Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Lincoln Republican]

The people of California have spoken, and did not want gay marriage.

Should we have let the people vote on interracial marriage? Slavery? Segregation?

After all, as long as the people say it, it's perfectly okay, right?

Please, stop with these ridiculous comparisons.

Interracial marriage, slavery, segregation, segregated busing, segregated schooling, are in absolutely different spheres than gay marriage.  And you know it.

Quit trying to play the race card with relation to the gay marriage issue.  It no longer works, and has no relationship whatsoever.

Get real.

Congratulations to the California Supreme Court for having the courage to do the right thing and uphold the gay marriage ban.

America should not have to cow tow to the twisted, radical, gay agenda, just because the gay community wants to subvert, debase, and demean real marriage.

GET OVER IT!

I am going to say this again, in case anyone still does not understand

Opposition to gay marriage does not equate to issues of race!

So quit insulting people's intelligence by trying to brainwash them into believing that the issue of gay marriage equates to issues to race.

They do not equate.  Never have.  Never will.

And don't throw that bigot crap at me.  Because if you are, then throw the same bigot crap at Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Al Gore, the last three Democratic Presidential nominees.  They all oppose same sex marriage.  Gore opposed it at least at the time of his run for President. 

[Lincoln Republican]

I am going to say this again, in case anyone still does not understand

Opposition to gay marriage does not equate to issues of race!

So quit insulting people's intelligence by trying to brainwash them into believing that the issue of gay marriage equates to issues to race.

An analogy does not imply complete equity

An analogy requires that two objects be similar in a way of some profundity

If everything is identical in an analogy, it is comparing something to itself, and is a tautology

grahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

On the other hand, I think the idea that gay people want to "debase and demean" marriage is pretty bigoted, myself -- or, at minimum, incredibly ignorant.

Defense of real marriage is neither bigoted nor ignorant.

What gay marriage does in fact do is debase, demean and trivialize real marriage.  Therefore, if gay marriage becomes law, what the gay community has accomplished is in fact to debase, demean, and trivialize real marriage.

[Lincoln Republican]

I believe God is bisexual, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

But I notice that my assertion was correct, i.e. you obviously haven't read or understood the empirical evidence on the causes of homosexuality, so you rely on the writings of some random people thousands of years ago instead.  It's probably better if you stay out of discussions on gay marriage until you can understand the broader concepts first.

With such a statement as you have just made, it's definitely better that you stay out of discussions about God until you can understand the broader concepts first.

[Lincoln Republican]

Defense of real marriage is neither bigoted nor ignorant.

What gay marriage does in fact do is debase, demean and trivialize real marriage.  Therefore, if gay marriage becomes law, what the gay community has accomplished is in fact to debase, demean, and trivialize real marriage.

Do you have ideas, or do you limit yourself to just opinions?

I find it patently offensive that you think gays entering the same unions "demeans" or "trivializes" the institution.  You may not agree with their relationships, but the idea that they "pollute" our real marriage goes beyond simple knee-jerk theological disagreement.  It's intentionally demeaning and being spiteful against them.  It is bigoted.

I have known many gay marriage opponents who address the issue respectfully -- you are not one of them.

Let me be clear.

Pro gay marriage advocates have been anything but respectful.  They have trodden upon the symbol of Christianity and they have demeaned and physically attacked anti gay marriage advocates.

I will not launch into a personal attack on you and make unwarranted accusations against you as you have on me.

[Lincoln Republican]

The argument is widely used among pro gay marriage advocates that marriage is a right that should be available to all, at least that should be available to all adults.

Suppose a bisexual man dearly loves a woman and also dearly loves another man, and that the three of them want to be married to one another. 

We will assume that same sex marriage is recognized.

Therefore, this bisexual man and the woman and the other man feel they are being discriminated against because they want to marry one another, so the three of them would be legally married to one another, and marriage to two other people is not recognized. 

