Massachusetts to allow gay marriage

“StromBringer,

Fortunately, you're right ...for the time being, anyway. But "victimization" is surely a relative concept.”

“blind rhetoric without room for discussion, apparently.

Dear Phaedrus,

Au contrare ...I'm merely using some irreverent and sardonic analogies to shoot sticky pins at pop dogma-morality. You know ...the Emporer's New Clothes thingy. But don't mind me ...I'm only one who is shouting what appears to be mumbo-jumbo in this modern wilderness.”

“(you misspelled 'irrelevant')”

“Yeah, exactly as I said.”

“Which Utah polygamist are you talking about MSilver? The one's I've seen in the news lately were also involved in coercing under-aged girls to marry them?

And what is your evidence that people were worrying about homosexuality when marriages were becoming more secularized.

Personally, I do think the government should stay out of marriage altogether. Domestic partnership should be about mutual responsibilities to each other and not about sex - let the Churches, Mosques,Temples, Covens, etc... decide whom they will marry.”

“This way, if someone lives with an elderly parent, they can put that parent on their insurance and will take responsibilites from them and get tax benefits. I'd realy like to take sex out of the thing altogehter.

Imagine the paradoxes (and the bad sitcoms) that will arise if the government sanctions gay marriage but not non-sexual domestic partnerships. F'rinstance: two very straight guys - share an apartment. One guy is an independent carpenter, but has trouble getting insurance because of past injuries. His buddy helps him out by putting him on his insurance, but they have to have a "gay marriage" for it to work. Because people are on the look out for phony marriages, the two guys have to pretend to be lovers even though they are a wee bit homophobic. Might last a season or two on TV.”

“Okay, this debate has gone quite far enough!

When you start working sitcom scenarios into the discussion, it's time to stop.”

“gawdammit pedx. some tv pitchman is gonna see that and televison will start to become a vast cultural wasteland.......wait.......nevermind.”

“pedxing,

Coercing? Hmmm. Those "underage" females insist they are perfectly happy in a relationship they claim is irrelevant (take note of my spelling, Tilt) to Big Brother's watchful eye intruding into their private lives.

Apparently you guys think this stuff is justified (?). And I can agree ...BUT only if we're going to try to define morality and ethics from a secular perspective. I do not envy secular ethicists ...they have a near impossible task ...filled with so many objections that each attempt at secular moral law ends up dying the death of a thousand qualifications.

But hey, I'm only trying to point your gaze to the horizon, where the logical outcomes of your morality will/may end up going. That's all. Take it or leave it ...makes no difference to me.

BTW, "underage" is a relative and arbitrary Modernist term.

Oh, and StromBringer, there's no need to throw ad hominems at me. If you can't appreciate some good-natured satirical sparring, well... what can I say? Just hit the Iggy button.”

“Apparently you guys think this stuff is justified (?). And I can agree ...BUT only if we're going to try to define morality and ethics from a secular perspective. I do not envy secular ethicists ...they have a near impossible task ...filled with so many objections that each attempt at secular moral law ends up dying the death of a thousand qualifications.

In other words, the ideas of ethics and law that are outside of religious ideology confuses you with all the terms and definitions?

Some people actually thrive in places where morality and ethics are held up to scrutiny and the light of reason. I'm positive those people feel sorry for you, too.

BTW, "underage" is a relative and arbitrary Modernist term

You seem to be trying to stretch the limits of this term to exploit advantage for your apparent assertion that gay rights are immoral. In other words, a sort of "if you're going to give rights to people who do gay things, you have to give rights to all people who do all things" slippery slope.

If I'm misunderstanding you, please feel free to let me know. If I'm not, please feel free to babble on.”

“No M Silver - many of these teenage wives have since complained... and this was a factor in some of the criminal sentencings.

Also, there is a clear difference between banning underage relationships and homosexual ones. If two homosexuals have a relationship and they aren't allowed partnership rights and responsibilities - they, as a pair can never have them. If a 15 year old and and adult have or want to have a relationship they have only have to wait until the younger one reaches the age of majority.

While I think you do point to the potential problems of the state making rules about marriage (and those problems exist no matter where the line is drawn - even if they are drawn where they are now) - on the whole M Silver, your analogies shed far more heat than light.”

