faith, if any one chooses to subscribe to.

However, when directly confronted with attacks on my person or sensibilities, I can be 'tough' though try not to be as nasty as those attacking.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So. Much. Hate.

Thats the ticket amigo. Show how great your enlightenment is by calling my condemnation of a sexual depravity hate.
As if you in your magnificent greatness love and cherish all living things!
No sir, you walk that ffing PC PATH as if it is the way to paradise but do so blinded and as full of horseshit as an unkept stable .
Where lays your passion?
Apparently it lays in condemning Christian values, conservatism and most of the principles this nation were founded on...
Keep your gay buddies and your are welcome to them, as for me, I do not consort with sexual perverts --at least not any that I am aware of ..
Yet you never cease to amaze me with your attempts to prove just how unbiased and magnificent is your super high degree of tolerance is!
Is there any sexual perversion that you would condemn(?), seems to be none..-Tyr

[Perianne]

The accumulated wisdom of hundreds of generations made you the chattel of men.


In Muslim countries, yes. This is America, so no. You might read too many leftist rags, sir.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In Muslim countries, yes. This is America, so no. You might read too many leftist rags, sir.

Or has been indoctrinated with a very liberal college "edumucation". One in which the new recruit ends up less educated than when they first arrived. Universities have been doing that for well over 30 years now.
One thing is for sure, our friend has his PC guidelines firmly in hand when he posts. :laugh:-Tyr

[Perianne]

Or has been indoctrinated with a very liberal college "edumucation". One in which the new recruit ends up less educated than when they first arrived. Universities have been doing that for well over 30 years now.
One thing is for sure, our friend has his PC guidelines firmly in hand when he posts. :laugh:-Tyr

I really try to understand his viewpoints, but sometimes it is difficult.

[Jeff]

If that's true, it wasn't the gays that made it so.

http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy441/trends/divorce.jpg



The accumulated wisdom of hundreds of generations made you the chattel of men.



I think legally speaking civil unions had zero effect at least at the Federal level where marriage is the definition that prevails. I think civil unions was just cover for the most part so that some can tell gay people that they just can't have "the word." IMO, any "married" person has a civil union and if you want to be "married" you should go to a church.

I didn't say a word about Divorce fj, you are probably 100% correct, but in this country Marriage means nothing any longer, at this point marriage is just a way for a state to collect a few bucks, it has no meaning. At one time it meant something, it meant a lot, but with no morals Marriage means nothing.

[fj1200]

I didn't say a word about Divorce fj, you are probably 100% correct, but in this country Marriage means nothing any longer, at this point marriage is just a way for a state to collect a few bucks, it has no meaning. At one time it meant something, it meant a lot, but with no morals Marriage means nothing.

If marriage means nothing then divorce will increase. And I'm pretty sure marriage doesn't make the government any significant amounts of money.

EDIT:

I would like to see a resurgence of morals but it's not going to happen when some churches spend more time driving people away than accepting them in.

[fj1200]

In Muslim countries, yes. This is America, so no. You might read too many leftist rags, sir.

Nothing Muslim about it. 100 years ago you weren't allowed to vote, in centuries past you weren't allowed to own assets, in the time of Jesus patriarchy ruled the day... You referenced "1000s of years." History; it's an amazing thing.


I really try to understand his viewpoints, but sometimes it is difficult.

You might understand if you'd ask questions and have an open mind.

EDIT:

Maybe if you didn't read so many rags, right or left, like me we could get somewhere. :)

[jimnyc]

I always knew these homos were lying!!! :poke:

[fj1200]

...
Apparently it lays in condemning Christian values, conservatism and most of the principles this nation were founded on...
...

I should have been more clear, I'm sure you know scripture and verse of your version of the bible. But don't let your imagination of where I stand get in the way of another rant unless you can point out where I condemn Christian values, conservatism, and/or most of the principles on which this nation was founded.

[fj1200]

i always knew these lefties were lying!!! :poke:

fify. ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I really try to understand his viewpoints, but sometimes it is difficult.

My advice is to stop wasting time on that futile task.
My thought is that the fj operates on a hidden agenda and it shows.
Either that or else fj is one very mixed up and confused individual that likes to bat for both teams..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

fify. ;)

Lefty liars in support of homos. I always knew those fuckers were lying. :poke: :lol:

[fj1200]

My advice is to stop wasting time on that futile task.
My thought is that the fj operates on a hidden agenda and it shows.
Either that or else fj is one very mixed up and confused individual that likes to bat for both teams..-Tyr

Ah yes, when in doubt you suggest that someone stick their head in the sand. You do like it there. :poke:

[fj1200]

Lefty liars in support of homos. I always knew those fuckers were lying. :poke: :lol:

That's better. :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nothing Muslim about it. 100 years ago you weren't allowed to vote, in centuries past you weren't allowed to own assets, in the time of Jesus patriarchy ruled the day... You referenced "1000s of years." History; it's an amazing thing.



