"Someone does... why not start off with why President Obama is homophobic?"

If you mean, why does Obama support your definition of marriage legally (and possibly linguistically), I think the answer is one that can't be answered definitively now. For now, he is trying to be more centrist to include people in the US (and there are a lot of them) who favor not including gays among the truly married. If there were no such people to keep happy, I don't think it is a given that Obama would support keeping gays from getting married. Politicians supporting views and legislation they are not in agreement with personally is far from rare.

I would make the same possible argument for you, km, considering your profession. But your being so stuck on this topic leads me to doubt it.

So, you oppose the use of the term marriage for gays. Do you then, oppose gays having "civil unions" not entitled "marriage" that come with all the rights and privileges of heterosexual marriages? If this question has been asked (and answered) in detail before, I apologize. And I would prefer a "straight" answer, but it is your fingers doing the typing.

Dimmer sum?!?

I am sooo stealin' that one.

I've lost count of how many times I've also asked for that same "straight" answer. I've also stopped asking. km would insist that means I concede the point. I would insist I'm just conserving energy.

You are such a ganef!

And a potzevateh, too ~ I had to look it up.

yeah, and I've lost count of how many times I've provided it...

km

Okay, that seems to be a fair position.


Personally i have an open mind... but that necessarily involves asking questions rather than simply adopting a pedantic position.

As for being 'stuck' on the topic, I did actually attempt to close it down with my suggestion that the question of 'harm' was 'unresolved' which I thought was quite a generous compromise considering Dr Hanner is a therapist... but the thread was revived by padmavyuha.


Why would I? The right to civil partnerships has been passed into law after much deliberation not only in England but also in France and Germany and I'm on record as supporting it precisely because it confers the kind of equal rights you mention.

km

True dat. Hard to count that which isn't.

Okay, everyone knows you're wrong but to save time cast your eyes up just one post to my answer to lanovami and record that as example #1.

km

Saw it already, speedy. Not sure about casting my eyes up as much as rolling them. And as far as everyone "knowing" I'm wrong, well, some indeed probably do think I am. That's baseball for ya. But everyone? Maybe everyone on the jury in another of the myriad Cases In Your Head.