“then try not opening with such lame material, silver. altho i dont agree with your positions, at least your later posts showed youve put some thought into it. try opening with that next time.”

“The custom of a religious marriage ceremony is a relatively recent invention. Before about the ninth century, the clergy wasn’t even involved. Are those arguing to retain the traditional concept of marriage advocating a return to the days that women were regarded as chattel? Should we be buying our brides from their fathers? Raiding their towns and capturing them?

If various churches don’t want to recognize gay marriage, that’s certainly their right but religious arguments against gay civil marriage certainly don’t belong in our secular society.”

“This thread is gay!”

“so's your mother”

“Enough. I just want to have equal rights for gays in this country to avoid another round of this:

”

“M_Silver tried to warn us... but would we listen?


”

“ROFL!”

“The religious right is challenged by a 'right Christian'.


Dean Says Faith Swayed Decision on Gay Unions

MUSCATINE, Iowa, Jan. 7 -- Democratic front-runner Howard Dean said Wednesday that his decision as governor to sign the bill legalizing civil unions for gays in Vermont was influenced by his Christian views, as he waded deeper into the growing political, religious and cultural debate over homosexuality and the Bible's view of it.

"The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it," Dean said in an interview Wednesday. "From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."

<snip>

Dean said he does not often turn to his faith when making policy decisions but cited the civil union bill as a time he did. "My view of Christianity . . . is that the hallmark of being a Christian is to reach out to people who have been left behind," he told reporters Tuesday. "So I think there was a religious aspect to my decision to support civil unions."

more...”

“While equal (EQUAL) rights for gays is no problem for me I'm bewildered at Dean claiming his religion is the reason. Just when the guy comes in from left field to apeal to the middle he runs right back out in left field!”

“That Dean guy is gay.”

“That is transgenderific!”

“Gay marriage opponent apologizes after not fully disclosing poll results
msnbc.com

BOSTON, Jan. 9 — The leader of a state group that opposes gay marriage acknowledged it did not release portions of a poll that indicated voters are deeply divided on whether to ban same-sex marriage.

Ron Crews of the Massachusetts Family Institute said he regretted downplaying the omitted survey results as irrelevant.

"I want to apologize," Crews said. "I misspoke. I misspoke primarily out of ignorance, but that does not excuse misspeaking. There were other questions, and we are ... going to release those other questions."

At a rally Wednesday, the group touted Zogby poll results that indicated 69 percent of respondents wanted a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The group also highlighted a question that showed 52 percent said that "only marriage between one man and one woman should be legal," with 42 percent disagreeing.

The group didn't release information that poll respondents opposed the constitutional amendment, by a split of 49-48 percent. It also didn't mention that poll respondents, by a margin of 48-46, did not want lawmakers to prevent marriage licenses from being issued to homosexual couples in May, when the Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing gay marriage takes effect.

Pollster John Zogby said it is standard practice for advocacy groups to issue entire polls for public examination. "All of the questions are important," said Zogby, whose firm is based in Utica, N.Y.

The poll was taken among 601 likely voters. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

In a press release issued Friday, Crews said that polls are "proprietary, important and relevant to those who commissioned the poll" and that the portions released were those most relevant to the issue before the Legislature.

Zogby had released the poll questions that were not disclosed by the group.

Crews said the Coalition for Marriage, a group of statewide and national organizations that commissioned the poll, is in legal discussions with Zogby International about the "unauthorized disclosure" of information in the poll.”

“"if someone says you cannot marry or have some other right that the rest of us have, simply on the grounds that you are of the wrong faith, you're goddam right I'll be standing up for you."
Phaedrus
12:36:02 PM
11/19/03

Sooooo, what you're saying here, Phaedrus, is that you're willing to stand up for the rights of those of "faith" even if they differ than society's concept of marriage?

Are you saying you would think polygamy between consenting adults should be legalized for those religious sects who think this is an expression of their faith, and condoned by God? You want to go on record as defending your statement of standing firmly for polygamy as legal marriage in this country?”

“I haven't given a lot of thought to polygamous marriage, Buck. If it ever comes up as a political question, I'll consider it.

Just off hand, though, it doesn't strike me as out of the question that such a situation could work and be healthy for certain people.”

“Oh, and by the way, if a certain religion had the right to do it, then I would agree that all religions should.”

“Okay, that's cool. I just think polygamy is wrong and should not be legalized, but that's just me.”

