This had better not pass

Linus, do you actually beleive what you say, or just spew the opposite of anything that makes sense to amuse yourself?

I know you "know" a **edited** guy from work, but have you ever actually talked to him/ got to know him? I think its pretty obvious you havent. I've got a **edited** guy living in my room in my apartment for the summer while I'm home. I couldnt care less, he's a good friend, one of the funniest people I know, and extremely open about his homosexuality.   

what i wana know is is linus opposed to **edited** marriage because he's religous or because he's a redneck homophobe.

crap, i walked right into that one

ITS NOT RIGHT I TELL YOU.

MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN...


AND A WOMAN!


ADAM AND EVE , NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Linus, respond to what I asked you.

Buttsex is wild and it dont cause no child

newport wrote: Buttsex is wild and it dont cause no child

and, and, they cant have children. I mean, i guess its not like sterile men can get married, or people dont use condoms or contraceptives of sorts.

WAIT! ITS CONTAGEOUS AND ITS FILTH AND I WILL NOT HAVE MY CHILDREN GROW UP IN A **edited** COMMUNITY!

Um. No. If you really think that them growing up and having any sort of contact with a **edited** MARRIED couple(because really, **edited** couples that aren't married dont "rub off" on people likw married couples) will cause them to be **edited**, then you better not let them have the internet, TV, radio, or any sort of contact with the outside world, because there will be some homosexual in every facet of life.

Also, one more thing to note, it isn't the title of marriage that they are after, it is the benfits that come with the title.

And, please answer newports question,

how do **edited**s affect you personally?

Bango wrote: Linus wrote: Bango wrote: What do you have against **edited** people that makes you not want them to be able to marry? I have nothing against them. We even have one employed by us. Very nice guy.. cool too. My firm belief is that it's a decision, and it's a wrong one. If, for the very slight possibility that they are born with it, then dont act upon the 'urges'. Wow. A wrong decision. Then, to top it off, you say don't act upon the urges? You're unbelievable. Do you realize what your asking them to do? I shouldn't even have to explain this to you, but that's like me telling you to stop having heterosexual urges. If that's how they feel, who are you to tell them to ignore their urges? I'ts good that you're not homophobic though, I was kind of expecting you to be.

I'm a homophobe, just because the only **edited** people I've come into contact with are weird and think everybody else is **edited**.........But that's illigitiment in this debate. I for one dont see why it's a big deal, I dont like the idea of two men getting together having sex, but you know, why would the government care? It's not that big of a deal, and as I see it it's an infringement upon our rights provided to us by the US constitution. I mean, damn, are they costing people money? Are they doing the country harm? Are they endangering the life/wellbeing of other US citizens? Linus, give one good point besides that the majority are agianst it. You can't. And "cuz it makes me go ewwwwww", is'nt one. That's right, you can't. Oh, and if 80% of the population was in favor of killing all the illegeal mexicans, does that make it right?

Hey now, I'm a drunk ass redneck. No cheap shots...

This is why I firmly beleive that Linus is gdangerously ideological.

It has been conclusively proven by neurologists and psychologists that psychosexual development - the sexual development of the brain vs. the body - is directly linked to over or under exposure of sex homrmones (testosterone, estrogen, GABA, and a few others) while still in the womb. The simplification that the presence of lack of a Y chromosome results in male or female physical development confuses some people- that chropmosomal expression emrely sets the 'default' hormone release, however hormone recepters or blockers can be either overrided or not activated as a result of hormonal imbalances in the mother. This results in physcial development along one gender line, with mental and hormonal development along the other - or even in ambiguity. The exact same hormonal imbalances that cause transvestitism and other physical sexual defects are responsible for homosexuality.

That being proven, I can no more object to homosexuals or transsexuals marrying than I can those who may have any disability or genetic or hormonal anomaly. I find it morally reprehensible that people would object to giving homosexuals the same rights as the rest of us. The reason people bring up racial segregation is because it is an exact and appropriate analogy. Or perhaps you could also look at Hitler's discrimination against other races based on ethnicity, for that too is based on a simple and arbitrary genetic or biochemical differentiation.

You seriously frighten me, Linus. You're erratically moral, and very ignorant and prejudiced. You need to get a grip on yourself.