I honestly wonder anymore if there is anything that would truly digust and horrify the American public out of its apathy, and what it would have to be?

When it finally dawns on them that "recession" is just another way of saying "economy" and everything but Wal-Mart shuts down, maybe.

But only maybe. The American public, of late, is not a very smart public. More likely they will demand their government wage war on the evil forces that brought them to this state of affairs. Then what? The permanent war comes home.

If I had a hat, I would gratefully remove it and offer a polite bow to the Supreme Court of Iowa.

Would that the California court might follow your lead.

Perhaps a high schooler, who dreams of sexual glory or some seeming man who managed to sprout facial hair but didn't develop likewise on the inside.

I would add that, given his "passion" for this particular subject, fractal is also hiding from something, perhaps something he's known about for a while but can't quite bring himself to accept quite yet.

From wikipedia:

The second book of the philosopher and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors, Mathematical Cranks, and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought. And in a 1998 UseNet post, the mathematician John Baez humorously proposed a "checklist", the Crackpot index, intended to "diagnose" cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.[2]

According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:

#1) Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.

#2) Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.

#3) Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.

#4) Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

So let's run down the checklist, shall we?

#1) check

#2) with modifications, check

#3) double check, in bold

#4) check, check, check

But we should probably add one more:

#4) Cranks will redirect any valid criticism back at their accuser, like a child repeating "because" when asked, "why?" by a parent. Check and double check.

Isn't an imperative that for the peace and prosperity of our nation that homosexual men learn how to play, live, fight, and die alongside their homosexual brethren.

Well, we've certainly got the "play" down pretty good. :)

Have a nice day.

Actually, I don't think any argument will ever sway the Prop 8 supporters, regardless of how much evidence there might be to back it. Despite what Laurel### believes, I do think it comes down to religion for most people. And most religious types who use their religion to prop up such bigotry (calling a spade a spade), aren't likely to have their minds changed by anyone.

Frankly, I think it's just a matter of attrition. The religios tend to carry their peripherals (young voters, just out of the next; other hangers-on) with them, but once on their own, those peripheral voters may come around. It only takes a few. MIght not work out for me and my husband, but the next generation will win. Or the next.

Have yet more of a good one.

1. What is the purpose of legalized marriage -- what concrete benefits does it offer society that can't be acquired in a more efficient manner?

Well, I think one of the biggest, if not the biggest, benefits it brings is that it settles everybody down a bit. Males and females, but probably most importantly males, can get into less trouble when they're pair bonded. That's very simplistic, I know, but I think there's something to it.

Human behavior patterns tend to be rather predatory, especially after we've reached sexual maturity. I suspect we're more successful as a society when that individual nature is "tamed" somewhat by bonding with a mate. It's not all about sex, of course, and I'm not trying to imply it is. But paring up seems to refocus our energies a bit, getting us more interested in building (families, stability) rather than "conquering."

I think that applies to both hetero and homosexual relationships, and both male and female. I honestly don't know whether it would apply to multiples, but I wouldn't rule it out.

With regards to why marriage vs. something else, I think there are two factors to consider. The first is all about familiarity. If marriage works, why scrap it? Maybe something would work better, and if so, that's cool with me. But we've already got something that's about pairing up and settling down, so why not marriage?

The other reason is more utilitarian. Marriage is wrapped up into our laws pretty much at the fundamental level. It would be a legal nightmare to try and rewrite all that legislation in order to assign all the rights and privileges of marriage to domestic partnerships, or some other new institution. Look at what happened in California. The reason the prop 8 lawsuit went forward was because the court agreed there were over 1100 instances in which the domestic partnership laws did not grant the same rights as marriage. Again, if we could manage to sort through all that, fine and dandy. But why, when marriage already does it?

Have a nice one.