“It might not be just you, either, but if there is a sizable minority of the populace whose religious freedom is being held in check by the opinions on morality of the majority - and no one is hurt by their practices - I would stand for them.”

“That's a pretty bold statement, Phaedrus, because that would also endorse legalized incest among many other things considered illegal and detestable by the populace. Also, there would be some crazy legal ramifications, because marriage also has some benefits. That means I could marry my own mom and dadand brother and sister and cousins and they would all get free health coverage from my health plan at work.”

“Uh, where did I say that?

Obviously there would need to be some sort of checks in place to assure that people weren't getting married for the sake of defrauding a company like you're talking about, and where does incest play into this? We are still in the real world, right?”

“Phaedrus, there are plenty of people who think incest is fine and dandy and want the right to marry. Why deny them? Why suggest these incestual lovers aren't in the "real world"? Is that your own values coming into play? Also, what kind of government regulation can you put into place that would "assure" that people weren't in love and thus getting married for fraud? Also, do two people HAVE to be in love to get married? Or is that YOUR concept of marriage? We must not infringe what our concept of marriage might mean to others, k?”

“Also, since you never answered this before, let's ask this one again! :^D

Is anti-legalized gay marriage just a conservative or religious issue?

__Yes __ No”

“Phaedrus, there are plenty of people who think incest is fine and dandy and want the right to marry. Why deny them?

Okay, let's put it to a study. I'd be willing to bet there are a number of both physical and emotional reasons to not allow it, but I could be wrong. And who are all these people? Do you know any? I don't.

Also, what kind of government regulation can you put into place that would "assure" that people weren't in love and thus getting married for fraud?

We already have regulations like this in place for things like green-card marriages and such. I dont' see how this is such a problem.

Is anti-legalized gay marriage just a conservative or religious issue?

__Yes __ No"


If you're asking me if only conservatives are against the idea of gay marriage, then the answer is no, of course not.”

“Buck has a weird obession with incest. It's kinda creepy.”

“Hi Phaedrus! Do you not think there are incestual lovers in this country who would love to have the legal status and benefits of marriage? Come on, they're are plenty of them! Just because you don't know any personally doesn't mean they don't exist! I don't know anyone who's murdered someone, but I know there are murderers!

As for regulating "love", I could marry a woman from Russia just to give her eventual citizenship, no law would ban that. You tell me, Phaedrus, that if a 21 year old man wanted to marry his mother and his uncle and they would thus have all the benefits of legal marriage, how could you tell what's legit or not? How do you regulate that? The green card stuff is based on the traditional concept of marriage, remember, we're gonna erase all preconceived notions of traditional marriage and not let any of our own morals or thinking of what marriage should or shouldn't be to anyone else get in the way of legalized marriage. Any restrictions on how others want marriage to be would be based on other moral codes.

Here's a quote from you before:

"The right wingers shouldn't be worried about gay marriage, if they're so concerned about the morals of America slipping into the dirt." - Phaedrus

I was just wondering why you bring up "right wingers" when Democratic Congressmen and a Democratic President are the ones who signed and passed the Defense of Marriage Act in the first place. And do you have to bring politics into everything around here? Ha ha!”

“: "Buck has a weird obession with incest. It's kinda creepy." - iraqtis

ah HA! Thanks, lactate, you proved my point! Why would you even SUGGEST that incest is "creepy"? Is that your OWN personal moral code that you wish to push on others? Come on, man, open up your mind, be accepting, be supportive, don't be blinded by your own preconceptions of morality or right and wrong according to YOU, others differ from you on what's right and wrong and acceptible or not, please don't judge them or deny them their rights because of how YOU feel about an issue. If incestual lovers want to marry, and polygamists, or large groups of homosexuals coming together as one, who are you, or me, or any of us to say they can or can't? You seem to take a very negative approach to those incestual lovers wishing to have the basic and simple right, as you do, to marry and love whom they choose.

As for me, I think incest is wrong and a sin and should never be considered for legal marriage. But then again, I believe in a non-relative TRUTH. I just find it odd that you, who seems to claim all is fair for all, that you think incest is "creepy". If I think homosexuality is "creepy", you say I'm narrow-minded. How narrow is your mind when it comes to incest? I think you answered it. But I'm actually relieved, I'm glad you at least draw your own moral line in the sand SOMEWHERE!”