The three of them launch a court action arguing their equal rights are being violated because gay couples are now allowed to marry, but the three of them are not permitted to marry each other.

Since gay marriage has been granted, we will suppose, should these three be allowed to marry one another, since marriage is a right that should be available to all adults? 

[Lincoln Republican]

Assuming all three of them are willing, then why shouldn't they?

Let me get this straight then.

Not only do you approve of gay marriage, but you approve of tri marriage as well.

[Lincoln Republican]

Do you believe in consent? If it is people's prerogative to marry their sister ot 5 other people, then whatever.
I mean, a lot of states already totally allow you to marry your cousins. Geez.

Now that is really perverse.

[Lincoln Republican]

I guess since Winfield and MK cannot effectively counter the points that we've just made here, they know that their position is on fragile ground.

Joe, make no mistake.

Real marriage is never on fragile ground.

Whatever else gay marriage does or does not do, it does not bear fruit.

[Lincoln Republican]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Now, I realize that we are not living in an ideal world, at least not at this point in time. 

Therefore, obviously, all children born will not have a father and a mother to raise them and to love them.  Some are raised by gay couples, some are raised by single parents, some are raised by others.  That's just a fact of life in society.

But, all things considered, the most ideal situation for children born into this world would be for them to have a loving mother and a loving father, to nurture them, to teach them, to raise them, and to love them. 

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I agree, nobody has a right to tell people how to live their lives, however, the radical gay movement seems to like to tell the rest of the country how to redefine marriage. 

[Lincoln Republican]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Now, I realize that we are not living in an ideal world, at least not at this point in time. 

Therefore, obviously, all children born will not have a father and a mother to raise them and to love them.  Some are raised by gay couples, some are raised by single parents, some are raised by others.  That's just a fact of life in society.

But, all things considered, the most ideal situation for children born into this world would be for them to have a loving mother and a loving father, to nurture them, to teach them, to raise them, and to love them. 

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I agree, nobody has a right to tell people how to live their lives, however, the radical gay movement seems to like to tell the rest of the country how to redefine marriage. 

Your point is...

I thought it was pretty obvious.

[Lincoln Republican]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Now, I realize that we are not living in an ideal world, at least not at this point in time. 

Therefore, obviously, all children born will not have a father and a mother to raise them and to love them.  Some are raised by gay couples, some are raised by single parents, some are raised by others.  That's just a fact of life in society.

But, all things considered, the most ideal situation for children born into this world would be for them to have a loving mother and a loving father, to nurture them, to teach them, to raise them, and to love them. 

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I agree, nobody has a right to tell people how to live their lives, however, the radical gay movement seems to like to tell the rest of the country how to redefine marriage. 

Your point is...

I thought it was pretty obvious.

No, not really. You just stated facts and then stupid opinions that seem very baseless. Marriage doesn't exist for procreation anymore. The times they are a changin.

Thank you for your puerile commentary on my profound discourse.

[Lincoln Republican]

Actually, two women CAN have a child.  Sperm banks were created for heterosexual couples but they still work for others.

Excuse me?

I really hate to burst your fantasy here, but the two women did not have the child.

In instances to which you refer, one of the women is artificially inseminated with the sperm from an, obviously, male sperm donor.  Needless to say, the sperm that fertilizes the egg does not come from the woman's same sex partner.

The one woman becomes the biological mother, true, but the same sex partner has nothing whatsoever to do with the conception of the baby.   

[Lincoln Republican]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Now, I realize that we are not living in an ideal world, at least not at this point in time. 

Therefore, obviously, all children born will not have a father and a mother to raise them and to love them.  Some are raised by gay couples, some are raised by single parents, some are raised by others.  That's just a fact of life in society.

But, all things considered, the most ideal situation for children born into this world would be for them to have a loving mother and a loving father, to nurture them, to teach them, to raise them, and to love them. 

