MovieChat Forums > 8: The Mormon Proposition (2010) Discussion > Why 'domestic partnership' doesn't work....

Why 'domestic partnership' doesn't work....

posted 14 years ago by cookiela2001
172 replies | jump to latest

I've read posts here saying that those for Marriage Equality should back off from trying to be included under the "marriage" umbrella, as the public would (supposedly) be more open to gays and lesbians having all the same rights in their relationships legal marriage offers if only a different word were used for the unions.

But listen, the reason it’s better to go all the way for the term “marriage” is because as long as gays are in a separate legal category, that particular category will always be vulnerable to zealots who want to abolish it.

For instance, the article below details a lawsuit just filed in Kentucky, where a conservative group is trying to do away with their state’s Domestic Partnership Registry.

CUT + PASTE: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/wi/article_cbb1018a-ab0b-11df-8d15-001cc4c002e0.html

The fact is, the vast number of conservatives have never wanted to help lesbians and gays achieve anything. That’s not going to stop any time soon, and gays and lesbians have to protect themselves from that.

We all should remember that when others fall back on the “we’re just arguing about a word…otherwise, we’re on YOUR SIDE” stance.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LAWSUIT CHALLENGES STATE'S DOMESTIC PARTNER REGISTRY

By SCOTT BAUER | The Associated Press lacrossetribune.com
Posted: Thursday, August 19, 2010

La Crosse Tribune

MADISON — A social conservative group filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging Wisconsin’s domestic partner registry, arguing it is a violation of the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The lawsuit filed in Dane County Circuit Court by members of Wisconsin Family Action contends the registry creates a legal status substantially similar to that of marriage.

Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, proposed the registry as a means of granting same-sex couples more legal rights, such as the right to visit each other in hospitals, make end-of-life decisions and inherit each other’s property. The Democratic-controlled Legislature approved the registry and it went into effect in August 2009. By the end of the year 1,329 couples had signed up.

The same-sex marriage ban, actively pushed by the same group bringing the lawsuit against the registry, was added to the constitution by voters in 2006.
“A reasonable person observing this registry would easily conclude that it is intended to mirror marriage,” said Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action, in a statement. “It borrows the requirements and eligibility standards for marriage, even to the point of requiring that the price of the registry certificate be the same as for a marriage license.”

The registry’s benefits do not come close to the rights that come with marriage, said Katie Belanger, executive director Fair Wisconsin, the state’s largest gay rights group that lobbied lawmakers to approve the registry.

She said the registry extends 43 benefits compared with 200 for married couples under state law.

“These are the most basic, critical things that couples need to have to take care of one another,” Belanger said.

Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen previously refused to defend the registry when the same group attempted to get the state Supreme Court to take up the issue before it went through the lower courts. Madison attorney Lester Pines defended the registry in that case and will continue to represent the state in the new lawsuit.

“This is not a surprise,” Pines said. “We expect to vigorously defend the domestic partner registry’s constitutionality and we expect to prevail in defending it.”

The Supreme Court refused to take up that case, leading the group to refile it in circuit court.

In June, the state Supreme Court did uphold the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions but the ruling did not affect the registry.

[–] Screen-7 14 years ago

The problem with domestic partnership is they are a compromise.

Compromises only work when both parties are honest about it.

One thing we have learned about conservatives is that they will exploit and abuse compromises.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" was meant to be a compromise but conservatives turned it into a witch hunt, damaging the lives of many good soldiers.

Conservatives will surely use domestic partnerships as a way to make gay marriages second class.

So, for me, there is no compromising the full rights of Gay Americans.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

Separate but equal?

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

questionablesellerwarnin,

Most of your argument is irrelevant. We don't put equal rights to a vote so it doesn't matter what percentage of people oppose it.

[–] AmericanGayAtheist 14 years ago

Most of your argument is irrelevant. We don't put equal rights to a vote so it doesn't matter what percentage of people oppose it.

EXACTLY!!!

"Atheism is a 'Religion' sort of like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby!!!"

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

Hmmm... Interesting...

If it was so clear that only heterosexual marriage was legal then why the need for California's Prop 22 back in 2001?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

A loophole... the CA family code required the state to recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Turns out that when they re-wrote the family code (section 300) back in 1977 they specifically changed the definition of marriage to be only between a man and woman.

That's fascinating because I thought that anti-gay-marriage (AGM) crowd kept telling us that we weren't allowed to "redefine" marriage. Turns out they pioneered the concept of redefining marriage.

From that point, you are correct... In 1977 they had added section 308 but failed to also add in the man-woman discriminatory language in that section. Realizing this in 2000, they had to once again redefine marriage and thus Prop 22 was born.

But, you see, contrary to the AGM propoganda, those in favor of marriage equality are NOT the ones redefining things. We're just trying to get back to the way the law was written prior to the unconstitutional changes that happened in 1977.

And now you know... the rest of the story.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cookiela2001 14 years ago

<< The people have also spoken and they don't want it either. >>

No. What you mean is, A slightly larger (by 2%?) number of those who voted in California oppose marriage equality.

You can hardly call that "The People".

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

Isn't the constitution supposed to protect minorities against the vote of the majority?

You keep claiming that gay civil rights are not the same as black civil rights, but isn't that just another form of discrimination?

[–] Mr_Ectoplasma 14 years ago

Essentially, yes, it is. Same with the whole "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that discharges openly gay soldiers. It'd the same thing as if someone were to discharge a soldier for being 'openly' African American, or openly Jewish. It's so ass backwards.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zan-tastic 14 years ago

You can't compare somebody being "openly Jewish" with a male soldier who is physically attracted to other men, unless the open Jew is in the GERMAN army during WWII.

So...you're saying that a man shouldn't be openly gay in the military because the entire army hates gays and wants to kill them?

"I'm struggling to decide if this guy's an amazing troll or just a complete moron."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zan-tastic 14 years ago

Yeah, dipsh-t. That's exactly what I said.

Another retard weighs in.

I think this response totally obliterates your insistence that you only attack posters who have attacked you. There was no attack in that post, yet when I draw the most prevalent conclusion from your absurd analogy and ask if that was what you meant to say, suddenly I'm a dipsh!t and a retard. I've never seen anyone destroy his own defense so fast.

Just to let you know, the next time you claim that you "never attack posters unless they attack you first" I'm going to post a link to your response to me. After I stop laughing my ass off, of course.

"I'm struggling to decide if this guy's an amazing troll or just a complete moron."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mr_Ectoplasma 14 years ago

Anti-semitism is still very much alive, just for the record; maybe not as rampant as homophobia, but there are people who are still very hostile toward Jews. Regardless, it's discrimination of a fixed attribute of somebody, which is by all accounts, wrong. They are the same thing, regardless of the time era or circumstances.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

You can't compare somebody being "openly Jewish" with a male soldier who is physically attracted to other men, unless the open Jew is in the GERMAN army during WWII.

Actually we can, because it is exactly the same thing. It is an instance of a soldier being required to lie about himself - something fundamental and unchanging - or lose his job.

Either gays are all IN/all OUT/or limit them to jobs outside of soldiering.

Because why? Because gay people can't be soldiers? I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of gay soldiers who would disagree.

NOBODY should have to hide their own sexual or ethnic identity.

You're right. They also shouldn't have their sexual orientation define what job they're suited for.

Hell, if they called me up for Vietnam, I would have arrived at the induction center in a shocking pink pants suit, prancing around more than hadmatter at a Judy Garland film festival!

But you don't hate they gays, right? You call us freaks and perverts, and you happily pelt me with slurs, even though
A) I was not the one with whom you were conversing
B) I am not a drag queen, and neither are most gay men
C) I have seen exactly one Judy Garland movie in my lifetime

You are a bigot. You like to pretend otherwise, but THIS is the behavior I'm talking about when I say that I don't need you to actually type the phrase "I hate gay people and I am against gay rights". Your behavior makes the sentiment clear.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zan-tastic 14 years ago

C) I have seen exactly one Judy Garland movie in my lifetime

Wizard of Oz, am I right?

"I'm struggling to decide if this guy's an amazing troll or just a complete moron."

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

Naturally. It was on two or three times a year when I was kid, and we only had three channels.

And I'll be more than happy to never see it again!

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Screen-7 14 years ago

>> questionablesellerwarnin 3 days ago (Tue Sep 21 2010 00:47:56)
>> We already HAVE equal rights under the law.
>> You are governed by the same laws that I am.
>> Neither one of us may marry another man.