“Speaking for myself, when I think of incest, I think of an adult with a child. Child meaning an unwilling, controlled individual being sexually abused and programmed by an adult(over 18)relative. When I think of homosexuality, I think of two consenting adults. When I think of religion, I think of all of the different ones this world has and all the interpretations that just one religion can have. When I think of free-will, I think of all the humans who have really phucked that up.”

“Hi Wolfeyes! Incest has no more to do with an adult and a child than homosexuality does with NAMBLA. Incest is sex within the bounds of family, period. Obviously it can happen with an adult and a child, but child molestation can also happen from non-family members as well, so incest as a term has nothing to do with adult/child any more than non-relative adult/child sex does. I hope it's clear when I speak of incest, I speak of "legal adults" consenting to sex, because that is what I'm referring to. I just wanted to clear that up! Gracias Senorita!”

“Welp, then I guess incest is relative. Glad no one in my family finds me sexually attractive. This is one less issue I have to deal with, and thank you Jesus! I don't know how I would handle my Uncle Dad wantin' to marry me too! All I have to worry about is colon cancer...it runs on my mom's side.”

“As for regulating "love", I could marry a woman from Russia just to give her eventual citizenship, no law would ban that.

You're wrong. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
link

Any restrictions on how others want marriage to be would be based on other moral codes.

This seems to be the part you have this incredibly hard time understanding: No one is saying everything should be recognized as a marriage. We should let sense and reason dictate the laws concerning marriage, with the noble and (I know you'll agree) upright ideal of keeping the government out of our private lives as much as possible. In my opinion, with the evidence at hand on child development and psychology, there is no reason to ban GAY MARRIAGE. Note that I did not say incest.

Do you not think there are incestual lovers in this country who would love to have the legal status and benefits of marriage? Come on, they're are plenty of them! Just because you don't know any personally doesn't mean they don't exist!

Buck, I really have no idea about this. You're just going to either have to supply evidence that there is a significant minority of incestuous people in the US that want marriage rights (if you want to compare it on equal terms with gay marriage), or drop it. The burden of proof for this argument is on you - you brought incest into the discussion. No one here is advocating rights for incestuous couples or even bigamists, necessarily. The topic was, and should be, gay marriage.

And as for the right-winger quote: Please drop it. I'm doing my best to debate this topic on a person to person basis, and I've let dozens of your gaffs of a similar nature go, even though you continue to repeat them. You can forgive me one.”

“And by the way, The Defense of Marriage act was tied to a bit of hate crime legislation, so was probably a tit for tat type of thing.

Also, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize the "acts, records and proceedings" of all other states. This law has been declared unconstitutional by several authorities. It may well be that many liberals voted for this bill as they thought it would be overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional when brought for review.

But wht do I know?”

“Hi Phaedrus, here's from the link you provided:

--------------------------
1. What Is a Sham Marriage?
A sham marriage is one that is entered into in order to get around the U.S. immigration laws. For a marriage to be valid under the law, it is not enough that the couple had a real marriage ceremony and got all the right governmental stamps on their marriage certificate. They have to intend to live in a real marital relationship following the marriage ceremony -- and prove their intention through their actions. If the couple doesn't intend to establish a life together, their marriage is a sham. (For more on what the INS considers to be a real or bona fide marital relationship for purposes of green card eligibility, see Chapter 2, Section B.)
------------------------

This is my point... I can marry a Russian woman to get her legal status, not be in love, but merely to get her here legally, yet still act like she's my wife just like I would a real one. I'm not talking about dumping her once she gets here, I'm talking about legally marrying her, living with her, and getting her citizenship. The gov't can't touch that one bit. The gov't doesn't know the heart. They can't just say, "we suspect you just married her to get her here and you don't really love her, do you, Do You, DO YOU?" So we can't judge marriage based on "love" or not.