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I agree, nobody has a right to tell people how to live their lives, however, the radical gay movement seems to like to tell the rest of the country how to redefine marriage. 

Your point is...

I thought it was pretty obvious.

No, not really. You just stated facts and then stupid opinions that seem very baseless. Marriage doesn't exist for procreation anymore. The times they are a changin.

Thank you for your puerile commentary on my profound discourse.

That's a puerile response...

Oh, good grief man, can you not see the light hearted nature of my reply?

Come on now, words like puerile?  profound discourse?

I mean, the reply to my post was direct, yes, but puerile?

I mean, my post was good, yes, but a profound discourse?

[Lincoln Republican]

Actually, two women CAN have a child.  Sperm banks were created for heterosexual couples but they still work for others.

Excuse me?

I really hate to burst your fantasy here, but the two women did not have the child.

In instances to which you refer, one of the women is artificially inseminated with the sperm from an, obviously, male sperm donor.  Needless to say, the sperm that fertilizes the egg does not come from the woman's same sex partner.

The one woman becomes the biological mother, true, but the same sex partner has nothing whatsoever to do with the conception of the baby.   

That's a most interesting interpretation of what he said.

And, again, they can if they try really, really hard.

It's nice to see someone actually inject some humor into this discussion.

And that is funny, someone saying that a gay couple could actually conceive a baby together.

That's hilarious.

[Lincoln Republican]

It's nice to see someone actually inject some humor into this discussion.

And that is funny, someone saying that a gay couple could actually conceive a baby together.

That's hilarious.

You're attacking a joke instead of the many substantiative arguments made against your claims?

What?  I was doing no such thing.  I was complimenting the poster for his humor.  His statement was very funny.

[Lincoln Republican]

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Do you also believe that marriages should be dissolved at menopause? I highly doubt that you do, and as such, redefining marriage is therefore necessary, even from your standpoint.

Dissolved at menopause?  Obviously not.  I am assuming this is not a serious question.

I have stated that one of the purposes of marriage, that is heterosexual marriage, is to bring children into the world.  I have also stated that obviously not all heterosexual marriages will produce children.  This is of course for one of a number of many different reasons.  Perhaps the couple are infertile, perhaps one of the partners is infertile, perhaps the couple is too old, perhaps the couple simply do not want to have children.  That makes those heterosexual marriages no less valid than heterosexual marriages that do produce children.  As well, as far as I am concerned, heterosexual couples who adopt a child or children are every bit as much the parents of the children as if they had given birth to the child or children themselves.

I do not follow your logic that as such redefining marriage is therefore necessary.  Redefining marriage is absolutely not necessary, not under any circumstances.

Let me be clear.  I support equality for gays and lesbians in all aspects of their lives, no discrimination against gays and lesbians  in employment, housing, or any other aspect.

But I draw the line at marriage, or any homosexual union or relationship that is legally called marriage.

I have no problem with gays and lesbians being allowed to have legally recognized relationships and having them called civil unions.

But the gay community has gone too far in demanding marriage.

[Lincoln Republican]

Winfield, have you pledged yet to protect marriage from sterile or old couples?

Now that question is from way out in left field.

I trust you are not being serious in asking that question.

Anyway, see my reply to Tonberry, earlier on this page, that addresses this issue.  (Reply # 196)

[Lincoln Republican]

Civil marriage is a legal contract yo, and because of the oh so abused divorce option, it is something that can and is re-negotiated a few times. And it's sad that a lot of these "marriage warriors" are in their second, third, etc marriages.

Winfield, your arguments are illogical. At first you say marriage should be about creating children, which is the reason you oppose same-sex marriage, and as such, it should be why you oppose marriage between couples who can no longer pro-create. But then you say they should have access to marriage too. So...

If you support gay marriage, then I have a question for you.  Do you support marriages between brother and sister, father-daughter, mother-son?  If not, why?  

I answered this question  a few pages back.

Do you ever read what I actually say, or are you simply trying to find fault?