You have the right to marry the partner you love.

Gays are denied that right.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Screen-7 14 years ago

>> questionablesellerwarnin 5 days ago (Sun Sep 19 2010 03:48:25)
>> P.S.to screen7..there is no such thing as a "gay marriage". It is an oxymoron.

Says who? I don't think same sex marriage is an oxymoron. Except for a few body parts, it's the same as hetero marriage.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

Only an idiot incapable of seeing the big picture actually thinks definitions of social institutions are fixed. Especially if you want to look at the realtively short history of the United States. The sooner you understand that constructs can change, the better off you will be. But that's clearly too much to ask of some people at this stage in their lives, and as a result, things aren't going to end well for them.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"Unfortunately, YOU are incapable of seeing one construct that will NEVER change."

It's already happening.

"Two men cannot create a family. Neither can two women."

T-H-A-T D-O-E-S-N'T M-A-T-T-E-R.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"It matters to the majority of people who are against this garbage, you NUT!"

Show any proof that the majority of people oppose same-sex marriage because a same-sex couple cannot reproduce.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"if this isn't the PRIMARY reason it is certainly related."

Then why does nobody else ever harp harp harp away on this like you do? If you were paying attention, obviously people other than yourself are concerned about the fear based ideas of children having to accept this and churches having to recognize it.

"Many people say they don't like to see marriage being cheapened by allowing two queers to marry."

Therefore the conclusion to draw then would be the queer part and a routine proven historical objection to most anything progressive having to do with said queers. Unless one is personally pointlessly obsessed with reproduction and is just adding that obsession to routinely dilute the point here in good ol 2010. It's obvious that if one were to ask people who are not you if there is a huge hypocrisy in allowing opposite sex couples who cannot have children to marry while keeping homosexuals from doing the same FOR THAT REASON they will acknowledge it. The conclusion on that is clear, that it's beside the point.

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

Questionable wrote: "Many people say they don't like to see marriage being cheapened by allowing two queers to marry."

Judge Walker essentially agreed with that statement. In his decision on Prop 8 he said that the AGM argument basically amounted to wanting to deny marriage equality because they disliked homosexuals.

Since there was no actual evidence to show how marriage equality would "cheapen" or otherwise harm hetero marriage, he declared their argument to be baseless and unconstitutional.

So there you have it... QuestionableSeller and Judge Walker agree on something. And that something is the reason that Prop 8 is going down.

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

Gay couples have been creating families for years, so you can't really say that they can't create a family. They can't biologically have children, but they can create families.

[–] cookiela2001 14 years ago

Yes, the more inclusive "create a family" is even some of the language used in (I think) Zablocki v. Redhail as pertains to human rights in America. (Anyway, it's one of those key cases identifying marriage as "a fundamental human right".) The Supreme Court already knew then that no one should draw a distinction between raising an adopted child and a biological one.

Adoption was a big, shadowy issue in the first part of the 20th Century, clouded in a lot of shame and secrecy, because it was presumed an adopted child was born out of wedlock, and therefor stayed "illegitimate". By the time those decisions were handed down the courts had undergone some sensitivity training.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

You don't need to be married to biologically have children, either.

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

Unfortunately, YOU are incapable of seeing one construct that will NEVER change.
Two men cannot create a family. Neither can two women.

Make babies? No. But there is no causal link between marriage and babies.

However, "create a family"? Oh, you are so wrong about that.

I guess maybe that's what has you so terrified, you giant gay-bashing homophobe.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

"Make babies? No. But there is no causal link between marriage and babies"

Whatever you say, sh-t-for-brains.

SO, are you trying to say that there is a causal link? Or are you just very grudgingly acknowledging that I am right (as usual) and you are wrong, as always?

Yes. I shouldn't have used those words. We all understand that two people can adopt a child. Of course, THIS has nothing to do with marriage.

Right, just as reproduction has nothing to do with marriage. You're destroying your own already-structurally-unsound argument.

I've never come on these boards to bash ANY group.

...and yet, all you do is call gay people vile, disgusting, lying perverts with "MANGINAS".

I'm not an intolerent radical like you.

You're an intolerant Neanderthal. That's so much better than a radical!

Of course, for me to be a radical, I should probably have to hold views a little more extreme than "gay people ought to be allowed to get married". The very fact that you believe this position to be radical is pretty much a verification of your Neanderthal status. Thank you.

I DO enjoy exposing LYING ASS HOLES and I've done that on a regular basis to you and some of your friends here.

I have never lied here. You, however, lie all the time. Like right now, where you say you've exposed me as a liar. I keep mentioning the fact that you have never exposed me as a liar, and all you ever do is say "I exposed you as a liar!" But you can't seem to offer up a single instance where I have actually lied about something.

I keep hearing the accusations from the PEE NUT gallery but once again, you are NEVER able to present a single valid example where my purpose here was to bash homosexuals.

Obviously, in this context, we are talking about verbal bashing. And you cannot go a single post without it. You call names. You make disgusting accusations. You wish for our deaths.

You are an insecure little pussy who MUST play the victim in order to be counted.

Nah. I acknowledge that I'm the "victim" in the equation, but it doesn't bother me. I've certainly taken down stronger Neanderthals than you in my time.

You feel you HAVE to attack because you don't have even one legitimate point to make.

Wrong again. I don't have to attack. I just enjoy hunting cavemen.

Unfortunately for you, when you invoke these accusations which have NO basis in fact, you look even MORE pathetic than you already are.

You mean, the accusations that are obviously true, and which every single person reading these boards can see? We've got eyes, cocktard. We can see the anti-gay language you use.

For example:

You've just GOT to be the little bitch in your "marriage". No wonder you were so sensitive about anal sex. Hope your "husband" is still around to wipe your ass for you when you become incontinent.

Of course, nothing you wrote there has even the slightest basis in truth, but you hate me, and you hate gays so much, that it is impossible for you to refrain from saying something like that.

You foolishly accuse me of not having a legitimate point to make, yet you have failed to address anything in my post. You have just screamed and called me names. I think it's clear to all on this board, you violent little man, that it is you who have come to this fight unarmed.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] Zan-tastic 14 years ago

^win^

"I'm struggling to decide if this guy's an amazing troll or just a complete moron."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

I'm saying that you're babbling an incoherent statement that has nothing to do with the discussion.

It has everything to do with the discussion. You stated that one of the reasons gays should not be married is because we can't make babies. For this point to be valid, there would have to be a causal link between marriage and reproduction.

I'm not going to keep discussing the same thing over and over again.
We were talking about ADOPTION and this has nothing to do with marriage.
We have already established that you HAVE to say reproduction and biology has nothing to do with marriage because if you admitted it, you would have nothing to say. Funny that only idiots such as yourself make this ridiculous statement.

If it such a "ridiculous statement", then why have you failed to provide a single link between marriage and reproduction? I have asked you to provide this information a dozen times... but you can't, because it doesn't exist.

"...and yet, all you do is call gay people vile*******,
disgusting******,
lying*****
perverts*******
with "MANGINAS".**********

You are a piece of SH-T.
You told FIVE LIES in that one sentence.
I don't categorize GROUPS of people.

I call PEOPLE like YOU vile.

"People like you" is a group of people. And you only use that description against gay people and people who support marriage equality.

I call PEOPLE like YOU disgusting.

"People like you" is a group of people. And you only use that description against gay people and people who support marriage equality.

I call PEOPLE like YOU liars.

"People like you" is a group of people. And you only use that description against gay people and people who support marriage equality.

I NEVER said that gay people have "manginas". It is is a joke that illustrates that the ONLY way two men will be able to produce offspring is id you grew one. Actually, delusional dunbass, there's no such thing as a "mangina".

So, in one paragraph you lie and say that you don't refer to gay men as having "manginas", even though you have said to me and several others. And then you say it was a joke, which is a pretty weird thing for you to protest, if you never actually used the word.

So yeah, you do say that gay men have "manginas". I did not suggest that you said this thing because you believed it... it's just part of your verbal gay-bashing.

Do you really think that you will be able to get away with this insipid behavior for the rest of your life?

What, you mean calling out your sorry ass on the awful things you say to people? Yes, I do think I can get away with it. If you have problem with that, ass hole, I gave you my address.

The very idea of "gay marriage" and THE WAY YOU PRESENT IT with your attacks on anyone that doesn't go along with your idea, is RADICAL.