: "No one is saying everything should be recognized as a marriage. We should let sense and reason dictate the laws concerning marriage" - Phaedrus

I wish I remembered how to do the darn italics thing, it makes it easier to show your quotes. Anywho, you say we should let "sense and reason" dictate the laws concerning marriage. Sense and reason by WHO'S standard? If I read you correctly (and admittedly I could be wrong), you have stated that consenting adults should be able to get married, as long as there is no harm to each other. But you are putting your OWN restrictions on it by saying it should be reasonable and sensible. That means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Your reason may not reflect someone elses reasons. Your sense of what is right or wrong for marriage may not be what another's sense of right and wrong for a marriage. That is my point. By what universal standard do we use? We have had a universal standard here for a long time, but apparently that's too "limiting" for some, but there will always be a "some" group that's excluded. When do we say when? If you say right after we allow homos, then why stop there? Is that where YOU'RE comfortable stopping? There are a lot of people with minds much more open than yours, at least by your standards.

As for the right-winger quote, sorry, I thought you were still defending it, that's all.

As for incest, you say no one is advocating rights for incestual marriage. Are you against their rights then? On what basis do you want to deny them their rights as adults to get married in an incestual relationship? I'm lost? Seriously, I am. And it is my burden of proof that there are consenting adults partaking of this activity? Phaedrus, Shirley you've heard of incest? Do a basic Google search, try, oh, brother sister marriage, or something like that. I don't wanna have to prove to you that incest exists between consenting adults. Heck, I thought parts of the south and east were even famous for it? As for "significant minority" wanting marriage rights, what does that have to do with anything? Shouldn't EVERYONE have the same rights as consenting adults? Should we say, "oh, there's only a few thousand others like you, you must be odd, hence you have no rights like the others to marry"? Open up that mind and be accepting, Phaedrus! Remember, you'll stand up and fight for the minority if their rights are denied them?”

“Last post. Then I'm going to bed.

This is my point... I can marry a Russian woman to get her legal status, not be in love, but merely to get her here legally, yet still act like she's my wife just like I would a real one

Sure, any law can be broken, but that doesn't mean that the law doesn't make sense.

By sense and reason, I mean logic, and the governmental responsibility for the common good. If a particular law is harmful, rewrite it. It so happens that this particular law is harmful, and people are bringing it to the attention of government. Let those who have redress with other laws (or this one after it is revised) come forth on their own.

Each argument you've put forth about why we should not allow same-sex marriages was also put forward for interracial marriages, and I view this issue much the same. This is a civil rights issue to me, and I will defend the right to marry for same-sex couples.

Again, Buck, homosexuality has been shown through most scientific means to be a non-factor in the rearing of children, domestic violence, etc - all the issues surrounding marriage. If that is the same for incestuous couples (which I doubt), bigamy (of which I have no idea) then it would be prudent to look deeper at whether there is harm done by allowing marriages of that sort. I don't expect, personally, that you'd have to look hard. Oh and if a guy wants to marry a sheep, I'm fine with it as long as PETA doesn't burn down the neighborhood.

In other words, I'm busy trying to remove the log from my own eye, and don't have the ability to judge the morality of others, only the harmful effects of their actions.

Should the marriage laws change from time to time? Yes. All laws should.”

“: "Sure, any law can be broken, but that doesn't mean that the law doesn't make sense." - Phaedrus

Phaedrus, I guess you're missing my point. But I admit, I suck at communication, just ask my girlfriend.

You say any law can be broken, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Make sense to WHO? That's what I'm saying. Your sense of a good or bad law may differ from my sense of a good or bad law. We draw the lines based on our own judgments of right and wrong, good or bad.

You mentioned interracial marriages once being illegal. Well, using your ABOVE statement and logic, can't we then say that this interracial law can be broken, but that doesn't mean the interracial marriage law doesn't make sense?

You think homosexual marriage is okay because YOU'RE okay with it. But the rest of America as a whole isn't okay with it. Our lawmakers ARE NOT OKAY with it. Even most of our Democratic politicians are NOT OKAY with it and passed the Defense of Marriage Act saying a marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman.

When do we say a law is "okay" to change? When do we say enough is enough? You think homosexual marriage is okay, I don't. I don't care if homos have sex in private and do as they want, don't ask, don't tell. But many of us don't want gays to force SOCIETY as a whole to allow legal marriage status recognition. These are OUR civil codes, rules that society as a whole must live with. If the new rule for marriage is to be open and understanding and "consenting adults have rights to marry", then we shouldn't be able to legally discriminate against ANYONE wanting to get married. Saying to draw the line with incest, or polygamy, is DENYING RIGHTS to those consenting adults who want to marry under those circumstances. I truly don't get the "grounds" on which you can deny them these rights if "morality" is not the underlying code? Morality has long been intertwined in our laws, and it is being unraveled rather rapidly.

