For shame, Sir, it is most uncourtly to attack a lady in such an ad hominem way.  You have proven yourself quite unreasonable and are now striking out for being rightly called for it.  Now, if your morality is so high flown, you should make your amends to the lady, express your ideas more precisely in the future, and resolve not to be a psychopath in the public eye any longer.

A lady would likely not stand up for the rights of godless heathen to do as they please with each other.

If you want to know how I addressed her, I recommend you hack into her private message file.

A noted American poet said it best when he said, "We're from the East side, N*&%a, bring yo' ass.

I thought you said that you are not religious? What non-religious person refers to people as godless heathens? I would really like to pin you down to one position on this (and yes I mean that sexually, preferably on your hands and knees with your butt in the air). Are you religious or not and what religion are you?

What the holy Fuck does that mean and what does it have to do with the discussion at hand?

     As always, Nero, you're one of my favorites on this forum.    Thanks.

AImboden - I appreciate your kind words in the PM.  I think from now on we can agree to disagree without getting nasty towards each other. 

The fact is that homosexuals are indeed dying from lack of rights.  As Friar Zero has already mentioned, in some countries homosexuality is punishable by death.  

People don't do what was done to Matthew Sheppard for shits and giggles.  They did it because they thought he was perverse, less than human.  They were filled with hate and prejudice.

We cannot allow this to continue and by our government denying the rights of homosexuals, they are asserting that homosexuals are indeed somehow 'less'.  

Think of it this way, would you deny rights to black people? 

Okay, I'm confused. I was going to issue a warning for ad hominem attacks... 

Ha!  I am not sure what was in the PM but I was pretty much waiting for Pariah to thank AImboden for the compliment of calling her critical and obnoxious.  As a fellow critical and obnoxious female, I shall raise my glass and toast her this evening - Pariah, you are one sassy bitch!  LOL  (You know I love you, right?)

AImboden, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and thankfully the majority in this country does not rule on such issues.  The United States has faced these issues before and sensiblity will win out regardless of bigoted minds.  All couples who choose to enter into the contract of marriage should be afforded equal rights and they will be soon.  Sadly, the wheels churn slowly but it will happen.   

Again, your sense of etiquette is quite askew.  A polite person does not publically attack a person and privately attempt to assuage rightful umbrage.  Even in the quote above, you attack her right to be called a "lady."  This is a heinous, unnecessary attack on her in a public sphere. 

Further, when I see an epsilon-semimoron making incendiary commentaries, I will not "shut my yappity hole."  You are precisely the sort of fellow who would behood himself and ride about burning crosses.  No, Sir, I will not be silent.  I will continue to show you where you err and manifest the proper qualities of gentlemanlike conduct.

I am proud that I don't burn crosses. (or people) In spite of the fact that I come from a Southern family (google last name)with German roots.

If you want me to act like a gentleman's gentleman, you are going to be waiting a long time.

Wow, and a brave new world reference too. Ouch!

*makes a slight bow to Gauche*

Shall I take it upon myself to educate this Rebel, or would you like to school him in works written by those other than George Wallace?

Rebel (as is your new nomenclature), I care little for your Teutonic origins or whether you family's genealogy is colinear.  I will not allow you to behave however you please when a lady is in question.  So, ready yourself, Rebel, to be labeled "knave" as often as it takes to teach you proper etiquette.

Like I said, I don't burn people.  I have been known to smoke a few.  Some for less than you've done.

Is nero your first name or last...hero?

It is neither my surname nor my given name.  Nero was an emperor in an ancient emprire called Rome.  Now, I know that Rome is just a city in Europe now (Europe is the continent that your German relations came from), but Rome was an empire that stretched from England to the Middle East. 

The Emperor Nero was a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, which ruled this empire for about a century (100 years).  He was a misanthrope but had a quick wit and found Christianity repugnant.

So, I chose the name for our common dislike of Christianity.  I do not share my surname online because of the enormous number of unstable people there.  You are a perfect example of that instability. 

Again, though, I appreciate the encomium with regard to my "heroism," I am no hero.  I may be gallant but not a hero.

I like the hero part, and I like the part where you have standards.

I don't like feeling personally attacked because I want children (no prejudices) to grow up in a safe, healthy environment.

Here is a little scenario:

Say 10,000 people have bleeding hemorroids and they all make banners and march down the street.

A certain percent of those people are going to get their ass kicked by people who didn't want to know that.

You play, you pay.  If you don't like the concequences, keep your disgusting habits to yourself.

Is that too much to ask?  (please don't answer that, I don't want to talk about this anymore.)

Your intolerance for others is an extremely disgusting habit so when you spread it all over these boards like a primate spreading their feces then you will get attacked as you put it. I don't like the air that you are spreading. I don't like the smell of it; it's palpable. So let’s go by your rules then. As you said yourself you play you pay. Now play nice and stop exposing the bloody hemorrhoids of your small minded bigotry to me. Maybe you can understand your own metaphor.

I am a primate. What are you, a computer savvy hampster?

Same concept:

10,000 people rub shit all over themselves and make banners and march down the street...

OK, what you fail to realize is that in your scenario you are the equivalent of the person with shit all over them not gay people. Gay people are just trying to live their lives without getting your shit on them. It’s your hate not theirs. It’s your bad behavior that they have cause to fear not the other way around. It’s your ignorance that presses them to the margins of society. You are not a victim just because gay people live. But your shitty behavior is a problem for them. Get it? Ah, il est bête comme ses pieds!

I'm going to have to say that was a nice one.

However I really don't get your arguments. I'll take them as they came, in order, and leaving out that which seems irrelevant or incoherant. Fortunately I am not insecure regarding my own sexuality, so I don't mind the tone this response will likely take.

