What news story has caught your attention recently?

[Moon-Crane]

This is an awful, awful situation to be in at the beginning fo the 21st century.
Violence against women worldwide is 'epidemic'

Misogyny, victim blaming, 'slut shaming', and other such inequality is rife amongst too many people who should fucking well know better by now. I hate the bullshit of the ignorant privileged, and the so-called MRAs. Who in their right mind can think it's ok to sexually harass, assault and rape women in this day and age.

[Bee Gees Fan]

Well, first of all, I want to point out that I don't think it's a good idea to portray atheists and psychics (or people believing in psychic ability) as though they are necessarily always holding opposing belief systems.[...]

Pardon me if i snip the rest of it for the reply, but at no point did i state, or imply, that atheists and psychics are in any way opposites.

I know you didn't state that, but the comparison between the two could have given that impression. But that's not anyone's fault.

It's not even minorities who get the worst of it in this world, as my next post will unfortunately testify - and it's a far more serious problem to highlight than anything to do with a belief in supernatural powers.

It may be a less serious problem, but my point was that it's still a problem - for us, anyway. (Not us meaning yourself and I, us meaning myself and anyone else who considers themselves a part of those communities.) And also that bigotry against, and bullying of, psychics and witches and similar is neither acceptable nor justified.

If someone says a psychic is a fraud, then the burden of proof does not lie on the person to prove that the 'psychic' person is, indeed, not psychic

I'd agree that the person should not have to prove that the psychic *isn't* psychic But where IMO it's different in this scenario, is that someone is accusing the hypothetical psychic of being an actual "fraud", not just stating that they don't have any psychic ability.

You might think that calling a psychic a fraud is the *same* as saying they have no psychic ability, but I don't think it is. It's entirely possible that a psychic could be neither psychic *or* a fraud - it's not necessarily an either/or situation. A professional psychic could honestly believe that they have psychic ability, in which case, they wouldn't be a fraud.

If a professional psychic honestly, genuinely believes that they have psychic ability, then they are not a fraud, regardless of whether they actually *have* any ability. Fraud is intentional deception, and if the psychic truly believes they are psychic, they're not intentionally deceiving anyone.

If a person simply claimed that a hypothetical psychic "does not have any genuine psychic ability" then I would agree that they would not, and should not, need to provide evidence for that statement. However, if they take it a step further and accuse the psychic of deliberate deception/wrongdoing (when, as I said, the psychic could very easily not be fraudulent but mistaken or deluded about their abilities) then in my opinion, they need to provide evidence to back this accusation up. After all, when it comes to the law, the accused is "innocent until proven guilty." So I think the same should apply to psychics accused of deliberate fraud.

where there is no tangible, peer-reviewable and repeatable evidence to substantiate such a claim

There is peer-reviewable and repeatable evidence. There's the research done by the SPR (all publications are peer-reviewed) as well as more recent t parapsychology work and experiments. There's a lot of data in support of psi and survival of consciousness, and in my opinion, the evidence is quite strong - certainly strong enough to justify belief in the possibility of these phenomena being valid.

there is no accepted evidence for psychic abilities.

Well, again, there is evidence, and in my opinion, strong enough for mainstream science to at least start to consider the possibilities properly.


Anyway, back to the psychic issue. I understand your position on the celebrity psychics who make a living from what they do and I can see why you'd feel the way you do, although I am not really in agreement.

But as to your thoughts towards non-celebrity psychics - ordinary citizens who believe they have psychic ability but don't take money for their abilities - would it be accurate to say that you don't have anything against those types of psychics, and that you have nothing against them sharing their experiences with their friends and families?

[Moon-Crane]

where there is no tangible, peer-reviewable and repeatable evidence to substantiate such a claim

There is peer-reviewable and repeatable evidence.

Citations please.

there is no accepted evidence for psychic abilities.

Well, again, there is evidence, and in my opinion, strong enough for mainstream science to at least start to consider the possibilities properly.

Citations please.