You might understand if you'd ask questions and have an open mind.

EDIT:

Maybe if you didn't read so many rags, right or left, like me we could get somewhere. :)

Ha, when I use history to show what Islam is you agreed with JAFAR = THAT WAS OF NO RELEVANCE TO THE WORLD TODAY..
Now you use history to try to castigate Perianne for her thinking on the subject.

I've never seen any reply from you in agreement with my citing that true history should taught in our public schools and universities.
Or did I just miss such gems??

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ah yes, when in doubt you suggest that someone stick their head in the sand. You do like it there. :poke:

ACTUALLY, since I know thats where yours usually rest I just suggested to her not to do that. -:poke:-Tyr

[fj1200]

Ha, when I use history to show what Islam is you agreed with JAFAR = THAT WAS OF NO RELEVANCE TO THE WORLD TODAY..
Now you use history to try to castigate Perianne for her thinking on the subject.

I've never seen any reply from you in agreement with my citing that true history should taught in our public schools and universities.
Or did I just miss such gems??

Castigate. :rolleyes: You knuckleheads are so sensitive and fragile.

Relevant history is relevant. I've never disagreed.

[fj1200]

ACTUALLY, since I know thats where yours usually rest I just suggested to her not to do that. -:poke:-Tyr

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

[Drummond]

If that's true, it wasn't the gays that made it so.

http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy441/trends/divorce.jpg



The accumulated wisdom of hundreds of generations made you the chattel of men.



I think legally speaking civil unions had zero effect at least at the Federal level where marriage is the definition that prevails. I think civil unions was just cover for the most part so that some can tell gay people that they just can't have "the word." IMO, any "married" person has a civil union and if you want to be "married" you should go to a church.

In my country, our experience was (and is) that civil unions, or 'civil partnerships' were offered in place of outright marriage ... but in the end, this turned out to be only a stepping-stone to ever more strident demands for outright 'gay marriage'.

[fj1200]

In my country, our experience was (and is) that civil unions, or 'civil partnerships' were offered in place of outright marriage ... but in the end, this turned out to be only a stepping-stone to ever more strident demands for outright 'gay marriage'.

:dunno: Here, civil unions weren't really anything of substance Federally speaking.

[Drummond]

Maybe if you didn't read so many rags, right or left, like me we could get somewhere. :)

A Right wing 'rag' .. eh ? Interesting.

Care to name any ?

[Drummond]

:dunno: Here, civil unions weren't really anything of substance Federally speaking.

If that's actually so, it suggests to me that the transition from accepting civil unions to outright 'gay marriage' might be even more rapid.

No doubt Obama would like to support it.

[fj1200]

A Right wing 'rag' .. eh ? Interesting.

Care to name any ?

I don't read them so I don't have any to rattle off. There are plenty of good right-wing sources to go to so why rely on a "rag"?

[fj1200]

If that's actually so, it suggests to me that the transition from accepting civil unions to outright 'gay marriage' might be even more rapid.

No doubt Obama would like to support it.

Perchance he would.

[Noir]

I do not consort with sexual perverts --at least not any that I am aware of ..

I'd be interested in your definition of pervert, do those who practice sodomy class as such?

[jimnyc]

I'd be interested in your definition of pervert, do those who practice sodomy class as such?

Only when it's forced, or the same sex :poke:

[Noir]

Only when it's forced, or the same sex :poke:

So sodomy is okay along as its opposite sex sodomy. That's amusingly convenient.

[DLT]

Hmmm:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/virginiahughes/data-faked-in-study-about-gay-canvassers

Wow....kinda like they faked results proving 'global warming'. Anything (especially lies) for that leftie agenda!

[jimnyc]

So sodomy is okay along as its opposite sex sodomy. That's amusingly convenient.

In other words, gay sex of any kind is bad, not my cup of tea. But if a couple of fruits decide to have anal sex with one another, just hope they don't push the limits, as if they get any diseases, they don't get a lick of sympathy from me, just laughter. So I suppose my comments are more directed at the deviants, which there are tons and tons and tons of in the gay community.

[Noir]

In other words, gay sex of any kind is bad, not my cup of tea. But if a couple of fruits decide to have anal sex with one another, just hope they don't push the limits, as if they get any diseases, they don't get a lick of sympathy from me, just laughter. So I suppose my comments are more directed at the deviants, which there are tons and tons and tons of in the gay community.

You are aware that oral sex is considered sodomy?