"The way I present it"? I have never characterized gay marriage in any way at all, liar. And it's not "my idea", and the only person I attack on here is you. Because you are a gay basher.

You really are a sick bastard. I've put ******* next to your lies in this post alone. We're up to 11 lies thus far in this post alone.

Just saying something is a lie doesn't make it so. You have called me, and other gay men, all of the names that I said you called me. Therefore, you do call gay people all of those things, liar.

I verbally bash the scum that is dishonest, twists my words, presents BS, and attack me personally. You said "gay bashing". It has nothing to do with your sexual preference. I don't call your attacks on me "straight bashing". Can you EVER be honest..about ANYTHING?

And the only people that you call dishonest scum blah blah blah fvck buddy mangina blah blah blah are gays and those who support gay rights. You are gay basher, and even worse, you are a sniveling cowardly gay basher who is not even brave enough to admit to his own hatred.

I doubt that a lightweight like you has ever taken down anything, except his pants in a public stall..if you recall our previous conversation.

You have my address, pussy.

I don't know why you are wasting your time continuing to employ this nonsensical approach with ME. I see right through your scam.

Think you're so smart, huh? Then why can't you offer a reply without homophobic name calling? Why are you unable to show this mythical link wherein marriage and reproduction are interdependent?

LOL!! That was a comment specifically about YOU. You act like a little bitch here all of the time. You also attempted to tell us that anal sex wasn't such a big deal with make homosexuals.

I did not. I told you that not all gays engage in anal sex, and that it was certainly not the same thing as homosexuality.

I pointed out the actual statistics about the majority of HIV infections every year are generated by mansex and you couldn't counter that fact.

I don't know what you're talking about.

This is all about YOU. Of course, I don't know your personal habits but if you ARE bending over nightly, better have lots of diapers around, IF you even live that long.

Who cares? Whether your homophobic gay-bashing comments are directed at me or at gays in general does not make them any less homophobic. If you knew some black guy called Gary and you hated Gary and you called him a "watermelon-sucking *beep* it would still be racist, even if you just hate Gary and not all black guys in general.

As I just stated it is obviously speculation. I said "you've just gotta be.." How would *I* know? I DO hate you but as I've stated many, many times, I do NOT hate any one "group".

Yes, I'm quite sure that you don't hate any one group.

That's just an absurd accusation. If you were HONEST and debated fairly, without personal attacks,

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

I would have no reason to say these things.

You don't, except for your own personal hatred of homosexuals.

You need to take a long look at yourself, the lies that you tell, and how DISHONEST your behavior has been on these boards.

No lies from me here.

You LAUGHED at the 2.1% gay population figure AFTER I posted the sources..which are your own gay advocate groups.

I laugh at most things you say, nothing personal. And actually, I only laughed at you when you continued to post that information without citing a source, you liar. I have not commented upon it at all since then.

You call me violent but I have never threatened violebce or have been involved in a violent act.

You with death upon homosexuals. You are violent.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

What do you mean "a link"? I can't tell you for certain what was on the minds of every single country in the world when they established marriage law but I DO know that homosexual marriage didn't end up in any country's marriage laws that I am aware of. It is obvious to everyone but freaks like you WHY marriage was made the way it was. All of the laws and even the dictionaries support man/woman marriage. The race needs to be propagated and the LEGAL means in which we do this is through marriage. Homosexuals have no part in this.

Yawn.

Can people reproduce without marriage?

Yes, they can?

Then... NO LINK. Fail.

Yes, but the mistake YOU always make is categorizing MY wrath as being against ALL GAYS or SSM PROPONENTS when I am only singling out the LIARS and BULLSH-T ARTISTS like YOU. I have had a few discussions on here with people that support SSM and as long as they are honest and do not attack me because I disagree with them, there is no animosity. Unfortunately, you and some of your fellow loons are incapable of this kind of discourse.

Liar. You have no civil discussions with anyone who disagrees with you.

Are you really THIS much of an ass hole to even bring this up?
I said that you would have to grow a "mangina" if you ever expected people to reasonably expect that you had ANYTHING to contribute to marriage.

That's ONE of the times you said it, yes.

What about the other several dozen?

Right. This is the focal point of all gay-bashing. Suggest growing an organ that doesn't exist.

So, your defense is that because not ALL gay bashing uses this particular format, then it doesn't count?

Do you actually HEAR yourself? Poor little victim! "Somebody made a joke about growing a woman's body part and I'm being gay-bashed!"

Why don't you file a lawsuit for this heinous hate crime I have perpetrated?

Because I don't care.

As far as your address is concerned, I didn't take note of it but don't recall you posting the city. You also didn't reveal your name, "big man".

It's all there.

You present your arguments in a consistently dishonest fashion. That is what I'm talking about and you know it. Once again with the "gay-bashing"...you're such a little pussy. Do you still suck on your mama's titty?

My arguments are always 100% accurate. You disagree so you call me a liar, but it doesn't make you right. It's just makes you wrong and an ass hole, instead of just wrong.

And I NEVER said that all gays engage in it as you attempted to suggest I did.

Yeah, you did.

I posted that the majority of HIV infections every year from the very beginning were caused by man on man sexual contact. One of you idiots disputed this and posted a bunch of irrelevant stats and I once again proved that I was correct. I wouldn't expect you to remember when I pissed on the lie you've been going with for decades.

Still don't know what you're talking about.

"Who cares? Whether your homophobic gay-bashing comments are directed at me or at gays in general does not make them any less homophobic. If you knew some black guy called Gary and you hated Gary and you called him a "watermelon-sucking *beep* it would still be racist, even if you just hate Gary and not all black guys in general'

You love repeating the same bullsh-t, don't you?
Still waiting for proof of my "homophobic gay-bashing" comments and
don't post the same lies that you posted last time. Post something that I haven't already shot down as another one of your filthy falsehoods.

You use gay-bashing terms all the time. I don't give a flying *beep* whether or not you insist that they aren't really homophobic or that the fact that you hate gay people isn't the real reason that you choose to employ homophobic language. You use it all the time. Your motivation is immaterial.

ME:I would have no reason to say these things.

YOU: You don't, except for your own personal hatred of homosexuals.

Repeating yourself like a retard. Delusional idiot that STILL has zero proof.

Except for your desire to deny equal rights, and your love of using homophobic language.

"No lies from me here"

I documented FIFTEEN lies in your last post alone. You're so disturbed that you don't even know when you're lying. The things that you pull out of your ass about me you believe to be true. You're mentally diseased.

Yes, you documented them, but since none of them were lies and I just ignored that. Calling me a liar because I accused you of using homophobic language that you actually used, even in the same post in which you denied it, is just plain stupid.

You CAN'T comment on it because I PROVED that you and your loons have been knowingly LYING about it since these groups were established. I KNEW that the 2.1% figure was true and if YOU did a little bit of research, you would have learned about it as I did. When you liars kept bitching about a source, I finally posted it. You ALSO just lied about not laughing about it since I posted the source. You quoted me in this last post and added the laughing icons. Man, you really DON'T know when you are lying! Jesus Christ! Can you actually sink any lower than you already have? You laughed directly after that statement which is 100% true and you deny it..unbelievable.

No, I never lied about that, and frankly none of the figures are accurate so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. You CANNOT get an accurate figure on something that has such a stigma attached to it, and THE FIGURE DOESN'T MATTER because it is not IMPORTANT how much of a minority we are.

You ALSO just lied about not laughing about it since I posted the source. You quoted me in this last post and added the laughing icons

I have NEVER used a laughing icon. You just can't tell the truth about ANYTHING, can you?

I wish death upon people that consistently lie, attack people for their opinion, post propaganda, and misquote and mischaracterize the things that I say. Not just once or twice, but dozens of times.

Then why do you fail to take your own life?

I am not, nor have I ever been, a "violent" person. Just another way that hadmatter plays the "victim" card, something you admitted to in a previous post.

I did no such thing. Maybe you should re-read it, and this time actually pay attention.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AmericanGayAtheist 14 years ago

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/06/poll.gay.marriage/index.html?hpt=T2

Fewer than half of Americans oppose legalized same-sex marriage, according to a new poll on the issue released Wednesday, with significant shifts in public opinion on the issue just since last year.

More Americans continue to oppose gay marriage than support it, according to the poll, which was released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center. But for the first time since Pew starting asking about same sex marriage 15 years ago, fewer than half of those polled said they oppose legalizing the institution.