I know we've got the list. I'll post one that was submitted for peer review and made the news at the time from Daryl Bem, which was then taken up by others: Three Unsuccessful Attempts to Replicate Bem's ‘Retroactive Facilitation of Recall’ Effect

...would it be accurate to say that you don't have anything against those types of psychics, and that you have nothing against them sharing their experiences with their friends and families?

Everybody's got the right to do what they want with like-minded consenting adults. I don't want to stop anyone doing anything that's not hurting other people.

[JT]

It's no worse than people who scam billions by making the claim that they have a special connection with "god". Just think of the riches of the vatican and that they have done nothing but extort that money for centuries from the WORKING people of Europe and also of the rest of the world. The vatican is nothing but a giant blood sucking tick on the back of a dog (IE the working people).

Same goes for every other religion, BTW.

If there was any justice these bastards should be all thrown in jail, that parody of a country be dismantled, and all that stolen money be redistributed to the poorest of this planet.

Love the tolerance. Oh, btw Patrick, I just learned that one of my ancestral lines were French Huguenots. I just thought I'd bring that up since I was surprised by that finding.

[JT]

I wish Texas would secede.

Don't forget to add Wisconsin to the list of hopeful secessionists. Add California, New York and New Hampshire while were at it.

[Wyokie]

It's no worse than people who scam billions by making the claim that they have a special connection with "god". Just think of the riches of the vatican and that they have done nothing but extort that money for centuries from the WORKING people of Europe and also of the rest of the world. The vatican is nothing but a giant blood sucking tick on the back of a dog (IE the working people).

Same goes for every other religion, BTW.

If there was any justice these bastards should be all thrown in jail, that parody of a country be dismantled, and all that stolen money be redistributed to the poorest of this planet.

Love the tolerance. Oh, btw Patrick, I just learned that one of my ancestral lines were French Huguenots. I just thought I'd bring that up since I was surprised by that finding.

While doing a family history project back in grade school (early 1980s - Gawd, I'm old ), I found out that I'm 1/16th French. I'm mostly of German, English, and Dutch blood.

[Patrick]

...Love the tolerance. Oh, btw Patrick, I just learned that one of my ancestral lines were French Huguenots. I just thought I'd bring that up since I was surprised by that finding.

Tolerance for criminals is not tolerance, it's accessory, at best. Are you tolerant of Adolph Hitler or Mussolini? I guess not. And yet the catholic church is responsible for much more death and misery than these two put together. What does it say about your sense of justice?

Ironically, none of my ancestors were French, my mother was born abroad and so were my father's parents.

[Moon-Crane]

I think that in ten years, same sex marriage won't even be an issue and as someone responded recently on TV "I don't call it same sex marriage" "So what do you call it?" "Marriage." That says it all.

Why even make a distinction, other than for practical purposes?

Good news in America today:
The US Supreme Court has struck down a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only, in a landmark ruling.

And the christian right was quick to respond
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=O3ZOKDmorj0

[JT]

Tolerance for criminals is not tolerance, it's accessory, at best. Are you tolerant of Adolph Hitler or Mussolini? I guess not. And yet the catholic church is responsible for much more death and misery than these two put together. What does it say about your sense of justice?

But the logical error you are making is in claiming that these churches, such as the Catholic church, are criminal. It has to be agreed that historically most organized religions have indeed behaved, at least on occasion, reprehensibly. But the modern version of these Christian churches are not on the whole criminal. Simply having another moral or political view than you does not make one a criminal. That is clearly intolerance. Now, if you want to point a finger at a religion for modern-day systemic reprehensible behavior, look no further than Islam.

[JT]

I think that in ten years, same sex marriage won't even be an issue and as someone responded recently on TV "I don't call it same sex marriage" "So what do you call it?" "Marriage." That says it all.

Why even make a distinction, other than for practical purposes?

Good news in America today:
The US Supreme Court has struck down a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only, in a landmark ruling.