What makes a hetrosexual better or more important than a booger eater or a scab eater? You do realize that a homosexual finds hetrosexuality as disgusting as you find homosexuality do you not?

They shouldn't be compared to single people. It's they compared to I. What they should be compared to is couples. And in that regard they lack in benefits that other couples recieve. Now if you want to argue for stripping couples rights from all couples, that's a different topic I think. But if benefits are going to be offered, they should be offered without descrimination.

Marriage precedes all religions in practice today. Therefore the misguided beliefs or practices of a false religion is irrelevant in the face of the benefits to society.

Since when have you been asked to pay for a gay couple to get married? Or perhaps you mean taxes. In which case, why do you have no problem paying for hetrosexual marriages? They aren't benefitting you any more than homosexual marriages do.

I think you're unrealistic. Do you seriously think it would be remotely possible to remove marriage rights from all couples? You don't think married couples would have a problem with that? It's far easier to extend a benefit offered timelessly than it is to shift the entire society you know.

You know, I find it interesting that you say this. Out of all the people I've ever encountered, when lining them up according to sexual orientation, I've only known two complete morons that deserved the ass kicking they got who were homosexual. Compared to hundreds or thousands of complete and total idiots who are hetrosexual and deserved the ass kicking they got or should get. By your logic, I shouldn't go out of my way to help "normal" people, and instead should help the oppressed minority.

I should hope not. Considering the site actively opposes anything claimed as sacred.

None of the homosexual relationships I have witnessed was subject to any of these claims. Ironically, only in hetrosexual relationships have I seen this. And yet, I'm willing to admit that my experiences cannot be claimed as evidence of a lack of these things. Are you willing to admit that your experiences cannot be claimed as evidence that these things are all that happens?

I'm not much of a fan of a parade of rainbows and naked weird people either. But then I'm not a fan of parades in general, so it's merely an extension. I'm also not a fan of people, so it's an extension of that too. But ultimately, I know it's done because the prejudices against them are so horrid and common place that shock and awe is really the only way to snap people out of their stupidity and accept these people for the people they are.

An immoral set of morals.

Which is so much worse than morals made up by people two thousand years ago. [/sarcasm]

If you factor in my lack of religion and my IQ I'm an even bigger minority than yourself, let alone the average homosexual. I do bitch when someone gets rights and I don't, or when someone gets rights and someone else doesn't. I don't bitch when not getting rights noone else gets.

A fair question. The answer is simple. Why should it be limitted to two? As far as I'm concerned the number of people entering such a contract should be limitted to one and only one factor: Consent.

Gays have a damn good reason for making sure everyone knows their sexuality. They are seeking equal rights. You can't gain equal rights if you're invisible you know. Not to mention it helps things along in the relationship department. You're not going to ask someone out who's gay if you aren't gay yourself. And vice versa.

Gays and fetishs' are two seperate issues. Gays have a sexual orientation wich is a seperate issue than fetishs.

Pleanty of heterosexual people have sexual fetishs.

This just amounts to YOU being homophobic. You equating observations about some gay people does not make all gay people the same.

10,000 people rub the crap of bigotry on their brains and make stupid posts.

You dont like gay sex, THEN DONT HAVE SEX WITH GAYS. But you are not their boss and THEY are NOT harming YOU!

This just amounts to YOU finding it "yucky". That doesnt make you their dictator. 

MOMMY, PEOPLE ARNT CLONES OF ME. MOMMY MAKE THEM LIKE ME MOMMY! 

Crybaby! Stop acting like an ignorant baby and get over the fact that people are different than you and that you do not have the right to dictate to them or deny them the same rights you have.

The world does not belong or bow to you. 

You do relaize that ther is a good chance one of these children is gay.  How is homosexuality creating an unsafe and unhelathy enviroment?

That is the arguement of a bigoted little boy and it disgust me.  I think I've had enough you sir, my bullshit meter for the year is quite full after seeing your hate filled, ignorant, homophobic comments. 

I don't like to be around gay people for a few reasons. 1. It would make me more likely to get my ass kicked. 2. The same reason I have a phobia of people who carry pipe bombs in their back pocket.  3. They cannot keep their sexuality to themselves.

 If it makes you feel any better, alot more straight people get their ass kicked by straight people than do gay people.

Trust me, they don't like to be around you either. 

It would only make you more likely to get your ass kicked if you act like you do on this forum, i.e. a bigoted homophobe (read: if you act like a civilized human, you have nothing to worry about).

I would be more afraid of them exploding than getting my ass kicked, but I don't personally know many people who carry pipe bombs, so I guess you're better informed in that regard.

What you probably mean is that they're not willing to submit to oppression and live in hiding, which well they shouldn't.

A lot more gay people get their asses kicked by straight people because of their sexuality than straight people do.

Can't argue with you there. But honestly, he's been conversationally destroyed regarding his original post/blog and the best reasoning he could come up with for his bigotry was that he is a bigot. The conversation has long since been over and now I think it has turned to discussing how many degrees of bigot he really is.

Having a conversation with someone so deeply misinformed about equal treatment under the law, respect for those who differ from you, and the social contract in general is likely not going to have much of a yield.

But to give another answer to one of your questions: you were arguing against equal rights for homosexual couples and then said [paraphrased] then why not give plural marriages equal rights?

There is no more reason to exclude plural marriage from basic household rights than there is to exclude homosexual couples or, for an example closer to home, bigots who are incapable of comprehending basic social contract. Why shouldn't civil union be easily accessible and why shouldn't it provide equal privilege?

No logical reason that I can think of.