The poll revealed other firsts. For the first time since Pew began asking about the issue, more white mainline Protestants and white Catholics favor gay marriage than oppose it.

"The shift in opinion on same-sex marriage has been broad-based, occurring across many demographic, political and religious groups," Pew's polling analysis said.

The analysis noted that political independents, who were opposed to gay marriage by a wide margin just last year, are now divided on the issue.

The poll -- which combines two surveys conducted from July to September of this year -- found that 42 percent of Americans favor same-sex marriage, while 48 percent oppose it.

In polls conducted in 2009, 37 percent favored gay marriage while 54 percent were opposed, Pew said.

"Atheism is a 'Religion' sort of like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby!!!"

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

"Liar. You have no civil discussions with anyone who disagrees with you"

Prove it. Oh that's right. You CAN'T

All anybody has to do is read your posts, liar.

You can't even tell the truth about YOURSELF and what you posted.
You gave a street address. No apartment number (although it could be a house)
no city
no name

You're a BULLSH-T ARTIST

It's not an apartment.
I did provide the city.

You don't need my name because I will be the one there.

OK, Corky. Let me spell it out for you. The double LIE you've been going with for decades is
1)AIDS is NOT primarily a gay man's disease in North America
2) Homosexuals make up 10% of the population.

Fine, believe what you want. Still don't know what it has to do with me.

So, you're on record here that the 2.1% figure that dozens of the largest gay advocacy groups signed off on in a Supreme Court brief is inaccurate.
LOL!

Yep. And it is. As I explained, you cannot get a completely accurate number regarding something with such a stigma attached. Are you really that thick? I don't care how inaccurate it is, it just is. Big deal. I don't give a crap how many gay people there are. Why do you?

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

I believe the TRUTH and both of these statements are proven LIES.

Neither of those are my statements, regardless of whether or not I believe them.

You mentally diseased FREAK!

Once again, calling names like a schoolyard bully just because I don't agree with you.

GLAAD signed off on this statistic. That's the #1 gay advocacy group.

And your point is...?

You're going against an unbiased calculation, agree to by dozens of human rights groups in their OWN SUPREME COURT BRIEF.

It cannot be "unbiased" unless you can guarantee that every individual interviewed was entirely comfortable discussing their sexuality frankly. You would have to guarantee that no gay people felt uncomfortable admitting to something that many, many people do not feel comfortable admitting.

This just displays gow out of touch with reality you are.

No, the fact that you think it is possible to get an accurate statistic proves how out of touch with reality you are.

The POINT is that for decades, gay advocacy groups have knowingly LIED by exaggerating their numbers.

Care to prove that accusation? Just because a recent poll has a different number does not "prove" anything. Can you prove that the 10% number was simply made up, and not based on an actual survey? Because if a survey provided that number - whether it was accurate or not - then reporting that number was not a lie.

Plain to see where you nutjobs learned how to be dishonest.

From you?

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

I never climed that they were your PERSONAL statements. It is the "collective" you, as in the gay lobby.

Ah, so you admit it was just pointless misdirection on your part. You can't seem to make your accusations of lying stick, so instead you accuse me of lying as part of a collective, even though I never made any of the statements you claim to be lies.

You can say this about any poll or any survey. We can only go on the best infornmation that we have. The human rights groups signed off on it. If they didn't believe it was a fair number, they would NOT have included the stat in the brief.

Or they thought it was the best they could do under the circumstances. Or maybe the number was not the important thing that they wanted to get to. You have no idea why they did it, or even if it matters THAT they did it.

Of course, this is called being reasonable and using logic, two things that you know nothing about and AGAIN, you are talking like the insecure scared little victimized boy. Why don't you grow a set of testicles?

Again, I really don't care about the numbers, I don't really care how they were reached. What I care about is your stupid accusation that because the current number on record differs from a previous number on record, that it means a deliberate deception took place.

Just as I thought. Big man behind his keyboard just blowing smoke.
What a shocker.
Even a dummy like you knows better than to post your actual name and address.
If you did, you'd be sh-tting in your pants every night.

I posted my actual address, in spite of your insistence that I did not.
I'm pretty easy to find. In fact, I found my own name online in about fifteen seconds, using only the information from that post. Sorry you're so lazy.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

I posted that the majority of HIV infections every year from the very beginning were caused by man on man sexual contact. One of you idiots disputed this and posted a bunch of irrelevant stats and I once again proved that I was correct. I wouldn't expect you to remember when I pissed on the lie you've been going with for decades.

That was me. I posted stats from the website that you claimed to have gotten your stats from. My stats countered your argument. You claimed that I was wrong because those were world-wide stats, not North American stats. And when I went back to double check, it turns out that you were the one who was incorrect, because all the stats I posted were from the United States alone. I mentioned this and you never commented further.

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

Of course he never commented. He has to make up some new stats first!

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

I keep hearing the accusations from the PEE NUT gallery but once again, you are NEVER able to present a single valid example where my purpose here was to bash homosexuals.

Your intention may not have been to bash gays. Still, calling them freaks of nature, deviants, perverts, referring to gay lovers as "fvck buddies," wishing death upon them... all this amounts to gay bashing. That may not have been your "purpose here," but you certainly achieved it anyhow.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

Within the same paragraph you say that you don't call all homosexuals freaks of nature, but that homosexuality is a freak of nature. The two do not go together. Either you think homosexuals are feaks of nature or you don't.

You like to say you're not a bigot, always right before or right after you say something bigoted. You've professed to laughing at homosexuals who try to share a bit of their lives, and claim that it's okay because other people laughed, too. You claim you want homosexuals to have equal rights, but you don't think they should be allowed to call those equal rights the same thing that others do. You've claimed that homosexuality is not natural, despite being informed that homosexuality is present in other species in nature. Whether you're proud of the fact or not, these are all bigoted remarks that promote hate and the kind of feelings that prompt teens to throw themselves off of bridges.

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"You like to say you're not a bigot, always right before or right after you say something bigoted."

Everybody who has ever bothered to patronize this pointless P.O.S. both here and on the Milk board knows this. It's good that this is his style, that way everyone can see he's nothing more than a babbling and angry P.O.S., that's all there is to it. You'll notice not a single person has come here since he's been posting saying they agree with any of his b.s.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AmericanGayAtheist 14 years ago

You are the reason that hate crime legislation exists!

You are the reason the Southern Law Poverty organization fights to expose groups that espouse the same crap you do!

You are the reason that rational reasonable Americans dislike the extreme right wing that you represent!

You are the reason that nut-cases like Ann Coulter, Glen Beck and other psychotics must be watched very closely!

You are the reason that group like "GLAAD" must still fight for gay equality.

Just wanted to say "Thanks for the bigotry and hatred!" You make it all so clear and obvious!

"Atheism is a 'Religion' sort of like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby!!!"

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"I have exposed it for what it is and you and your radical loser friends for what you are."

You're nothing, you're nobody, you don't matter. The only thing you have exposed to anybody is how much of an obsessive angry historical joke you are. Great job there. People are going to take what they deserve because they have it coming to them, and you will have to suck it. As an obvious P.O.S., that is exactly what you deserve. You exist here because a few of us allow you to. Nobody wants to be associated with utter crap like you. That's the whole of it, cut and dry, and the proof is right here on the board, hero.

"You never HAD an argument and you never will. Prepare for MUCH more of the same as you continue to peddle this nonsense through the courts. You'll be outnumbered, outgunned, and most importantly, you won't be able to use your lies and underhanded tactics in a legal setting. Enjoy it now because before long you and your crew will be jumping off bridges in droves when you don't get your way. I'll be more than happy to give you a push if you can't make up your mind."

He still doesn't get it that it doesn't matter if it takes a number of years or what people have to do, it's happening. It's not even a question. History's foundation has been set for years now, it's mere bemusement that a *beep* like questionablementalstate won't acknowledge it. There isn't going to be any going back, so what does that leave? What's the opposite of going back? Who's not getting their way?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"I'm an "obsessive historical joke"? Interesting that there are more of me than there are of you."

It D-O-E-S-E-N'T M-A-T-T-E-R.

"I won't have to "suck" anything, douchebag. If they allow a freak like you to marry another freak, it won't change my life one iota. In fact, it will just make me laugh out loud when I am introduced to some lady's "wife" or some guy's "husband". The joke is on YOU."

It's obvious you take it laughably personally as if anybody is supposed to care, otherwise why do you keep babbling on about people "pi$$ing on the institution of marriage?"