And the christian right was quick to respond
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=O3ZOKDmorj0

The gay thing ain't my issue. But one question that does come to mind is where does it end? The slippery slope argument may be applicable here. What about polygamy? What if I want to marry my bicycle? (OK, that last one is not serious, just thrown in for good measure). Here is a question I want to throw out to you all: Is homosexuality normal?

[Eddie2012]

Yes.

[Moon-Crane]

The gay thing ain't my issue. But one question that does come to mind is where does it end? The slippery slope argument may be applicable here. What about polygamy? What if I want to marry my bicycle? (OK, that last one is not serious, just thrown in for good measure).

I don't equate polygamy to homosexuality (not that i have any problem with that either between any consenting adults). The way i look at it is, if one person can marry another then it doesn't really matter if it's a man and a woman, two men or two women.

I know you're joking about the bicycle thing, but there are supposedly rational people arguing with the 'slippery slope' line that it leads to legalising bestiality, paedophilia and incest Are people really listening to themselves saying these things? How does one adult person who's in love with another adult person being able to marry suddenly open the door in that way? There's no logical progression. I'd equate it more to interracial marriage. People are equal, and should be treated politically and legally equal in terms of human rights. Nobody's legally allowed to shag animals, children or their siblings, and that's irrespective of being a man, woman, black, white, whatever, so it's nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

Here is a question I want to throw out to you all: Is homosexuality normal?

Well, there's plenty of evidence for homosexual behaviour throughout the animal kingdom, and irrespective of what creationists choose to think, we're all evolved from the same common ancestors so i don't see anything particularly abnormal. I can understand people have their own baggage that makes them feel uncomfortable with it/hate it, but that's no reason to class it as abnormal.

I guess classing it as normal/abnormal is purely a cultural thing and in a state of fluidity?

[CatNamedRudy]

It's normal for people that are homosexual.

[PistolPoet]

I know you're joking about the bicycle thing, but there are supposedly rational people arguing with the 'slippery slope' line that it leads to legalising bestiality, paedophilia and incest Are people really listening to themselves saying these things? How does one adult person who's in love with another adult person being able to marry suddenly open the door in that way? There's no logical progression. I'd equate it more to interracial marriage. People are equal, and should be treated politically and legally equal in terms of human rights. Nobody's legally allowed to shag animals, children or their siblings, and that's irrespective of being a man, woman, black, white, whatever, so it's nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

Here's the thing (before I start, let me just say that I'm totally pro-equality for all people):
Let's say a hypothetical guy named Bob thinks homosexuality is "unnatural". To Bob, homosexuality is the same as incest in terms of the level of unnaturalness. Therefore, Bob thinks that opening marriage to gay people will open it to incestuous people. I don't agree with that logic, of course, but I can see how they think it's logical, since, in both cases, it would be a marriage between two consenting adults. Bestiality and other human-non human marriages are a different matter, though, since a bicycle can't consent, the poor thing .

Another point: I know this is highly controversial, but there are societies or groups (granted, I don't have any examples right now) where incest is considered normal. So people in those societies could theoretically push for legalising incest between consenting adults. Not to mention that the notion of incest itself is incoherent - not even all US states agree on whether marriage between first cousins should be legal or not, and I know that in my country it's illegal and highly shocking.

Basically, what I'm saying is that any degree of generalisation is dangerous, and we should examine every kind of human relationships separately, but it's still a very fuzzy issue and depends a lot on where you're from, how you were brought up and what "equality" means to you.

[CatNamedRudy]

CONSENTING ADULTS! Find me an animal, a bicycle, a chair, a child etc...who can legally consent and this "slippery slope" argument would be much more valid.

And as disgusting as incest is to most of us it doesn't stop a lot of people from doing it. Nor does the fact that it's illegal stop them.

[JT]

CONSENTING ADULTS! Find me an animal, a bicycle, a chair, a child etc...who can legally consent and this "slippery slope" argument would be much more valid.

And as disgusting as incest is to most of us it doesn't stop a lot of people from doing it. Nor does the fact that it's illegal stop them.

