or something else when it is substantively the same. Can you explain. (The fact is that the reason marriage has mattered so much historically is because it assigned parenthood. Now that DNA does this marriage is going to be less important, is already less important, and the involvement, or lack of it, of "gay marriage" in the situation is not going to make any difference one way or the other. Parenthood has ALWAYS been the REAL issue and it still is).

that transcends any naming or formalization or the lack of it. In other words gay marriage will never be, can never be, what straight marriage has historically been, but of course straight marriage can't be either. What we really should do is name the contractual obligation you CAN'T GET OUT OF i.e DNA determined parenthood "marriage" and call the voluntary and reversible contract to pool resources civil unions. Marriage, once entered into, was, at least in many places, not easily gotten out of for most people so it is a travesty, a travesty I tell you, to use the term marriage for the voluntary and "easily" reversible modern contract which bears very little relationship to the traditional institution of marriage.

more guns.

and in fact it cannot mean this for reasons that mostly have nothing do with with equal rights for gays. They will get them regardless of what happens with "marriage" (and the "marriage issue" is only going to matter in the short term anyway).

because WAR AIN'T PRETTY. If there is only one right way, your way, (and there is) and if other people can't and won't voluntarily think exactly like you, (and they won't) then having the enemy reduced to poverty is an opportunity you can't afford to pass up and nothing else is likely to give you equal leverage.

which is why wingers oppose them and why offering them to everyone will actually serve the cause of gay rights. Whether this is more effective/quicker than holding out for "true equality" I don't know.

If all women were 400 lb butch lesbians their attractiveness would be celebrated. Women, unlike men, are graded on a curve: SOME woman/women will ALWAYS be considered attractive. It would be possible, under certain circumstances, for women to be repulsed by ALL men. Men can't react that way to all women.

Women put up with it because they want kids and they need money. Men put up with it because the need women sexually and emotionally. The result of course is that when a woman has kids and doesn't need the money (or the man isn't providing any) ANY relationship where she doesn't get EVERYTHING EXACTLY her own way is perceived as "crazily unbalanced" and hence as you say not worth putting up with. This is why women having their own money is so important.

This explains why men in so many cultures and situations cling to their privileges-they need them to balance the leverage that women are born with. It also explains why women feel that they are victimized and men are not. Men have a built in willingness to "pay" that everyone, themselves and women, factor into every situation and women do not.

Really close match, other than the killing.

The money mostly all went to tax cuts for the rich. Take the tax cuts back and the problem is solved.

The widely reported statistic is that 80% of the jobs lost in the "current"(however that is being defined) downturn have been lost by men.

that men were suffering the most. Obviously a lot of different facts with a lot of different potential spins can be accurate regarding a complicated situation.

we haven't had that for a long time.

or how many times they destroy the country. The hate, it burns.

They want to make it smaller and when they can't do that they want to discredit it through deliberate waste and incompetence. Of course their belief in small govt. doesn't apply to govt. promotion, and where possible enforcement, of sexual morality and of course foreign wars to promote democracy.

from the govt which would be the only way to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage/civil union. It would be like getting a marriage license now but instead of getting a license and then the ceremony the procuring and signing of the document would effect the marriage contract. Then anyone could do any ceremony, or not, anywhere and use any language they want, or not, anywhere.

so it's really simple. Be a decent human being and you won't have any problems. So don't worry. You're a decent human being aren't you.

Well since they are not worried and others are apparently it is tougher for some than for others, wouldn't you say.

men aren't stupid and they don't arbitrarily choose to base their identity on their work. Men know that they have to be accomplished and successful if they want to relate to women as anything other than slaves (unless they can turn themsleves into a fawning beta female to the the "little woman's" alpha which is beyond the capabilities of most straight men though increasing numbers seem to be getting the hang of it, this too though is really a form of mental slavery). So yeah, they get depressed.

Men NEED women emotionally even when women are of no practical use, which is most of the time. Women do not emotionally need men whose only practical effect is to be a pain in the ass. This situation causes women to lose interest in the man but lots of times in an equivalent situation the man will not lose interest in the women. This difference is biologically based and will never change. It's really annoying when women use this fact to argue that they are superior, especially because, in a way, it kind of DOES make it true, just not the way they mean it.

It's always good to have hope but I wouldn't put money on the outcome.