"How do "a few of us" ALLOW me to "exist here"? Is it possible for you to be any MORE delusional?"

Because nobody cares about you and your pointless opinions about this online or off other than the handful of us who humor this. How could that be any clearer?

"As I stated previously, there is little interest in the hetero community about this film. The fact ism you're just not as important as you think you are. Still, I don't mind taking the lot of you on. It's about ten against one but I always manage to come out on top and you clowns are reduced to calling me all of your little victimizer names. Damned pathetic."

"Once again, you have an ability to comprehend what I have written here. It DOES take a number of years for movement on any kind of social law especially one as ridiculous as this gay marriage scam that you're promoting. If you don't piss off enough people in the process, you might eventually wear down enough folks with guilt that you're being victimized AND if the U.S. stays as mindlessly PC as it has been in recent years, you might just get this nonsense legalized. I have acknowledged this several times"

And that's ALL THERE IS TO IT.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AmericanGayAtheist 14 years ago

The only fear around here is yours. You know you're on the wrong side of this and time will make you stand out like the bigot you are. It might take 5 or 10 years, but it could happen in as little as 2 years. You will disappear and just be quiet, you would not dare share your bigotry then, it would be way to obvious to all.

Now go away and try not to be too upset when fairness and equality finally prove you wrong and a prejudiced a-hole!

"Atheism is a 'Religion' sort of like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby!!!"

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

What do *I* fear? Two freaks marrying each other? LOL!!!!!!!

Yes. It's clear that you do, that's why you keep screaming. You have to call it a "scam" because you're scared. You have to keep saying that we are "pissing on" the institution of marriage, though heteros have been doing that forever. You're scared and angry, and you might not even know why. I'll give you a hint. It starts with an 'H', and it rhymes with "robophobia."

How is a person a "bigot" if they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman? We DISAGREE on the matter. Nobody is a "bigot". Obviously, you think I'm on the "wrong" side of this and I think that YOU'RE on the wrong side. It's called a difference of opinion.

Don't be an idiot. Your opinion on marriage is not what makes you a bigot. It's the hateful anti-gay name-calling, the gay-bashing death wishes. That's what demonstrates your bigotry.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

Yeah. I'm scared to death that armies of gays will march to my home and force me to watch an unending loop of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"!
I AM indeed TERRIFIED!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh look, another homophobic slur from mr. i'm-not-a-bigot.

Nice try. Most of the bigot/homophobe accusations came the moment I expressed my opinion. Now after you all behaved reprehensibly and I shot back, you use this excuse. You're such a dishonest sack of sh-t.

Oh look, another outright lie from mr. i'm-not-a-liar-but-you-are

Yes. You "proved" your "anti-gay name calling" a few posts back when I once again exposed you as a filthy liar.

Right, that post in which you engaged in a ton of anti-gay namecalling, whilst professing to not do so. It was SUPER convincing.

YOU make it personal and YOU tell all of the lies. It is second nature to you.

You just told that one.

Arguments on any subject often get heated but if people are expressing an HONEST opinion, and aren't lying or attacking, there is no reason for anyone to go after them.

Agreed. Which makes one wonder why you began attacking me with homophobic slurs on our first encounter.

Unfortunately, aren't able to be part of a normal discussion. Since you appear unwilling or incapable of being a reasonable human being, there's really only one option...

Put yourself out of your misery. Buy that shotgun. Put in in your mouth and pull the trigger. You can DO this! Just think of it. For once in your twisted miserable excuse for a life, you can actually DO something for society!
Just DO it! DO it..you know you want to. DO IT! The world will be better for it. Just pull that trigger, honey. DO IT! It'll be a messy cleanup with your brains all over the place but a small price to pay. You won't have to lie every day and mislead people. You will no longer have to walk around spe3nding every moment of your life being a dishonest piece of human filth AND you'll make the world a better place.
It's a WIN-WIN!

Just DO it!
DO IT!
DO IT!

And let's wish death on the fag! That'll prove I'm not a bigot!

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

I'll tell you what. If you did not attack me personally on our first encounter or tell an outright lie, I SWEAR that I will never return to this board again if you can PROVE that statement. There is an offer you cannot refuse. You'll be a hero. I don't recall our first exchange but I know that I don't go after people if they are honest and civil. Let's see if you can tell ONE truth and I'll be gone.

An empty promise, which you made only because you know as well as I do that your post was deleted.

You really ARE one of the most disgustingly awful people that has frequented these boards. I'm not just saying that. I really MEAN it. I DO take comfort in knowing that you have some major pain ahead in your life. It happens to every scumbag in the world. It's just a matter of time.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Wanna know how I sleep? Soundly, happily, and not alone.

It's obvious that you already HAVE a miserable life.

Ha! You couldn't be more wrong. Of course, it's common for bottom-feeders like you to feel the need to drag the rest of us down with them.

Nobody can lie through his teeth every day and possibly be a normal but I can guarantee you one thing. It will only get WORSE.

I don't lie. But why one earth would I ever want to be "a normal"? Clearly "a normal" is what you consider yourself to be, and you're a disgusting, hateful pig. Not really a good selling point for "normal", dick.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

You sound like another mental case. It's rather frightening that there are THIS many people around here that suffer these severe delusions. I've never witnessed so many hateful, disgusting ass holes on any one message board. Ther's like TEN of them here in just the last couple of months.

It's not me! It's everyone else!!!

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

No, I didn't know it was deleted but you can check otjher bfirst exchanges I've had with SSM proponents. You won't find me attacking honest, civil people.

Then prove it yourself. You're the one who keeps saying it.

It is possible that in your delusional state you might actually believe that statement although you're a proven liar.

yes, "proven" by such evidence as you saying "I didn't call you that name that I just called you, liar!"

Of course you don't. You're an insecure nutjob who needs to feel different and special. You wouldn't know "normal" if it smacked you in the face.

I do know normal. YOU are normal, and you are dreadfully boring. It's normal people like you who are insecure. You're desperate to be part of the in crowd. It takes nothing but conformity and blandness to achieve that goal.

So no, I am not insecure in the least. I'll take nutjob though, if you like. At least nutjobs can be interesting.

I consider myself unconventional because I have never conformed to the "suit mentality".

So far, everything you say sounds pretty damn conventional.

Always been a bit of a maverick but I certainly don't consider my life "abnormal". Unlike you, I don't have the emotional baggage and insecure paranoia that you obviously struggle with each day.

If you aren't insecure and paranoid, why do you expend so much of your energy trying to insult and oppress people that you consider abnormal? Why are you so scared to let "abnormal" people have access to the same rights that you consider to be "normal"?

See, I don't do things like that, because I'm not afraid of things that are different. You, however, are terrified of change.

[/quote]

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

Then we read more of the same retarded repeated ramblings so we skip down to:

Of course, by "retarded repeated ramblings" you mean "refusals to admit to lies I never told". Does this cognitive dissonance ever hurt your head?

If you think I'm so "boring" why in the world would you continue to respond to me?

Because I will not allow you to continue making false accusations and spreading disinformation without rebuttal. It's pretty simple.

However, you know little about my life, career, or personality.

More than you like to think.

You're as insecure as they come. You think that anyone that doesn't want to permit homosexuals to marry, "hates fags". You're as insecure as you are ignorant.

Look, another lie.
I think no such thing. I think that you hate fags, and I think that is why you are against marriage equality.

I do not think that about everyone who is against marriage equality, but nice job trying to support your position with typical lies again.

I do not insult posters who are honest and don't attck me because of a differnce in opinion.

So you continue to claim, while demonstrating the opposite. I am not interested in your lies, only in what you do.

Abnormal people like YOU, should be taken out of society.

Maybe you should move to a more oppressive regime. I'm sure you'd love it there.

I ahve no problem with any ethnicity or minority group having equal rights. I've said that repeatedly here.

as long as it's "separate but equal", which is an oxymoron.

Don't know where you're getting the "terrified of change" vibe.

Gee, I wonder.

Kindness is a wonderful virtue. You should try it sometime.

Yeah, it makes up a large part of my life. I will just never share any of it with a bigot like you. As a non-Christian, I am not required to love my enemy.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"You are very wrong about this. You are scared out of your panties that when the non-P.C. truth gets out about this scam, it will all be over."

And the hero that is questionablementalstate is going to do just that! Oh no!!!! Oh man, hahahahahahahahaha!!!! Go hero go!