But incestuous adults can be CONSENTING ADULTS! Therefor, doesn't that argument fall apart? I'm not necessarily against gay marriage. If it were an issue of gay couples not being able to legally receive the benefits of a married couple, then I would be fully on board - and only to that extent. I know that 'domestic partners' are not always given the same rights as normal married partners, and to that extent I believe it is a civil rights issue. And only to that extent. On the other side of the argument, those that do not want to recognize gay marriage as part of the same institution that they entered into should not have it shoved down their throats. So, going forward, 'normal' marriage advocates will need to separate their institution from that of gay married people. And the onus is on them. Its apparent that the courts are not going to prevent it from being shoved down their throats. How to do it? Maybe its all in a name. They can change marriage to holy matrimony or whatever. Gays want their lifestyle to be accepted. That will never fully happen, regardless of what judges and politicians do.

[JT]

CONSENTING ADULTS! Find me an animal, a bicycle, a chair, a child etc...who can legally consent and this "slippery slope" argument would be much more valid.

And as disgusting as incest is to most of us it doesn't stop a lot of people from doing it. Nor does the fact that it's illegal stop them.

Oh, by the way, my bicycle never says 'no'. I call that consent.

[JT]

It's normal for people that are homosexual.

No, that is sort of circular reasoning. The premise is a homosexual thinks it is normal, therefore it is normal. So if I think homosexuality is abnormal, it must be abnormal. I'll have a deeper treatment in my response to Moon-crane.

[JT]

I don't equate polygamy to homosexuality (not that i have any problem with that either between any consenting adults). The way i look at it is, if one person can marry another then it doesn't really matter if it's a man and a woman, two men or two women.

I know you're joking about the bicycle thing, but there are supposedly rational people arguing with the 'slippery slope' line that it leads to legalising bestiality, paedophilia and incest Are people really listening to themselves saying these things? How does one adult person who's in love with another adult person being able to marry suddenly open the door in that way? There's no logical progression. I'd equate it more to interracial marriage. People are equal, and should be treated politically and legally equal in terms of human rights. Nobody's legally allowed to shag animals, children or their siblings, and that's irrespective of being a man, woman, black, white, whatever, so it's nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

I'll try to help you out here. The critical difference for me is that I think homosexuality is innate - they were born that way. Polygamists are not, nor are incestuous people. Therefore they have a better argument for homosexual marriage being a civil rights issue. Better but not definitive.

Well, there's plenty of evidence for homosexual behaviour throughout the animal kingdom, and irrespective of what creationists choose to think, we're all evolved from the same common ancestors so i don't see anything particularly abnormal. I can understand people have their own baggage that makes them feel uncomfortable with it/hate it, but that's no reason to class it as abnormal.

I guess classing it as normal/abnormal is purely a cultural thing and in a state of fluidity?

Purely a cultural thing? Not in my opinion. Statistical occurrence in nature does not equate to normal. 'Typical', maybe, if the numbers supported it. But not 'normal'. There is a statistical occurrence of schizophrenia, of retardation, or any number of other maladies - clearly not 'normal' - in populations. Not all are harmful, but they don't have to be to effect a determination of normal or not. To me its pretty simple. Heterosexual relations are required for sexual species procreation. Procreation is the primary reason for sexual behavior (I know its 'fun', etc, etc, but from an evolutionary perspective its procreative.) The deviation of homosexuality from this instinctual behavior - and a powerful, primary behavior at that - is aberrant within this context. That doesn't mean that homosexuals are bad people. Doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be allowed to get married. Doesn't necessarily mean it is sinful. But not normal. For the most part, most of them seem to want society to accept them as 'normal' - just another life style choice. That won't happen. No matter what laws or legal interpretations are shoved down naysayer's throats. Religious people are stuck. Its written in their scriptures that homosexuality is a sin. So what can they do? Even if they wanted to, as some are, they can't because of scriptures that are thousands of years old.

[Moon-Crane]

Tolerance for criminals is not tolerance, it's accessory, at best. Are you tolerant of Adolph Hitler or Mussolini? I guess not. And yet the catholic church is responsible for much more death and misery than these two put together. What does it say about your sense of justice?

