[QUOTE="its_me_"]

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"] Fails to deliver on what?Lto_thaG

Entertainment. That's a saying that has been used on this forum for years. Get with the times.

While indeed posing a question, it simultaneously made an attempt at amusement, and it failed.

I have more than enough money, more than enough work, and I don't plan on cutting back at all. In fact, I've been widening my range of investments while market prices are low. Your original post fails to deliver.

Everything about this situation seems very unhealthy. You should probably stop talking to her and find someone in real life.

4 days or so.

Obama doesn't have the balls. His administration would never actually use it.

It destroys CNN and MSNBC combined every day, no contest. Go look at nightly viewership.

[QUOTE="its_me_"]Thus far, regardless of whatever your personal attitude may be, we haven't deemed it morally justifiable as a populace to give gays certain privileges that infringe upon crucial traditions in our society. guynamedbilly

We live in a common law society. Tradition IS our society. The Constitution does not address gay privileges (or a host of others issues), and it specifically does not guarantee them.

Also, my argument was much more complex than the bit you chose to address.

We're a bit behind a lot of nations when it comes to gay rights... Anyway I'm cool with lots of rights. duxup

You say this as if those nations were objectively correct in granting so-called "rights" to gays. We are not "behind" anybody when it comes to gay legislation. We are a different culture with a different set of values. Thus far, regardless of whatever your personal attitude may be, we haven't deemed it morally justifiable as a populace to give gays certain privileges that infringe upon crucial traditions in our society. The question is not about natural "rights," but about whether or not gays should be granted an extended set of legal privileges outside the scope of the law as it applies to heterosexuals, and contradictory to what many in our legal system and in our political sphere believe to be a natural law of sorts, which invokes recourse to the age-old natural vs. positive law debate. You may not, from a neutral perspective, call this a "rights" issue, because the term "rights" implies that legislation granting gay privileges would normatively be a neutral, human dsposition. That is, in reality, not the case. The simple fact that you and other gay advocates conceptualize gay privileges as "rights" does not then establish them universally as "rights." It is a nice attempt at ostracizing and marginalizing the opposition though, however fallacious and deceptive.