"If you DIDN'T care, you would not attempt to shut me up with your daily lies and pathetically weak "arguments" to legalize this absurdity. I have about ten of you that cannot help themselves. Just shut your filthy mouths and this will all end, until I see another BS post on some other board about how "civil rights" are being denied."

Nobody is "attempting to shut you up," because your posts only keep people away out of embarassment over being connected with someone such as yourself. The proof is right here, as N-O-B-O-D-Y ever posts to say they agree with you.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

I know you like to go to the dictionaries for official definitions, so I thought I'd do that, too. Merriam-Webster defines the word "scam" as "a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation." Please explain to me what is fraudulent or deceptive about the fight for marriage equality. I believe everyone's been pretty straightforward about what we're hoping for, and I promise you there's no hidden agenda.

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"Thinhs will get ugly for you if the gay marriage scam makes its way through the courts. The lawyers will become better and the arguments stronger."

Wow, you actually think that's going to be the case. Super new lawyers to the rescue?

"I'm not an attorney ,but if someone like ME can rip you all new anuses, what do you think a highly skilled law team will do to you?"

LMAO!!! Oh yeah, your pointless b.s. here really reflects what's being discussed in the courts. How ever did Olsen and Boies get around the questionablementalstate playbook?

"One positive thing scum like you folks have done here is strengthen my resolve. I NEVER contribute to political campaigns but after witnessing how underganded and filthy your tactics are, I'll be more than happy to help fund any campaign to shut this garbage down. I should thank you guys for that."

Now THAT would be awesome! I truly hope you do contribute money, so that way when you are proven to have not mattered in the least regarding the outcome, I can laugh at you for also throwing some of your money away. That's the cherry on the sundae. PLEASE do that.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"By the time it gets there, I 'll have plenty of cash to help out the common sense side and try and shut down this scam."

"Try." So we are to conclude that you do not have the financial means to do this contributing NOW, as there are groups who can use the funds now. Okay then, since you are so very proud to be able to do this, you should not have any problem posting here exactly when you will be contributing, to where, and how much. Of course, you would have to do this well in advance of any important development, both so the money can be applied, and so I may fully enjoy laughing at how your contribution was basically flushed down the toilet when it doesn't help advance your views at all. This is going to be some good posting, I can see that now. So please, dig deep. I'd like to see a large figure, the more you throw away, the more I will likely enjoy this. BUT, if your donation is not a high denomination, well in that case, I get the consolation laughs of both how cheap you are and how your heart is truly resigned to the fact that I was right. I'll be waiting, Mr. Big Bucks.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

The very PREMISE of gay "marriage" is fraudulent.
Check the definitions
of "marriage", "husband" and "wife".

There is no single definition of "marriage".

By definition ALONE, it's fraudulent.

By the definition to which you choose to cling, perhaps. Good thing it's not the only definition, and that your opinion doesn't matter.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

There is no single definition of "ass hole" but we all know that you are one.

No rebuttal, huh?

I posted the top definitions of marriage from several online dictionaries and they all proved my point.

"top definition" does not mean "only definition". Thanks for proving my point.

Well..yeah. I'd have to "cling" to it since I stated that "by definition ALONE, it's fraudulent" and you just admitted that I am correct. Thank you.

Yeah, by one definition among several. Thank you for proving yourself wrong again.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"1) Cash isn't needed until the next big election or more importantly, the next big court case"

The NOM seems to disagree with you. I guess you don't see your home state of California as currently involved in a "big court case."

"2) I eventually WILL have truckloads but I'm still working on my deal.
It's taking forever but it WILL be worth the wait."

So until that day happens and you share that here, it's fair to assume you are too poor to do jack.

"3) The majority of these truckloads will be to help people and animals IN NEED. Gay "marriage" is a fart in the wind as far as something that is really "important""

Not according to your post history.

"I would be happy to reveal what organizations I will am contribute to but never how much."

LOL!!!! That figures, what a coward. Really reflects pride on your part, Moneybags.

"Believe me, you can save the laughter because my donations would not affect my life or work one bit. As I just said, gay marriage is about 975th on my list of important issues."

Now it seems as though you are just trying to convince yourself. Keep posting.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"I'll wait 'til it gets to the Supreme Court. Everything else is just noise."

Okay then. It's enough for me to see this merely pass in your home state so you have to suck on it every time you walk out your front door.

"I will still be happy to contribute as a citizen, especially if it goes on my state's ballot."

Great! So as I said, you should have no problem posting right here exactly where your contribution will go and how much you are contributing since you are supposedly so proud.

"First of all, it is NOBODY'S BUSINESS how much I contribute to ANY cause. Secondly, if I were "overfunding" something, I certainly wouldn't want that to be public record now, would I?"

LOL!!!! What a complete COWARD. You are anonymous here yet you still say you won't tell. You couldn't be anymore cowardly, that is priceless. Talk about a complete lack of pride. And such a big brained guy like you would never "overfund" something, so you have nothing to worry about.

"Nuts like you and your radical crew are useless pieces of feces in society. A good flush and you're gone. The only people that really give a rat's ass about your BS are yourselves."

That explains why you are here posting so much about this and not your precious animal rights and threatening laughably to donate money to fund the opposition. You do care and you have to suck it. Reply to me so I can tell you that again. Oh but you don't care.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

What is LAUGHABLE is the constant lying, misinformation, and utter BULLSH-T that scumbags like you put out there as gospel. You're just so FULL of yourselves, aren't you?

What is laughable is that you keep making this accusation, but have never been able to provide exampled of "lying" or "misinformation"!

You really think that people CARE about this nonsense?
Despite your high opinion of yourself, you just aren't very important.

We're clearly very important to you.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"Nah. Doesn't mean a thing until the entire country legalizes it."

So we will both be content then with your home state of California having legal same-sex marriage, that is good news.

"I will be happy to tell you WHERE I contributed money but will never reveal the amount for the reasons I previously mentioned."

Because you are clearly a coward and have no pride.

"There are an amazing number of internet detectives that can find just about anyone on the internet. I value my privacy. It's too easy to trace contributions to a political campaign as it is public record. Has nothing to do with being "cowardly"."

Let's just say that this fanciful adventure did happen. And??? Why would you be afraid of having your name known for what you believe in your heart of hearts? How is your privacy going to be negatively impacted through a political contribution that you believe is what represents all that is right in the world? Please make a case for this, little coward.

"If I am passionate about a cause and have the resources to contribute, nothing would stop me from making a number of donations. Why would I risk my own neck to tell a couple of douchebags on a message board exactly what I gave? Are you really that stupid?"

Whatever you say, littl coward."Risk your neck?" How's that, excactly? Are you in danger of being lynched?

"There's no political component in helping out the people and animals without a voice. I kind of fell into these discussions about SSM on these boards. At first, they were interesting but as soon as I saw how corrupt the pro-SSM agenda actually was, I became an advocate for the anti-SSM side."

LOL, yeah right. Keep your attention here and not on the animals, hero.

"Obviously, I DO care. I DO have an interest in it"

You betcha do!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"I won't be jumping for joy but it already has been legal in California before they repealed it. California has always been a little different. I'm more interested in federal law. If they say it's ok thaen it is legalized everywhere and the country looks moronic to the rest of the world."

Great, you stay interested in federal law affecting other states whre you don't live, I'll be content with the one where you do. California leads the culture. So goes California, so goes the nation. --old political annecdote.

"First, political donations are public record and when the radical scum lost the Prop 8 battle in California, they created a website that displayed the name, address and amount of the contribution on a Google map. This invades my privacy as well as inviting crazies like you to bomb my home."

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! So you fear me. And you are a coward. A funny paranoid coward, but oh yes, a C-O-W-A-R-D.

"You have no IDEA where my "attention" is focused."

You can prove me wrong by showing me some links to other posts on other sites, anytime. Until then, your post history here is the record of your attention and your priorities. Cut and dry.

"I care even more that scum like you are exposed as frauds and liars."

Sure, futuresguy.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"However, I DO fear nutjobs that post the addresses of political contributors that went against their agenda, and possibly taking their revenge in a violent way."

Which would make you a big coward.

"I also don't want government knocking on my door because I gave too much money to prevent two queers from legally getting married."

A big paranoid coward. What is it like living life as this much of a coward, without any pride in putting your name frimly behind your beliefs?

"First of all, why would I post anything that isn't related to the topic at hand? Finally, what does "postings on other sites" have to do with my "attention and priorities"?"

