The only real news on television. Can you imagine any corporate media source doing an interview as real as Stewart did to Cramer? Maybe Mike Wallace on 60 minutes, thirty years ago. The rest of the MSM are propogandists, attempting to control public opinion, not inform the public. That is what is going on now with all of these stories "informing" us of all the terrible, terrible things that would happen if we didn't give banks billions of dollars. They want to mitigate the anger of the American people (starting with the first failed bailout during the Bush administration) with a passive-aggressive threat that if you don't support us, something wicked this way comes.

of the feminist created concept of the "primary aggressor." Even if both parties engaged in violence against the other, here in California it is frowned upon to arrest both people. Therefore, the police have to make a determination of who is the "primary aggressor." Primary aggressor is a complex test, which doesn't necessarily mean that the initial aggressor is the one arrested. In other words, arrest the man.

"...primary abuser philosophy in which case if both parties have physical injuries, the law enforcement officer determines who the primary aggressor is and only arrest that one. This philosophy started gaining momentum when different government/private agencies started researching the effects. It was found that when both parties are arrested, it had an adverse affect on the victim. The victims were less likely to call or trust law enforcement during the next incident of domestic abuse..."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence

I'm not a feminist. You're more than welcome to discover that for yourself by my litany of letters, or I can point you here:

http://fauxwhore.blogspot.com/2009/02/feminist-no.html

-or-

http://fauxwhore.blogspot.com/2007/12/from-man-to-neo-male-wussapalooka.html

In any event, I think him less of a man for calling the police on his wife. If he were a real man, he wouldn't have done it.

...to include gay marriage, then I demand that I be allowed to marry several people. It's only fair.

I believe that they are afraid of their own actions once they get drunk. They are afraid they'll wake up next to some stranger and a drunken f*ck fest, and their reputations will have suffered. In other words, women go to gay bars to defend themselves against the their fellow mean girls.

Stop trying to blame guys for your own failures. Grow up and take responsibility for your own actions.

is not less valid an institution than the redefinition of the word marriage, and has historically been practiced my many. Therefore, I demand that I be allowed to marry several people.

"...You can also demand that the definition of marriage be changed to "make weak arguments on Salon", in which case I see you are happily married..."

-- HughAnderson

______________________

The argument hits too close to home for you. If it was so weak, several people wouldn't have spent time trying to tear me down on this thread. You know, as do I, the swing voters for gay marriage are women. Gay marriage is all fine and dandy, like going to gay bars for your bachelorette parties (as mentioned in the above topic). But, once women see that gay marriage actually does pose a threat to their marriages, then they swing away from gay marriage. And that's why you've tried to dismiss a perfectly valid argument.

Why don't you let polygamy lead to gay marriage?

All I've demanded was equal rights to by polygomous? What does that have to do with your gay marriage?

Oh Lynx, you charmer you.

Depressed or not, I believe that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. I believe the sky is blue, the the world is round, and 2+2=4. If someone where to pass a law mandating that the sky now be called orange, I wouldn't do it. This is not about civil rights. It is about the theft of the word marriage. Civil unions were passed in California, with all the rights and priviledges of married people. The homosexual activists used civil unions as a basis for demanding that marriage be redefined, and amazingly, the Cali Supreme Court went along, with a "whether you like it or not attitude." Screw that.

What's wrong with Polygamy?

__________________________

I asked the same question earlier. No one stated what was wrong with it. They just dismiss it as a slippery slope argument.

...it's now LGBTIQ?

"P" for polyamous.

"...I don't see how the govt can STOP plural marriages..."

________________

Easy. They throw you in jail. If you're the man that is. Otherwise, the wives get a new status as "victim."

Sticks and stones, dude. Ad homenim attacks to do anything for me. I am a trial lawyer. All I do is field attacks all day. As for the "phoney" argument by the other dude, come on over to San Francisco and I'll buy you a drink. I'll look remarkablely like my picture. As for being a relic, mabye. But those relics passed prop. 8.

How sweet. Thanx!

Your welcome.

Twenty-three responses directed at me so far, and among the ad hominem attacks are ones suggesting I am a "bigot," "relic" an object that will bring "digust and pity," and "Hitler" who states "idiocy" and "bigotry" and is intimated to be a liar. And the pejoratives I used to describe other posters who don't agree with me are...oh, wait, I didn't use any. The number of times I used ad hominem attacks at all equals...none. Wow! You guys. You'll have a great time winning votes to overturn Prop 8 with the "arguments" you'll direct at the swing voters.

...Paul Daniel Ash, the grammarian, actually taking the time to reread all of my posts to pick out five misspellings. God, just shows you how irrellavent I am. I doth think you protest too much.

"How about having every member of the party sign a pledge supporting marriage equality before entereing the club?"

_______________________

Because it's illegal.