Gays can do whatever the flip they want to each other, I don't care, but I don't want to recognize and endorse and extend equal rights of marriage for this behavior, nor do I want to with polygamy nor incest nor any other immoral sexual perversions others may want to have society endorse as fine and dandy.

Arguing your side from a point of amoral open-mindedness MUST allow for any consenting adults to have the same rights of marriage.

: "Should the marriage laws change from time to time? Yes. All laws should." - Phaedrus

You say ALL laws should change from time to time? How 'bout the law that says murder is illegal? DON'T TELL ME YOU'RE NOW FOR THE LEGALIZED RIGHT TO MURDER? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! :Þ”

“"ah HA! Thanks, lactate, you proved my point! Why would you even SUGGEST that incest is "creepy"? Is that your OWN personal moral code that you wish to push on others?........."



I didn't say that incest was creey. I said YOUR obsession with incest was creepy, in fact calling YOU creepy. You failing to see that answers scores of questions for me.

I suggest you keep your sexual deviations to your self and off this board. There is porfessional help out there and I suggest you seek it out. Maybe someone out in TT land could provide a link for you.....”

“"While equal (EQUAL) rights for gays is no problem for me I'm bewildered at Dean claiming his religion is the reason. Just when the guy comes in from left field to apeal to the middle he runs right back out in left field!"


This is left field??? Guess that confirms, it; I'm a left wing radical.”

“"This is left field??? Guess that confirms, it; I'm a left wing radical."......."

No, shawn, your a Commie Socialist!”

“"..with the evidence at hand on child development and psychology, there is no reason to ban GAY MARRIAGE."

Phaedrus


There are a number of studies and thoughtful opinion about why gay marriage ought to be banned.

Gay Marriage

Studies


I read about a study on Swedish culture purporting to show that relaxed sexual mores, and homosexual marriage in particular, actually had an inluence on the divorce rate in that country. I couldn't find it during a quick search of the web.

As with most issues that are difficult to prove, it all depends upon which studies you believe.

You've had a lot of "right-wing" gaffs, Phaedrus. We can drop the subject but it sure would be nice to see you fess up.”

“I'm for polygamy.”

“Arguing your side from a point of amoral open-mindedness MUST allow for any consenting adults to have the same rights of marriage.

Given that there is no harm to others caused by such behavior, I'd call that about right. If, however, there is, then it has to be taken into account when creating laws.

As for the murder thing, Buck, you're really stretching. You try to take everything to its most absurd end.



Arclite:

Your weekly standard article is an opinion piece that freely admits it is a slippery slope. This is not logic, and has no place in creating and maintaining laws.

Your link under studies took me to an article by Dale O'leary, the author of the Gender Agenda, in response to the Vermont Psychiatric Association's professional review and brief for a Vermont marriage case. Leaving aside that O'leary has an obvious bias through religion, writing ant-feminist and anti-homosexual literature as he does for CatholicLight, The article has a great number of unsupportable claims. I dont' want to go into all of them, because I have other things to do with my time today, but here is one:

The VPA brief states: "Committed, same sex couples are similar to committed different sex couples, and marriages between partners of the same sex would be functionally comparable to marriages between partners of different sexes."

These "marriages" would not be functionally comparable because there is no way in which the relations between two persons of the same sex can result in the conception of a child that is biologically related to the two persons.

The state has a legitimate interest in the establishment of legal fatherhood. The purpose of homosexual marriage is to deny the link between children and their biological parents and create the fiction of "two mommies."

While I think the overall point is bogus, I'll instead just argue that the divorce rate between heterosexual couples with children is right around 28%. And more children, though I'm not looking for the stats, are born to single mothers.

Gay marriage is obviously neither a cure nor the cause of broken families, and it is generally aside from the point.

Yeah, it might be about which studies you believe, but I tend to pick the studies I will lend creedence to by what the researchers have to gain for the outcome. In other words, I'm not buying into a tobacco company's research about the curative affects of nicotine, for example.

You've had a lot of "right-wing" gaffs, Phaedrus. We can drop the subject but it sure would be nice to see you fess up.

I admit to calling you a "right wing shill" at one point, but don't remember anything else. Would you like an apology?”