Thus proving that this is where your priorities are in life. Right here. Show me some proof that I'm wrong, anytime.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 13 years ago

First of all, why would I post anything that isn't related to the topic at hand?

Well, you're constantly posting about anal sex and AIDS, neither of which has anything to do with same sex marriage. So I guess the answer to your question, as I have stated many times previously, is that you post about things unrelated to the topic at hand in order to imply that they are related; since you can't come up with a single rational argument against same sex marriage, you try to get mileage out of straight people's discomfort regarding homosexual activity.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 13 years ago

For those of you who missed it, I stopped responding to this filthy bitch last week:

No you haven't. You have responded to every post I make.

You'll probably respond to this one too.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] AmericanGayAtheist 13 years ago

He is so awesome isn't he! He needs to get lost. Just report him and move on. He is a freak!

"Atheism is a 'Religion' sort of like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby!!!"

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 13 years ago

Yes, I AM awesome. I'm the only one not afraid to post the TRUTH and regularly expose people like you.

And when we refuse to lay down and accept your BS, choosing to stand up for ourselves and let the readers know when you're lying, what do you do? You call us names, insist that the truth we tell is actually a lie (which you can't prove, since you're the one who is lying), and refuse to respond. You're afraid to face the truth. You're afraid of change. You're afraid to even say why you are against gay marriage, other than the fact that you think it's "stupid". It's a "scam", but you can't say what that means, because then you'd have to defend your position.

You are a coward, just like every other coward.

For telling the TRUTH and giving my OPINION?

Your opinion is not "truth". It is opinion.

Well, last time I checked I'm part of the 98% that has the potential to procreate with my mate.

Maybe so. Too bad you have been unable to show why that's supposed to mean anything.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 13 years ago

"For those of you who missed it, I stopped responding to this filthy bitch last week"

You're still replying to him.

[–] hadmatter 13 years ago

I know, right?

And now he's just having the exact same conversation with Dave. Dave is asking the same questions I asked, and QS is giving the same non-answers. QS keeps giving the same appeals to majority and tradition, and Dave keeps calling him out on it the same way I did.

The only difference is that QS doesn't hate Dave as much, because Dave's not a "freak of nature" like I am. But you can tell from the tone of QS' responses that he's getting getting riled, he's already calling names and pretty soon he'll be doing nothing but screaming. Oh, and insisting that he doesn't lie while he's lying, and insisting that he's winning even though he hasn't said anything.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 13 years ago

"I have not responded to one thing that he has posted since I announced I was done with him. Now, whenever the little queen posts anything in response to something that *I* said, I reply"

[–] hadmatter 13 years ago

All I do is see that he's quoting me and I immediately hit reply without reading his filthy lies.

Of course you do. You can't fool yourself into believing that I am a liar unless you actually ignore what I say. Since anyone who reads my posts can see that I am not the one spreading lies and hatred here.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 13 years ago

You love me so much. Apparently, you just can't live without me.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"I have exposed it for what it is and you and your radical loser friends for what you are."

You're nothing, you're nobody, you don't matter. People are going to take what they deserve because they have it coming to them, and you will have to suck it. As an obvious P.O.S., that is exactly what you deserve. You exist here because a few of us allow you to. Nobody wants to be associated with utter crap like you. That's the whole of it, cut and dry, and the proof is right here on the board, hero.

"You never HAD an argument and you never will. Prepare for MUCH more of the same as you continue to peddle this nonsense through the courts. You'll be outnumbered, outgunned, and most importantly, you won't be able to use your lies and underhanded tactics in a legal setting. Enjoy it now because before long you and your crew will be jumping off bridges in droves when you don't get your way. I'll be more than happy to give you a push if you can't make up your mind."

He still doesn't get it that it doesn't matter if it takes a number of years or what people have to do, it's happening. It's not even a question. History's foundation has been set for years now, it's mere bemusement that a *beep* like questionablementalstate won't acknowledge it. There isn't going to be any going back, so what does that leave? What's the opposite of going back?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

Sharing a bit of their lives and making complete idiots out of themselves are two different things. You live in some sort of bubble. The entire point of that anecdote was to illustrate normal behavior and going over the top as I was relating it to fighting for equal rights and going for gay "marriage".
Wise up.

Who cares about "normal"? I've never once in my life cared about "normal."

As for equality, it's only equal when it's the same thing for everyone. I've already pointed out that separate can never be equal, and you claim that I'm digging up old racist discrimination. But the fact is, no matter if it's race, sex or religion, separate can never be equal. Even if we give homosexual couples the exact same rights as heterosexual couples, if we call it something different we are allowing for the separation that promotes hate and prompts teens to jump off of bridges. So wise up, yourself.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

You obviously don't understand that this is not one issue. This is a part of a huge issue. Teens are killing themselves because of bullying for being gay and deemed different and weird by their classmates. Those classmates are bullying them because they've been taught that there's something wrong with being gay. Society has placed these stigmas on gay teens who feel there's nowhere to turn. The church says they're bad, other people at school say they're bad, for some of them even their parents tell them there's something wrong with them. This is why teens are killing themselves.

Your "separate but equal" idea perpetuates the idea that there's something wrong and different with being gay. That even if we give them the exact same rights as heterosexual couples, we can't let them be the same as heterosexual couples. And gay teens will continue to get teased because the law states in no uncertain terms that gays are different. That gays don't deserve the same thing straight couples have. Even if a gay teen feels that his love is as strong and pure and true as a straight person's, you've decided we can't call it the same thing, just because he's gay. The teasing is reinforced by society and by the government and this teen doesn't know what to do. Everywhere he turns he's told that he is a mistake. A freak of nature. He's told that he ought to be "normal," and that he ought to use someone else's standards. And when he can't achieve that because of something that's innately in him, he throws himself off of a bridge.

That's what "separate but equal" can do. Equal is equal, and there's no way that telling someone that they can have the same thing as long as they don't call it the same thing will ever be equal.

As far as the baseball analogy goes, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the play Take Me Out.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"You're in denial. Gays ARE different. The problem is people, especially children, are cruel. Anyone that is different in any way is teased. It is unfortunate but that's why they put hate crimes on the books."

There is no need today for such a difference to be reflected in ANY law.

"I have no doubt that two hays can love each other as much as two straights. That has nothing to do with SSM."

A historical view no longer relevant.....

"The fact is, if you ARE gay, you already know you are different and have to come to terms with it."

Nobody has to accept discrimination. Including out if date marriage discrimination.

"Anybody with a modicum of intelligence knows what marriage is about. They KNOW that they will never be able to produce offspring in a homosexual relationship."

Anybody with a modicum of intelligence should be able to recognize that this limitation is out of date and now irrelevant, thus obsolete and eventually placed in the historical dustbin.

"They should also know that gays have NEVER been able to marry in the U.S. I would argue that the loons who are keeping this issue in the public domain are CONFUSING these people. You're saying that you SHOULD have the right to be married and they don't know what to think."

Amazing. Right, it's fellow gays and not the unnecessarily overbearing douchebags like yourself telling gay people what is best for them rather than minding your own business. You are to blame because you perpetuate out of date irrelevant b.s. gleefully, and believe in selective discrimination under the law. You are to blame. As long as that is the case, that is the result. There is no doubt.

"There is NO reason to make an exception for ANY group whose begavior deviates from the norm."

The norm is irrelevant now. No discrimination under the law is acceptable, regardless of the number being discriminated against. If you cut the number of gay people in half, the principle still applies. It doesn't matter.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AmericanGayAtheist 14 years ago

Remember guys, just keep reporting him and do not respond to his homophobia. If you respond you make it less likely that IMDb will respond to what he is doing.

Keep him on report!

"Atheism is a 'Religion' sort of like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby!!!"

[–] Spacer1 14 years ago

This guy is a huge nincomoop, that is for sure. Anyone who types Me You Me You in a thread is a nincompoop for that alone.

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"And WHY is it "NO LONGER relevant?
It was relevant ten years ago."

No, it wasn't. Nobody gave a crap about reproduction capabilities then and they don't now. Just you.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"I would be safe in saying that since 97% of the world's population can NOT be married to a person of their own gender that people DO care about it."

Show me the proof that they care about it solely because gays cannot reproduce. Nobody gives a crap about this issue for that specific reason other than you.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"only the religious right and people who hate homosexuality would be against it."

That's the correct answer, good job, futuresguy.