[jimnyc]

You are aware that oral sex is considered sodomy?

Yes, and even bestiality! Oral sex is cool, so long as it's not forced. This is why I prefer to break down individual acts and such. Regardless, my point is that its my opinion and beliefs. I don't give a crap what homos do behind their doors, and don't want to know any more than I want to know what straight couples are doing. But I still find it repulsive between 2 homos whereas it can be enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Sorry, that's as far as I can go. I can't suddenly wake up after 47 years (soon) and say "Oh, gee, that doesn't look or seem so bad after all!".

[Jeff]

If marriage means nothing then divorce will increase. And I'm pretty sure marriage doesn't make the government any significant amounts of money.
You dont believe municipalities make money on a lisc. ???
EDIT:

I would like to see a resurgence of morals but it's not going to happen when some churches spend more time driving people away than accepting them in.

Agree 100 %, but that isn't the only reason there is no morals, our Government has all but made it a crime to attend a church, it's not cool to have morals, it's not cool to live a life as our grandparents did.

[Jeff]

Yes, and even bestiality! Oral sex is cool, so long as it's not forced. This is why I prefer to break down individual acts and such. Regardless, my point is that its my opinion and beliefs. I don't give a crap what homos do behind their doors, and don't want to know any more than I want to know what straight couples are doing. But I still find it repulsive between 2 homos whereas it can be enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Sorry, that's as far as I can go. I can't suddenly wake up after 47 years (soon) and say "Oh, gee, that doesn't look or seem so bad after all!".

I agree here 100% Oral sex does fall under sodomy, and in the military handbook ( at least back when Clinton was in office ) if a soldier got caught performing sodomy there where harsh penalties for their actions, so why in the hell did Clinton ( the Commander and Chief ) keep his job ?

[Noir]

Yes, and even bestiality! Oral sex is cool, so long as it's not forced. This is why I prefer to break down individual acts and such. Regardless, my point is that its my opinion and beliefs. I don't give a crap what homos do behind their doors, and don't want to know any more than I want to know what straight couples are doing. But I still find it repulsive between 2 homos whereas it can be enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Sorry, that's as far as I can go. I can't suddenly wake up after 47 years (soon) and say "Oh, gee, that doesn't look or seem so bad after all!".

indeed, whereas Tyr's is keen to have it known he would not even shake the hand of someone whom he thought was a 'sexual pervert' thus the question to him about how such a classification is attained.

[darin]

This thread is crying out for this song.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU

[Abbey Marie]

If that's true, it wasn't the gays that made it so.

http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy441/trends/divorce.jpg



The accumulated wisdom of hundreds of generations made you the chattel of men.



I think legally speaking civil unions had zero effect at least at the Federal level where marriage is the definition that prevails. I think civil unions was just cover for the most part so that some can tell gay people that they just can't have "the word." IMO, any "married" person has a civil union and if you want to be "married" you should go to a church.

Looks like that spike coincided with the rise of feminism, and other liberal policies. Now that we've all "found ourselves", it appears to have leveled, or perhaps is even trending downward. Thoughts?

[Abbey Marie]

If marriage means nothing then divorce will increase. And I'm pretty sure marriage doesn't make the government any significant amounts of money.

EDIT:

I would like to see a resurgence of morals but it's not going to happen when some churches spend more time driving people away than accepting them in.

Which churches, and what kind of people are they driving away?

[Drummond]

You are aware that oral sex is considered sodomy?

Well, I certainly wasn't !

[aboutime]

I agree here 100% Oral sex does fall under sodomy, and in the military handbook ( at least back when Clinton was in office ) if a soldier got caught performing sodomy there where harsh penalties for their actions, so why in the hell did Clinton ( the Commander and Chief ) keep his job ?


Jeff. Remember? That depends on the definition of "IS". As in..."Is it sex, or Isn't it sex?":laugh:

Don't forget the CIGAR????:laugh:

[fj1200]

You dont believe municipalities make money on a lisc. ???

Agree 100 %, but that isn't the only reason there is no morals, our Government has all but made it a crime to attend a church, it's not cool to have morals, it's not cool to live a life as our grandparents did.

They don't make any significant amounts of money. But I would think that they're just following state regulations.

And that last part, I don't think hyperbole helps make the case.

[fj1200]

Looks like that spike coincided with the rise of feminism, and other liberal policies. Now that we've all "found ourselves", it appears to have leveled, or perhaps is even trending downward. Thoughts?

I imagine that there are quite a few correlations, causation is another issue. There are some other thoughts on if the rate is actually declining.