Perhaps you could actually read what I said in reply #167 on page 12, wherein I stated that one of the reasons for marriage is to bring children into the world.  Do you know what one means?  One is singular, meaning not all encompassing. 

There are many reasons for opposing same sex marriage.  Their inability to have children is not one of them.  That is simply an obvious fact. 

It is ridiculous to say that I oppose marriage between couples who can no longer procreate.  What ridiculous tripe.  I have never said this.  In fact, I have stated the exact opposite.

Your arguments are baseless. 

If your arguments were a boat, it would be sinking faster than you could say help, bring me a bucket.       

[Lincoln Republican]

In reply #167 on page 12, all you talked about was children. Your use of the word "one" would have been more powerful had you listed other uses of marriage and why same-sex couples should not have the right to enter in such a contract.

Okay, we are making progress.

Instead of ignoring what I actually wrote and twisting the meaning, you now admit that I stated that one of the reasons for marriage was to bring children into the world.

Thank you for owning up to this.  Your apology is accepted.

[Lincoln Republican]

In reply #167 on page 12, all you talked about was children. Your use of the word "one" would have been more powerful had you listed other uses of marriage and why same-sex couples should not have the right to enter in such a contract.

Okay, we are making progress.

Instead of ignoring what I actually wrote and twisting the meaning, you now admit that I stated that one of the reasons for marriage was to bring children into the world.

Thank you for owning up to this.  Your apology is accepted.

Nice try, but you can't escape the fact that your arguments against gay marriage are crumbling quickly.  Now that the 'inability to have children' excuse has dried up, what's the next argument you have?

I notice that my description on the previous page of your debate technique is ringing true, amusingly.

You know, it wouldn't matter to pro gay marriage advocates what anti gay marriage advocates said about this issue, or what arguments against gay marriage they put forward.

Gays and gay marriage advocates would always fall back on the tired old lines of equality, rights, calling anyone opposed to their view bigots, and cry discrimination, while putting forward absolutely nothing to state why gay marriage would be a benefit to society.

Gays want marriage.  The onus is on them to show why gay marriage would be a benefit to society.

My arguments are as solid as they have ever been.

If you are basing your "crumbling" comments on my marriage and children statements, then you are mistaken in thinking that this point is not valid, just because, obviously, many heterosexual couples cannot have children.  One reason for marriage is and always has been to bring children into the world.  Only a fool would believe just because there are married heterosexual couples who cannot have children that this point is not valid.  To dismiss this point on this basis is ludicrous.  We all know there are various reasons why some couples cannot or do not have children.  This fact in no way detracts from the fact that one of the reasons for marriage is children.

[Lincoln Republican]

You know, it wouldn't matter to pro gay marriage advocates what anti gay marriage advocates said about this issue, or what arguments against gay marriage they put forward.

That's a cowardly answer if ever I saw it.  If you don't think your arguments against gay marriage are being taken seriously, then clearly you aren't articulating them very well, or defending your points effectively.  Either that, or they're just not very good lines of argument.

Gays and gay marriage advocates would always fall back on the tired old lines of equality, rights, calling anyone opposed to their view bigots, and cry discrimination, while putting forward absolutely nothing to state why gay marriage would be a benefit to society.

Gays want marriage.  The onus is on them to show why gay marriage would be a benefit to society.

Yeah, damn those tired old issues like equality and rights.  Things were so much better back in the good ol' days, huh?

Given that these concepts - plus freedom - are inherent in our nation, the onus is on people like you to explain why gay marriage would personally affect you in a negative way.

I'm happily married to my wife, and I know for a fact that I couldn't give a damn if two men or two women want to do the same thing.  I wouldn't feel that their marriage would demean mine.  I'd be happy for them that they've chosen to become as happy as my wife and I are.  It's thoroughly depressing that you would prefer for them to be unhappy, even though it doesn't affect you in any way.