But the logical error you are making is in claiming that these churches, such as the Catholic church, are criminal. It has to be agreed that historically most organized religions have indeed behaved, at least on occasion, reprehensibly. But the modern version of these Christian churches are not on the whole criminal. Simply having another moral or political view than you does not make one a criminal. That is clearly intolerance. Now, if you want to point a finger at a religion for modern-day systemic reprehensible behavior, look no further than Islam.

I agree, the Islamic faith is an awful, repressive, misogynist state of affairs. Yet is that not a bit of bias, and cherry-picking of actions, to defend the catholic church from broad generalisations in one breath only to then say 'but that darned Islam is reprehensible' in the next?

Surely they're equally as bad with the way they are used to control/repress people without providing any evidence for being true. It's an indisputable fact that the heads of the catholic church have, with full knowledge, covered up/hindered many cases of child sex abuse involving its high ranking members - that is criminal. If we delve as deeply into the activities of Islamic leaders - and, hell, their religion already has the dogma of terrorist and anti-western association in ongoing wars with professed muslim enemies to be getting on with - the evidence suggests we'd find similarly abhorrent abuse of power. Simply classing al qaeda members or other muslim extremists as typical of islam, though, is no different to classing Fred Phelps, the KKK or Benny Hinn as typical of the christian faith. There are plenty of extremist christian groups urging their members to 'take up arms and become martyrs to protect the christian way of life in America'. They're not representative of your average christian church going person.

There's little point trying to tell me that any one abrahamic religion is worse than the other when all are 100% horseshit in my eyes. They'll all die out in time, like the many One True Religions(TM) before them. Whether they're again replaced by others, who knows.

[Moon-Crane]

CONSENTING ADULTS! Find me an animal, a bicycle, a chair, a child etc...who can legally consent and this "slippery slope" argument would be much more valid.

And as disgusting as incest is to most of us it doesn't stop a lot of people from doing it. Nor does the fact that it's illegal stop them.

But incestuous adults can be CONSENTING ADULTS! Therefor, doesn't that argument fall apart?

Just a quick point to this. I agree, but i don't think that necessarily makes the argument fall apart. Homosexuality is not illegal. Incest currently is.

Outside of genetic concerns for any child born of such a relationship, sex between two such genetically related, consenting, adults is only a cultural taboo. Not my thing, but it wouldn't particularly affect me if it wasn't illegal.

Children can't consent. Animals can't consent. They're never going to be part of the 'slippery slope' to legalising everything for which they claim will lead to the end of the world.

[Moon-Crane]

I don't equate polygamy to homosexuality (not that i have any problem with that either between any consenting adults). The way i look at it is, if one person can marry another then it doesn't really matter if it's a man and a woman, two men or two women.

I know you're joking about the bicycle thing, but there are supposedly rational people arguing with the 'slippery slope' line that it leads to legalising bestiality, paedophilia and incest Are people really listening to themselves saying these things? How does one adult person who's in love with another adult person being able to marry suddenly open the door in that way? There's no logical progression. I'd equate it more to interracial marriage. People are equal, and should be treated politically and legally equal in terms of human rights. Nobody's legally allowed to shag animals, children or their siblings, and that's irrespective of being a man, woman, black, white, whatever, so it's nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

I'll try to help you out here. The critical difference for me is that I think homosexuality is innate - they were born that way. Polygamists are not, nor are incestuous people. Therefore they have a better argument for homosexual marriage being a civil rights issue. Better but not definitive.

Great. So, as far as i stand from that point of view, a trait with which you are born shouldn't really mean you have fewer rights than others?

I guess classing it as normal/abnormal is purely a cultural thing and in a state of fluidity?