But a new paper (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13524-013-0270-9) out this month from demographers at the University of Minnesota challenges the traditional narrative. Sheela Kennedy and Stephen Ruggles have found that the divorce rate hasn't declined since 1980, it has only flattened. And when they controlled for changes in the age composition of the married population (the U.S. population was younger in 1980, and younger couples have a higher risk for divorce), they found that the age-standardized divorce rate has actually risen by an astonishing 40 percent since then.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/27/divorce-is-actually-on-the-rise-and-its-the-baby-boomers-fault/


Which churches, and what kind of people are they driving away?

Um, do you want names or can we stipulate that some churches drive away those who don't comport with their doctrine? There is a split in some in the Church (big C) on the gay question; IMO the conventional wisdom has been wrong and churches (little C) who stand on that interpretation will die. Anecdotally I know gays who lost their church home when they came out and are hungry to find a church that won't shun them for who they are.

[Jeff]

They don't make any significant amounts of money. But I would think that they're just following state regulations.

And that last part, I don't think hyperbole helps make the case.

The liberal mind doesn't see it, I understand.:cool: But Marriage to some is a holy sacrament, not a circus, nothing to take lightly. This country has Made Marriage nothing more than a way for a municipality to make a few bucks, now you say that isn't true, but why do you have to pay the state something in order to promise God and each other something ? You already pay the person marrying you, if a blood test is required you pay for that, you pay for everything you want in order to celebrate this Holy sacrament, why not after you pay the preacher does he just not fill out the marriage certificate and then you just hand a copy to town hall.

[fj1200]

The liberal mind doesn't see it, I understand.:cool: But Marriage to some is a holy sacrament, not a circus, nothing to take lightly. This country has Made Marriage nothing more than a way for a municipality to make a few bucks, now you say that isn't true, but why do you have to pay the state something in order to promise God and each other something ? You already pay the person marrying you, if a blood test is required you pay for that, you pay for everything you want in order to celebrate this Holy sacrament, why not after you pay the preacher does he just not fill out the marriage certificate and then you just hand a copy to town hall.

:confused: I don't think I said it wasn't true, it's just that we're not balancing any budgets based on marriage license fees or anything. I'll reiterate that I don't think the state should be anywhere near a holy religious sacrament.

[DragonStryk72]

I agree with this all the way, I think everyone knows my stance on the whole gay marriage thing but it is what it is, but what you do in private is your business, that is between you and your partner ( and God IMO ) I no more want to see John and Lisa having sex at the local parade as I do John and Lou.

And that's fine, because neither do I, but that's more about people being assholes than gay marriage. Plenty of gays and lesbians just want the ability to be married, and have that stability that only marriage gives.

See, the problem of these sorts of things is that you get this sort of mentality where two groups come together in a bad way: Trolls, who wanted to rub their opponents faces in it for the sake of vanity, and those that believe that forcing their reality down other peoples throats is the only way. Neither of these is true, and hurts the overall cause.

Gay marriage and racism share a common goal in mind: Apathy. The entire point of trying to end racism, sexism, and to go for equal rights for guys is, and should be, apathy. Like saying that I like flanel, or gyros. Nobody would bat an eyelash, and I don't go to flanel pride parades, or constantly bring gyros with me everywhere. The end goal needs to be apathy.

[DragonStryk72]

Pretty much has been my take. Churches shouldn't be 'forced' to perform marriages that don't adhere to their belief systems.

Well, we're not talking about religious marriage, and that seriously needs to be laid out better in the overarching national discussion, and I don't know why they don't lay that out, as it could really head off a bunch of arguing.

What's being discussed is state contractual marriage, which is sequestered off by the separation of church and state.

[DragonStryk72]

Thats the ticket amigo. Show how great your enlightenment is by calling my condemnation of a sexual depravity hate.
As if you in your magnificent greatness love and cherish all living things!
No sir, you walk that ffing PC PATH as if it is the way to paradise but do so blinded and as full of horseshit as an unkept stable .
Where lays your passion?
Apparently it lays in condemning Christian values, conservatism and most of the principles this nation were founded on...
Keep your gay buddies and your are welcome to them, as for me, I do not consort with sexual perverts --at least not any that I am aware of ..
Yet you never cease to amaze me with your attempts to prove just how unbiased and magnificent is your super high degree of tolerance is!
Is there any sexual perversion that you would condemn(?), seems to be none..-Tyr

Actually, by Christian values you have no right to Judge, being a sinner yourself. Quick question tyr: ever had any form of sex other than heterosexual sex with your wife for the sole purpose of having children? Cause otherwise, per biblical standards, you're a sexual pervert.

As well, prostitutes would notably be such, yes? Christ not only acknowledged them, but embraced them, and forgave them their sins, even knowing that they would sin again.

You are a hypocrite Tyr, and that was the worst admonition Christ ever made of anyone.