quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

Well, if I may play devil's advocate for a moment

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Arancaytar:

Ah, the thread title brings back memories. It's that time of the year again. I wonder if ORLY and his pundit colleagues will try this OMGantichristianpersecution stunt again this year?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

All opposite-sex marriage is male-female. That is the pairing that is perceived to be ideal.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Excalibur:

I watched a segment on the news concerning the fact the surgeon general stated that Santa Claus should lose the belly as it sets a poor example for children. The news segment later added that Santa used to smoke a pipe.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Funkadelic:

When have I ever added anything "pithy" to the boards, Salmon? :P

And more to the point, you told me you loved me regardless...

---

quote:

---

The Post said two of the suspects had been charged with hate crimes in the past.

---

quote:

---

Written in the dictionary of Stillness:
Equivocating, (equivocation) - The act of presenting logical and well thought out arguments which a head in the mud religious person should avoid at all costs to their soul. See Clinton (William Jefferson) for possible methods of determining alternate truths.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Iffy:

I remember reading his old spammy posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Arancaytar:

Spaces are not currently allowed in names. This is probably a bug, since Jumping Salmon evidently got his account before this happened, but I do not currently know how to fix this. If you really want a space, I can put one in for you after you register.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Fernication:

One of the main reasons this topic has become such a political issue, I think, is that religious conservatives, naturally concerned with the social and psychological significance of marriage, are keenly aware of the divide between question 1 and question 2. They assume that the only answer is to restore marriage to its past significance, which is probably impossible to do in the tides of moving history. Social progressives are more aware of this but are more interested in debuffing marriage -- in question 2 -- than they are in solving the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

quote:

---

Originally written by Lazarus.:

Not permitting gay marriages gives the message that the government (and society in general) doesn't value homosexual relationships the same way it does heterosexual ones.

---

Why should it? Or better yet, should it have to if most don’t think it should? Especially if there are practical reasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:


Let’s say you want to build a home and live in an area that a city is trying to develop. To encourage you and anyone else that would do the same, they give you tax breaks and assistance. I am building a similar house in another area and want the same treatment, but the city discriminates against me and won’t give it. Should I be able to force their hand constitutionally? Or does the government have the right to show favor to a group they want to encourage, while not stopping anyone else from doing what they please?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Fernication:

I can't agree with this. While the relationship enshrined in marriage is certainly a private thing, marriage itself is one form (the traditional form) for a public representation of that relationship. Historically marriage ceremonies have tended to involve not just relatives and local officials but, often, entire communities. It seems to me its significance was always social more than anything else.

---