Purely a cultural thing? Not in my opinion. Statistical occurrence in nature does not equate to normal. 'Typical', maybe, if the numbers supported it. But not 'normal'. There is a statistical occurrence of schizophrenia, of retardation, or any number of other maladies - clearly not 'normal' - in populations. Not all are harmful, but they don't have to be to effect a determination of normal or not. To me its pretty simple. Heterosexual relations are required for sexual species procreation. Procreation is the primary reason for sexual behavior (I know its 'fun', etc, etc, but from an evolutionary perspective its procreative.) The deviation of homosexuality from this instinctual behavior - and a powerful, primary behavior at that - is aberrant within this context. That doesn't mean that homosexuals are bad people. Doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be allowed to get married. Doesn't necessarily mean it is sinful. But not normal. For the most part, most of them seem to want society to accept them as 'normal' - just another life style choice. That won't happen. No matter what laws or legal interpretations are shoved down naysayer's throats. Religious people are stuck. Its written in their scriptures that homosexuality is a sin. So what can they do? Even if they wanted to, as some are, they can't because of scriptures that are thousands of years old.

That's a fair rebuttal. I guess it becomes a debate on the definition of normal. What is normal? Any religious belief appears abnormal to me - i simply can't relate to it. I don';t consider myself to be the abnormal one for not going with the (admittedly diminishing) crowd on this. For one reason or another throughout history we've accepted varying religious beliefs as normal, no matter how illogical from an objective perspective. And enough people congregated in any particular area have made their version of a religion normal. Maybe it is normal for a consciously aware species to need to cling to the belief for a higher power, irrespective of the evidence, but that's a completely separate argument for another day.

Returning to homosexuality being in evidence throughout species. Yes, there needs to be male/female sexual interaction to procreate in the majority of species (although not all by any stretch), and if you say it's 5%, 10% or whatever of the population that is homosexual then i don't see any effect on civilization. I guess the semantics of normal come into play. It's certainly abnormal in numbers. However, I don't necessarily think raw figures of such small percentages really reflect abnormality in the world of a self-aware species. I'm left-handed - a demonstrably minority trait amongst the population. It's not that far back when left-handed people were seen as possessed by demons, also in need of a cure, etc. I guess it's abnormal by the absolute definition. Yet, I don't think anybody could really consider it abnormal in any meaningful sense in this day and age?

Religious belief simply can't trump equal human rights in any right-minded world, though. Racial segregation was obviously legal in the lifetime of many still alive today, slavery was legal and, for women of any colour, the patriarchy lingers on to this day. Laws had to be implemented that have slowly tried to equalise gender inequality in society but it's still not equal. Various religious spokespeople tried to justify those positions from a god perspective and cite bible passages, etc. There are degrees of following the bible that are also fluid to the majority of believers anyway. Plenty self justify ignoring certain, horrific, elements of the old testament that don't fit with a modern world. (Clearly ditto the koran and other religious books when it comes to self-justification for any act or belief by people in those worlds)

The way i look upon marriage is that one person marrying another of the same sex in no way affects a person married to somebody of the opposite sex. Allowing 'gay marriage' doesn't prevent me from marrying my fiancee, doesn't affect me financially, doesn't affect me legally, it doesn't affect my parent's or friends' marriages in any way shape or form. It doesn't affect people who are already married, heterosexual people who are planning to get married, or people of any sexuality with no intention of getting married. Again, the much touted 'end of civilisation' will not come about because it's legal for two men or two women to marry each other. Nobody would have noticed any difference if it was quietly changed overnight.

It's not a case of creating laws to promote some perceived 'homosexual agenda' or any garbage like that, it's simply seeing people with equal rights. Also, any laws should be clearly written allowing men and women to engage in civil partnerships or whatever else is recognised as a 'union' by the state.

Finally, as far as i'm aware, the change in law makes no difference to the personal rules of any religious institution? Anybody who doesn't recognise any lifestyles not in conjunction with their faith doesn't have to allow those people to be married within their establishments? So again, the change in law doesn't affect them in any way?

[JT]

Great. So, as far as i stand from that point of view, a trait with which you are born shouldn't really mean you have fewer rights than others?