"There are many people in my camp"

Everyone who is in your camp is here agreeing with you on this board. Just look at all of them. That's how large your camp is.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

You really live in your own little homosexual world. You probably believe that either everybody is gay, most have had a gay experience, or secretly want to be gay.

You know, futuresguy, if I didn't already know how mentally ill you were, I'd think that was a joke. However, I know that you actually believe what you just said.
You really live in your own bigoted little world, don't you? You probably believe that homosexuality should still be considered a mental disorder, that allowing homosexuals to marry actually threatens the marriages of heterosexuals, and that there really is such a thing as "the Homosexual Agenda".

The FACT is that gays are 2.1% of the population and the grand majority ARE in my camp.

No. The grand majority is heterosexual... that doesn't mean they're like you.

The FACT is that 97% of the world's population lives under the marriage law that *I* agree with..NOT you.

Another interesting fact is that none of your statistics actually matter one whit w/r/t minority rights.
But you're not allowed to comment on that, because it's the only argument you have.

Stop being a DOUCHEBAG and try acting like a MAN, futuresguy.
Be HONEST for once in your miserable, hate-filled existence... if that is something you are even capable of any more.
Get psychiatric help or just throw yourself off a bridge.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Spacer1 13 years ago

because he is a nincompoop.

[–] hadmatter 13 years ago

For those of you who missed it, I stopped responding to this filthy bitch last week:

SADMATTER: "Never mind those who disagree with the invented statistics that you present as "fact"."

ME: That's it. The conversation ends here until you provide ONE example of a statistic I posted that I did not back up. You're a loathsome piece of sh-t and I will not respond to you again until you provide ONE piece of evidence.
You're a disgusting, lying, morally bankrupt, PIG.

Shockingly, this societal reject was unable to do provide even one example.

Now, this sick freak is responding to me FOR other posters!
Guess there were no open stalls at his nearest public mens room...

Look at futuresguy, doing everything he can to avoid having to confront his own dishonesty.

Keep it up, I have no problem tearing apart your arguments whether you choose to participate in the process or not.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] Screen-7 13 years ago

questionablesellerwarnin,

So, if I can find a dictionary that doesn't use "man and woman" will you then accept gay marriage. I'm going to Google...

Wow -- A LOT of dictionaries don't include man and woman:

The state of being married; The union of two people, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life; A wedding; A close union; A joining of two parts;
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Marriage

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce);
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

The above, of course, are not definitive. Arguably the MOST DEFINITIVE of dictionaries is the Oxford English Dictionary:

a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.

SO! THERE YOU GO! Gay marriage is clearly not an oxymoron. The OED settles the issue.

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

"Gay marriage" has never been and never will be a "civil right".
Don't bother trying to prove it because you can't.

People used to say the same things about African American civil rights.

Yes, it is true that we all live under the same laws. And those laws do that we all live under do not allow gay couples the same rights as straight couples. That sounds like discrimination to me.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

questionableseller wrote: ""Gay marriage" has never been and never will be a "civil right". Don't bother trying to prove it because you can't."

Loving v Virginia, 1967
SCOTUS declared marriage to be a fundamental civil right.

They didn't say that it had to be between a man and a woman. And, in fact they were striking down the state's attempt at redefining marriage to represent what they believed was the will of the people.

Federal Judge Vaughn Walker agreed. So did the judge that struck down Prop 8's predecessor, Prop 22. And there are quite a few other cases that I don't have the time to look up.

The only question is: How many times does the judicial branch of our government have to tell you that marriage is a right and all should have equal access to it?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

LOL!!
An old favorite that you dug out of the IMDb archives.

Some dishonest ass hole posted this once as a "Supreme Court decision on gay marriage"

Nice attempt to vilify the current poster. But just because somebody once mischaracterized the quote doesn't make this person a liar, nor does it invalidate the point.

The supreme court DID rule that marriage was a basic civil right, and that happened WAY before you people started redefining marriage to eliminate the possibility of gay people who love each other being allowed to wed.
It's only a matter of time before we get those NEW laws removed.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

I didn't dig that out of the IMDB archives. I've known of that case for quite some time as I studied this issue previously.

You asked for evidence that marriage was a civil right. I provided it.

Baker v Nelson (1972) was dismissed by SCOTUS for lack of a "federal question". In other words, they felt that defining marriage was the jurisdiction of the state.

We now have a federal judge (Walker) who disagrees on the grounds that it denies citizens their constitutional rights.

You can claim that Baker v Nelson proves marriage is NOT a civil right but I don't see anything in the decision to support that. Whereas the Loving v Virginia clearly declared such.

Now... One of two things is going to happen with respect to the Prop 8 case (Perry v Schwarzenegger). Either the 9th Circuit will deny an appeal based on lack of legal standing or they will decide to rule on the appeal.

If the appeal is denied, we get to add California to the list of states that support marriage equality. Others will likely follow.

If the 9th rules on the appeal, most experts agree that they will agree with Walker and then the case will be appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS with then have to determine if they apply the Loving precedent of marriage as a right or the Baker precedent that this is not a federal question.

We shall see.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

questionable,

Just to clarify then, because I think we've reached a point of concensus:

We have to SCOTUS cases that both establish a precedent:

Loving establishes marriage as a civil right.

Baker establishes that it is not unconstitutional for states to outlaw same sex marriage.

And I think we both agree that those two precedents are in conflict. So, Perry or some other case is going to have to go all the way to the supreme court so that they can clarify.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

In their decision on Loving, SCOTUS wrote: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The case is a fascinating parallel to Perry because those in favor of banning interracial marriage cited the fact that God never intended such marriages as their reasoning.

By "crackpots" I will just have to assume that you meant those people who feel the need to deny marriage equality to others based on nothing more than their own prejudices.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"those that cannot take "no" for an answer and continue to push this agenda down the throats of the public."

The public which cannot demonstrate any quantifiable negative consequences of same-sex marriage? Oh, and what makes you think a pointless twat such as yourself saying no about anything, much less something like this, amounts to jack squat in the end? I told you, people who have the capability are just going to take, and there is nothing you can do about it except suck it.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"the public that knows that the government doesn't have any responsibility to sanction deviant behavior in the form, of a marriage."

The government does have that responsibility, yes.

"The "no" for an answer refers to every single vote (40-something) that has gone against your gay marriage scam."

D-O-E-S-N'T M-A-T-T-E-R.

"YOU just stay on your knees, begging and sucking, and we'll keep telling you to go fvck yourselves."

You can only try to delay things pointlessly, you can't stop them. It's like trying to stop lava. You don't matter.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"NOTHING has changed in the eyes of the U.S. government."

One day here and one day there in a movement = D-O-E-S-N'T M-A-T-T-E-R. Considering the fact that this push as a contemporary political movement hasn't been going on that long, nobody expects an overnight transition. Just my opinion but I would say things have progressed quickly up to now, compared to 10 or 20 years ago.

"Public opinion DOES matter.
The people are still against it and no politician is going to want to go against the people."

Ultimately no, it doesn't matter. Especially if this sort of thing comes down to dollars spent against same-sex marriage. The gays are especially good at organizing these boycotts and financially hurting opposition donors, as we saw with Prop 8. It will be pretty entertaining if this comes back to a vote in California in 2012, in terms of where the money will come from to oppose same-sex marriage, seeing as how many people have learned from their mistakes thanks to campaign donation public disclosure laws.

"The Supreme Court agrees that the law prohibiting queers from marrying is NOT unconstitutional so....
..the only thing little Boogie Knight can do is continue to beat the drum from state to state. Meanwhile, you're being laughed at for this nonsense from coast to coast."

You can make up whatever you want to, the conclusion is still....that it doesn't matter.

"The ONLY chance you have is with the Supreme Court, IF they agree to hear it. IF they hear it, it's years away AND they would have to rule in your favor.
Is it possible?
Sure.
Is it probable in the next 5-10 years?
No."

See last response. And in that case^^^, you especially don't matter.

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 12 years ago

Domestic partnerships are an inherently unequal status.

And as a compromise it doesn't work. For it to be truly acceptable to marriage equality advocates a domestic partnership would have to contain all the legal rights of marriage. But in order to be acceptable to homophobes it would need to be an unequal institution.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

[–] cookiela2001 12 years ago

Right Wing groups like Maggie Gallagher's NOM are practically as busy trying to abolish Domestic Partnership laws in various states as they are trying to get legislation on the books to ban same sex marriage...so it's not like they offer much of a permanent protection, anyway.

Just go for the gold...marriage.