yes, but it had to have got its origins somewhere. Look, hate crimes happen because there is fear of a group of people. Fear is the basis for crime in this world, of others or oneself. Basic stuff here. Your defenseness and efforts to minimize my arguement reveal more about you than you might care to acknowledge.

...then let's just call you 'no friend of gays,' a group of people you just don't believe deserve the right to marry for whatever reason (let's say, maybe you don't like our line of reasoning or our panache for filmmaking or our appearance in say, your local deli, you fill in the blanks) and call it a day. I like to toy with you, non-ideological because I am silly, vewy vewy silly...

...any thoughts on gay panic defense?

Sleazy defense lawyer technique. Anyways, to suggest something must be true because a defense lawer argues it is either incredibly dumb that you'd beleive it or just an equally dumb troll.

You're not contributing anything to the conversation so I don't really see the point in responding to you.

Then why do we not require that couples who plan to be married get fertility tests?

Meant to include that quote with my response.

Btw, I think this whole Salon article was basically a troll, or maybe the appropriate term is "pot boiler" or "yellow journalism."

As other's have pointed out, there really wasn't any legit journalism or insight there. Not from any POV. It wasn't good legal analysis either.

...any thoughts on gay panic defense? if it doesn't exist and it's all just dumb hate then what's all the controversey about? and stop talking about Israel. The argument doesn't correlate.

That's a straw man “gotcha” argument that many use to attempt to entirely decouple marriage from procreation. It’s not helping anyone though because the argument fails on closer scrutiny although it does have some superficial popular appeal among the choir.

Regardless, fertility may change so it’s not even a plausible suggestion.

Furthermore civil unions which would address many of the legal and economic issues are the most popular option politically. That would indicate it is about children. If the opposite were true then one could expect the polls to also be the reverse of what they are currently.

Also the argument is false because it assumes that a marriage license must mandate procreation to have any intents towards procreation, which is a silly presumption without precedent pulled from I don’t know where. Nowhere is that a written or unwritten principle. For example driver's license doesn't mandate driving and has other benefits such as a state accepted form of ID although it’s clearly intended to be relevant to sanctioning an action (driving) involving public resources (public roads) and as such the state determines who “qualifies” and how.

It is completely debatable of course who merits government endorsement for child rearing, for coupling, (or driving for that matter) and to what extent. That’s the real debate, it’s inherently political, cultural, and democratic in nature, and “gotcha” arguments aren’t going to bypass that. Hence the utter foolishness and counter productive futility of the litigation approach.

Things like joint filing and civil unions for LGBT couples would probably succeed fairly quickly actually and be a great proving ground for eventual legalization of gay marriage.

As an analogy, the Roe v Wade decision is barely standing and could go at any time because it was handled by litigation rather than legislation, and there is far more popular support for abortion than gay marriage.

People need to break the habit with litigation. It's like our Vietnam, our culture war. It doesn't produce good and lasting governance or win "hearts and minds" it just entrenches opposition and creates oodles of blowback for decades.

Homsexual behavior is abnormal for human beings. My head is not stupidly or any other kind of thick. Marriage is not a right. It is an opportunity or perhaps a privelige. You need a license. The opportunity and priveliges offered by the government are my business becuase I am a citizen. My opinions matter even if I am narrow minded. Narrow minded people do not pay $7.95/month to read and post on Salon.

During slavery most black people were enslaved. They were property.

Women were second class citizens. It was morally wrong, both concepts changed as the larger socity began to see Blacks and women as normal participants in civil society. But not only were Blacks and women viewed this way so were Irish, Italians, Polish, Chinese, and others. It does matter what most people think. Homsexual marriage is not allowed all over the world.

Good night and God bless.

Now you've changed your argument for what is RIGHT for some is not necessarily RIGHT for the other guy. Hmm.

The objective norm is this country's constitution. I want it one way - equal rights for everyone.

But there is no "right" to marriage. States have regulated it from the beginning--it's a privilege, and that's why you need a license.

Guess that argument fails, too.

...I don't want it "both ways". The objective norm is this country's constitution. I want it one way - equal rights for everyone. That includes blacks, women and gay Americans.

By your graphic reference to (penis)es, (ram)ming and (rectum), maybe it's you who wants it both ways?

Anonymous,

Your continuing to imply anyone who disagrees with you is a homophobe is kind of creepy and doesn't help advance the discussion whatsoever. It's similar to people who cry "anti-Semite" in response to any comment questioning Israel.

It's also an ironically twisted claim that a predominance of hate crimes against gays are perpetrated by closeted gays. While that's standard fare in dramiatic productions like "American Beauty" in reality the un-ironic and rather mundane dumb hate is still the predominat type.

I don’t think the reverse psychology is fooling anyone either if that was the plan.

I'm telling you this so that when you do encounter hateful people you actually find something effectual to say and in the meanwhile don't say more silly things.