If you are basing your "crumbling" comments on my marriage and children statements, then you are mistaken in thinking that this point is not valid, just because, obviously, many heterosexual couples cannot have children.  One reason for marriage is and always has been to bring children into the world.  Only a fool would believe just because there are married heterosexual couples who cannot have children that this point is not valid.  To dismiss this point on this basis is ludicrous.  We all know there are various reasons why some couples cannot or do not have children.  This fact in no way detracts from the fact that one of the reasons for marriage is children.

Why do you not understand that your argument here is logically inconsistent?  You acknowledge that some heterosexual couples cannot have children, and yet you claim that one of the purposes of their marriage is to have children.  You also ignore the fact that you don't need to be married to have children, so this line of argument is entirely irrelevant anyway!

But let me guess, you're going to either ignore this post, or revert to just re-stating your opinion over and over without any new lines of reasoning.  Why break the habit of a lifetime?

As usual, you take what I say and twist it and turn it to your own purposes.

Cowardly answer?  You resort to personal insults because you know what I have stated is true.  You know perfectly well that gay marriage advocates will never accept one argument presented by anyone who opposes gay marriage.  I have not attacked you on a personal level.  But, if it makes you feel good, feel free to mean mouth me all you like.

You take my statement about equality and rights and twist it to serve your own purposes, when you know perfectly well that what I mean is that marriage is not an equality issue and that marriage is not a right.  I have stated before on more than one occasion that equal rights, e.g. the right to vote, do not equate to gay marriage.

I am pleased to know that you are happily married to your wife. 

Why do you take the unfortunate and sad circumstance of infertile couples and exploit it as a basis to refute the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world?  I have stated before that, obviously, there are many circumstances in which married heterosexual couples cannot or do not have children.  I have also stated that these marriages are no less valid than heterosexual couples who do have children. 
 

[Lincoln Republican]

Why do you take the unfortunate and sad circumstance of infertile couples and exploit it as a basis to refute the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world?  I have stated before that, obviously, there are many circumstances in which married heterosexual couples cannot or do not have children.  I have also stated that these marriages are no less valid than heterosexual couples who do have children. 

So, in some cases you arbitrarily decide to allow couples who are known to be unable to produce children to marry.  Calling his argument "exploitative" isn't a personal attack, while calling yours "cowardly" is.  You still won't address the argument that desired equality should be granted unless it has a detrimental effect on a pre-existing institution (remember the Thanksgiving Analogy?), instead electing to object that it isn't an absolute right.  There's no "right to ride in the good area of the bus" either; does that mean that bus segregation was morally acceptable to you?

And, yea, I'm aware that race and sexual orientation are different,and you believe that sexual orientation is chosen, but -- like the detrimental effect on marriage -- you seem extremely disinterested in proving it.

I do not arbitrarily decide in any case to allow couples who are known to be unable to produce children to marry.  Any heterosexual couple, regardless of their ability to produce children, is, obviously, allowed to marry.  And, as I have stated before, their marriages are no less valid than any heterosexual marriage which does produce children.  The reason their marriages are just as valid is because they are heterosexual couples. 

Your quetioning me about "the right to ride in the good area of the bus" is ridiculous and really not worthy of an answer.  I will, however, state that, OBVIOUSLY, bus segregation is NOT, under ANY circumstances, in any way, shape, or form, acceptable to me.  Besides, the bus segregation issue has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage, except in the minds of persistent advocates of gay marriage, in the minds of the radical left, and in the minds of the radical gay community.     

[Lincoln Republican]

I do not arbitrarily decide in any case to allow couples who are known to be unable to produce children to marry.  Any heterosexual couple, regardless of their ability to produce children, is, obviously, allowed to marry.  And, as I have stated before, their marriages are no less valid than any heterosexual marriage which does produce children.  The reason their marriages are just as valid is because they are heterosexual couples. 