No, it shouldn't mean necessarily that one would have fewer rights than others because of a trait they were born with, but it also doesn't necessarily mean that every right would be afforded to them. There are obvious examples. Marriage and sexual orientation is clearly not as obvious an example. You know, If one in the united states can show that they have native American lineage (even just a little), then they are afforded certain rights that I am not. Funny how liberals will accept a birthright basis for certain civil rights but balk at others. Inconsistent, isn't it? To me it boils down to the definition and nature of marriage. Again, I would be fully on board if homosexuals were denied rights as domestic partners, and to the extent that they are, I support them. Why don't gays come up with their own word for their definition of marriage. I'll help them out: lets call it GAYAGE. And then as being gayed couples they could enjoy the same state-recognized benefits afforded to those who are married (with the exception of adoption. Don't want to open up a whole other can of worms). Then their nemesis would be content that their long recognized definition of marriage would not be changed. But homosexuals want society at large to accept their behavior, and a very overt way of doing that would be through the institution of marriage. The same one that serves heterosexual couples. Acceptance will not come for many people. Forced down their throat by liberal justices and politicians or not.

P.S. Did you know that most (evidenced by polling) African Americans oppose gay marriage? Furthermore, most seem to be offended that proponents equate 'gay rights' with their historic struggle for human rights.

[JT]

Now my question to at least Patrick and Moon-Crane is: Are you theophobic?

[Moon-Crane]

Funny how liberals will accept a birthright basis for certain civil rights but balk at others. Inconsistent, isn't it?

Yes, of course, it's only 'liberals' who do that. I've never heard of a conservative ever being inconsistent on any subject [/snark]

To me it boils down to the definition and nature of marriage. Again, I would be fully on board if homosexuals were denied rights as domestic partners, and to the extent that they are, I support them.

Great

Why don't gays come up with their own word for their definition of marriage.

What? Why? What gives religious people the right to commandeer something that predates their version of the One True Religion[TM]?

I'll help them out: lets call it GAYAGE. And then as being gayed couples they could enjoy the same state-recognized benefits afforded to those who are married.

No, let's just call it marriage - that's what it is. It's so much simpler.

(with the exception of adoption. Don't want to open up a whole other can of worms)

Oh ffs. Ok, let's not go there at the moment.

Then their nemesis would be content that their long recognized definition of marriage would not be changed. But homosexuals want society at large to accept their behavior, and a very overt way of doing that would be through the institution of marriage. The same one that serves heterosexual couples. Acceptance will not come for many people. Forced down their throat by liberal justices and politicians or not.

I care 0% how offended racists get by having equality for non-whites 'forced down their throats? I also care 0% how offended misogynists get for having equality for women 'forced down their throats'. Well, guess how much i care about how offended some homophobic people will get about treating gay people equally?

Aside from the fact that i believe society at large does accept 'their behaviour', I actually believe most people simply want other people to not give a shit about what they do with their own lives - especially when it doesn't affect said other persons life in any way whatsoever. Having legal equality as the default position takes away any need to discuss the fact that any human-made laws are/were creating inequality, and so everyone can get on with things in the same way without anyone having to think about it.

If anyone can show that America will be destroyed because of marriage equality please tell. It won't, because there are already many countries where it's been legal for a long time and those countries are still very much alive and kicking, and not everybody has been forced to turn gay, and heterosexual couples in those countries still get married!

P.S. Did you know that most (evidenced by polling) African Americans oppose gay marriage? Furthermore, most seem to be offended that proponents equate 'gay rights' with their historic struggle for human rights.

Sorry, but that's got anything to do with what exactly? So, there are african americans who are as stupid and bigoted as their white brethren on certain issues. Hold the back page! Because some say it shouldn't be associated doesn't make it so.

So, while i accept you're putting forward the arguments made by various people who would prefer to 'keep' marriage as the union between one man and one woman only, I've still not heard a single coherent argument from anybody for not having equality. Nobody's forcing anybody to accept homosexual marriage into their own religious institutions. And nobody's stopping any men and women from being allowed to marry each other. We'll simply have equal recognition of people's relationships in everyday life and for political and economic lives. That's all it comes down to, personally. I have nothing whatsoever to gain from the law being passed.