Oh yeah. Coming from you and what's-her-name, that means quite a bit to me. I'll have to take a lot of sedatives to sleep tonight, and may be in therapy for weeks now. Thanks for ruining my day.

Like I said, I recanted my statement on several occasions — several recently enough in the past few weeks, in addition to stating that I wouldn't be surprised to see him soften his position on same-sex marriage. You see, unlike you, he's a man that listens to others and is not afraid to admit when he's going down the wrong path.

"Most of us" here have done the same at one time or another. Still waiting for you to get the memo, though. But that's ok, bubelah, you keep harping away on old news and looking for your little "wins". That's your "depth", little boy, or the lack thereof.

Oh my. You said "dog poo." Somebody's lettin' somebody get under their skin.



*snicker*

Well looky here!

I want you to pay special attention to the date on that post. Five — that's cinco, fivaroony, a fin — months ago that I indicated a change in my opinion. And I couldn't even find the thread that preceded it where I said in response to your suggestion that Obama is homophobic, "...it appears that he is..." But that thread's gotta be even older than five months. That's how long you've been harping on a comment that no one else but you has ever remarked on. And I can count on you dredging this up at least once a month (yeah, I found some of those in my search, since I had to go so far back).

Obsessive compulsion like that should be treated. Soon. And don't talk to me about arguing with the big boys when tired, meaningless crap like this is the best you've got. Depth? When's your birthday, km. I'm gonna send you a pair of water wings. Hot pink ones.

That's beside the point of wether or not the decision in Vermont would "make a difference" in regards same-sex marriage rights in the US ...

Regardless:



Unless you're claiming a heterosexual man would have no problem gaining admission to such an organization, I don't really see the relevance of your question to the issue of equality under the law based on sexual orientation ...



Not if you're a lesbian woman ...

See? Doesn't really have anything to do with sexual orientation ...

[edit]

Ah, I see below you have decided to take my comments completely out of context to this thread and now apparently wish to discuss discrimination of any sort. That does clear things up a bit. Carry on ...

[/edit]

The logic is all there.

Given this entire thread has been about civil marriage and how that institution should or should not be made available to gay/lesbian couples, I'm pretty sure you have taken what I've said out of that context entirely ...

As to this particular post, though:

--> Generally <-- I oppose discrimination against any minority group in regards business, public policy or publicly-funded entities/institutions ...

Back to the thread:

The institution of religious marriage is a private affair and even though I may or my not personally disagree with restrictions a religion may want to impose on their own ceremonies and beliefs, they certainly have the right to do so ...

The institution of civil marriage, though, is entirely in the public realm -- and I do take issue with prohibiting access to the rights and benefits associated with civil marriage from those who, absent their filling an unpopular but perfectly legal role in society, would otherwise be able to enjoy them ...

Sure, sure... when you get the temptation to vent, hold back and say to yourself - 'what the heck - we're all Mac users'.

No, that's predicting a change in his opinion to accord with yours. You're really scraping the barrel if all you can put forward is a post that disproves your point.


Keep up Steve - I resurrect your "Obama is homophobic" claim every time you dredge up your wedge obsessions and fixations so think of it as looking in the mirror.

km

hehe, we've got another party going on today so I'll have come back at ya a bit later... Oh! I don't agree with anything in any of your last three posts but I might have to do isolated raids on different bits of 'em instead of trying to clear it all up in one go.

km

Isolated raid # 1


Makes no difference... the State has the right to prohibit discrimination in a private or public context.


You're singling out civil marriage. I'm including clubs and associations - one justifiable discrimination is as good as another. Why is only one man allowed in the Davis Cup mixed doubles? I'll tell you why - because second males are prohibited access to the rights and benefits associated with the mixed doubles.

km