So, your argument that lack of procreation is a justification for disallowing gay marriage is bunk.  You give infertile heterosexuals a free pass just because they are heterosexual, or you refuse to give homosexuals the same pass just because they are homosexuals.  Either way, your claimed litmus test (can they produce children?) has nothing to do with your opinion.

Either way, how is this not arbitrary?

Your quetioning me about "the right to ride in the good area of the bus" is ridiculous and really not worthy of an answer.  I will, however, state that, OBVIOUSLY, bus segregation is NOT, under ANY circumstances, in any way, shape, or form, acceptable to me.  Besides, the bus segregation issue has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage, except in the minds of persistent advocates of gay marriage, in the minds of the radical left, and in the minds of the radical gay community.     

I'm not a radical leftist, a radical gay, or even a plain-vanilla leftist or a plain-vanilla gay.

And you did not refute the parallel, besides to say it does not exist.  My argument is that the same quality that made bus segregation offensive ("having them in the institution of x affects society in way y, and we want to make policy without providing empirical evidence.")

Your complaint about my argument is that race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing.  But that isn't part of my argument.  So either you're repeatedly failing to understand my argument on accident, or intentionally.  If it's the former, I'm happy to explain it better if you tell me how I'm doing it poorly; if it's the latter, dude, stop.

Your very sad attempted refutation of my argument is actually what is "bunk", as you put it.  At no time did I ever state that the ability to procreate is a prerequisite for a couple entering into the bonds of matrimony.  All I ever stated was that one of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world.  That statement is fact and is irrefutable.  At no time did I ever state that one must have the ability to procreate in order to enter into the bonds of matrimony.

I'll explain it for you again, in case you didn't understand the first time.  Any heterosexual couple is eligible to enter into the bonds of matrimony.  This in no way detracts or disproves the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to procreate.

Now, onto what you are attempting to sway the masses with.

What you are attempting to do is to use the fact that many heterosexual couples are either incapable of procreating or simply do not procreate, and use this as a justification for gay marriage.  But that in no way is justification for the redefinition of marriage, simply because gays have something in common with infertile couples, i.e. they do not procreate.  Big deal, they have this in common with some heterosexual couples, therefore, by your logic, since they have this in common with some heterosexual couples, they should be allowed to redefine marriage.  This is where your argument falls apart.  Redefining marriage is not warranted simply because gay couples, along with infertile heterosexual couples, do not reproduce.   

You may not be a radical leftist, a radical gay, a plain-vanilla leftist, or a plain-vanilla gay, but you are most certainly a persistent advocate of gay marriage, which is the other category I listed of those who equate bus segregation with gay marriage.  Therefore, you fit very well into the category who equates racial segregation issues with the gay marriage issue.  Racial segregation issues have nothing at all to do with the gay marriage issue.  The right to ride anywhere on the bus is a human right.  Marriage is a privilege, not a right.  Marriage is not a rights issue.  But I know that is extremely difficult for pro gay marriage advocates such as yourself to understand.

[Lincoln Republican]

Since the pro gay marriage side is now reduced to discussing nothing more substantive than gay Japanese ice cream, that clearly means that the pro gay marriage side has definitively conceded the debate to the anti gay marriage side.

Thank you for your concession.

You obviously now recognize the error of your ways, and you are to be commended for your non controversial, though unorthodox, means of conceding this debate.

I assure you I bear no ill will or hard feelings against any of you.

[Lincoln Republican]

Since the pro gay marriage side is now reduced to discussing nothing more substantive than gay Japanese ice cream, that clearly means that the pro gay marriage side has definitively conceded the debate to the anti gay marriage side.

Thank you for your concession.

You obviously now recognize the error of your ways, and you are to be commended for your non controversial, though unorthodox, means of conceding this debate.

I assure you I bear no ill will or hard feelings against any of you.

Lol, Alcon already responded to you, you seem to be the one conceding the debate

I have already shot down Alcon's arguments.

He is simply not willing to accept the fact.