Originally Posted by MTI

In comedy duos, the classic construct is a "straight man" and "funny guy." Mostly teams of men, there are exceptions

Burns & Allen
Stiller & Meara
Nichols & May
Sonny & Cher

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

^ no answer to post #91

Originally Posted by panZZer

Rollen and Martin
The Smuthers brothers
Martin and Lewis

Originally Posted by Billybob

I dispute the premise! Homosexuals are not being denied a” right” to marry; they simply do not qualify for the advantages society affords unions of male female co-habative potential procreators.

In line with your championed the theory of “compelling state interest” the state can seek to advance and advantage an institution which has overwhelming demonstrated to produce the majority of successful progeny.

Originally Posted by dynalow

Who the heck is Rollen?

Originally Posted by Billybob

I dispute the premise! Homosexuals are not being denied a” right” to marry; they simply do not qualify for the advantages society affords unions of male female co-habative potential procreators.

In line with your championed theory of “compelling state interest” the state can seek to advance and advantage an institution which has overwhelming demonstrated to produce the majority of successful progeny.

Originally Posted by Billybob

Now you two make a lovely couple, the only question is, who's pitching and who's catching.

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I have utterly no idea how he draws conclusions like that.

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

It goes beyond that. His entire argument goes down in flames before the Right to Pursuit of Happiness, and the Equal Protection clause. Screw property rights and tax advantages, this is about one of the three most basic human rights that form the basis of American Democracy, and for this group of people, it is clearly and illegally denied to them by the majority. Gays are prevented by law from sharing their life with the person they love. I am not. I have the God-given right to the Pursuit of Happiness, in our most basic founding document it says it in black and white, in what is probably the most resounding sentence in human history: I have an unalienable, natural right, granted by my Creator, not by government, to pursue my own destiny, my own happiness. So do they. Bigots say they do not, with absolutely no basis in law. That is illegal under the US Constitution, and the only exception to it is if The State can show it has a clear and compelling reason to prevent gays from enjoying that right. Skid Roe is afraid to argue that point, because he knows he is wrong. Billy Bob throws red herrings out by the bucketful because he is terrified of arguing on that point. I dare either one of them to give one single clear and compelling reason why this group of people should be denied the right to share a happy and purposeful life with the one they love in a union protected by a legal contract they have entered into. One reason. One reason why bigots have a right to dictate to gays and to tell them that they cannot enter into a legal contract when it harms them in no way. One reason.

Originally Posted by Billybob

When debating with someone I often go to their own favorite sources for support, you often cite Wikipedia so you shouldn't have any objection now.

"Support for same-sex marriage is often based upon what is regarded as a universal human rights issue, mental and physical health concerns, equality before the law,[7] and the goal of normalizing LGBT relationships. "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

My own conclusions are based on my experiences, having spent much of the last 20 years living around, working out of, having my children under the provisions of Massachusetts School Choice law educated in the schools (I drove them 40 miles round trip 180 days a year to attend school), of arguably per capita the "Queerest" community in the world Provincetown MA. I have gay relatives, gay employees, I regularly deal with gay civic leaders, politicians and bureaucrats, gay business owners, gay customers, and gay citizens and visitors. I’m personally acquainted with probably 2-300 gay people there and have on thousands of occasions engaged in friendly, frank and respectful discussions with them on straight and gay “issues” both micro and macro.

I have gay relatives who have co-habitated for now almost 50 years who do not support “gay marriage” and at the other end of the spectrum I spent a good portion of a couple years in ideological warfare thwarting access to children and the inculcation of the gay agenda into the school curriculum by a noted “Queer Rights Activist, his words” recently convicted and sentenced to federal prison pedophile, named of John Perry Ryan.

Originally Posted by tonkovich

(no pun intended) as for gay marriage, well, if gay people want to be as miserable as most married (straight) people are, who am i (or you or anyone else) to stand in the way of their chances for misery?

most pedophiles (male) are involved with adult women, and consider themselves straight. (they just like little boys and/or girls as a sick hobby)

again though, with the state of the world as it is - and especially this country - why do you care about the issue? and why do you think it's your business?

(these are rhetorical questions - i certainly don't expect an answer. tho somehow i can sense some derogatory comments from someone out there. )

Originally Posted by Billybob

"if you are worried about children being molested, then perhaps you should focus on the catholic church; your efforts will be much more fruitful."

There is no compulsory religion law. Children are not forced to attend church!

“most pedophiles (male) are involved with adult women, and consider themselves straight. (they just like little boys and/or girls as a sick hobby)”

Are you speaking from experience?

“again though, with the state of the world as it is - and especially this country - why do you care about the issue? and why do you think it's your business?”

Quit talking to yourself!