Brava, brava, bravissima.

A very good response! Another thing to consider is that it is hypocritical to use the Nazis as an argument against homosexuality when one of the earliest groups to come out against gay were the Nazis. When you start agreeing with Hitler its time to rethink your position. Anyway, good discussion.

wow...wow...wow...this was absolutley amazing..great job

extremely well-written rebuttal. i'm glad you shared it with the rest of us too.

I really loved your response - it was brilliant. :)

Please keep writing.

~Namir Swiftpaw

I really liked your response there. You were really calm and reasonable, in spite of the reviewer's antagonistic tone.
Jason2004 I notice you don't make any attempt to back up the statistics you throw in. I know that was just a review and not an essay, but it would be a lot more convincing if you had proof.
'Their erotic stimulations often include excrement and urination'
A) you don't offer any proof of this
B) Some straight people get off on this sort of thing too
and
C) Okay, it's gross, but I don't see how that's relevant. It doesn't make sense to deny people the right to marry just because you think that something they do is gross. A lot of people think public displays of affection in general are gross, but they don't deny rights to people just because they like to french kiss.
'the anal passage was not designed for the insertion of any object, let along the male reproductive organ. It is therefore an unnatural act.' I've discussed this in an essay of my own (a chapter of 'Musings' on this site). Basically it comes down to the screwdriver argument. A screwdriver is designed to drive screws. However, it is also useful for levering open tins of paint. This is using a tool for something other than what it was designed for. Is that immoral? If an arse is designed for pooing out of (and I don't believe any part of the human body is 'designed' by any kind of intelligence), it can also be used for sex acts to produce pleasure.

Very well put.

i like the way you've expressed your views. and the way you responded (in great detail) to the rather scary review (as far as opinions and facts go) well written

Impressive paper. Frankly, I don't care for politics, humans in general tend to annoy me, but I thought your paper was well written. Good, strong introduction followed by some good critical thought. I was impressed.

"Whoo, boy. What’s that old phrase? That in a political discussion, once one side mentions Hitler, it’s about time to quit the discussion? Oh, well."
Godwin's Law.

Thank you.
I like how it was all just disagreeing with the politics - making it not so much a moral issue as it is a political one. Which is a good way to deal with it, I think - it's sort of distancing and less likely to start the second civil war.
'Cause you can argue politics like it's the weather, and morality gets into religion and stuff - kinda shaky ground there.
Yeah. Really excellent job on this.

personally, i have never understood why this whole gay marriage conflict even exists. gay marriage, in light of other and much more pressing issues (both domestic and foreign), isn't that big of a deal. to be perfectly honest, i don't give a crap about who can and can't get a sheet of paper issued from the state...OH WOW! i'm not sure if there is an imminent right to something that a tree died for.
and furthermore, any government that sees a marriage license more imminent than the destroyed the economy is one that does not actually care for the welfare of the people. instead, it is one that will bring up an issue that any idiot can talk about (i.e. abortion) and ensure a load of votes. any government that does this is one that i want nothing to do with.
on a final note, i have never thanked you for your floods of reviews. they have helped me much, and i feel like a colossal jerk for not showing my gratitude.
thanks very much, and write on.

HERE HERE!!Good show !
Great essay! i came to the same conclusion as you long ago and i feel its about darnb time other peopke realize it as well!
The sancity of marriage? who does he think hes fooling !
~Nat

Jason2004: Using quotation marks to emphasize your point just makes you look stupid. Pretty much it means you have nothing to back it up with. Your argument is weak and completely unsupported. Where did you get your statistics? And anyway, that would have to be uncloseted gays, and those are the ones who're beaten senseless and dumped in rivers by bigots like you!
*fumes*
It's depressing how often I have to say this, but don't be ignorant and disrespectful at the same time. It just makes you look bad.
g21Ito: You rock.

Perhaps I'm a bit biased because I agree with you, but this is a good essay. Actually, I think governmet shouldn't even be sanctioning marriage at all; it should leave it up to civil society. But I also strongly believe that a democratic and egalitarian society like ours has no right to deny marriage priviliges to non-heterosexuals; there can be no double standards here.
There is a serious flaw in the language of the proposed amendment: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon **unmarried couples or groups**.” (emphasis is mine)
The problem with this is that "unmarried couples or groups" could be construed to mean *heterosexual* couples too, so it's kind of a double edged sword!
It's also clearly unconstitutional.
And the conservative Republicans, who are supposedly libertarians and thus opposed to big government and state control, should know better than to support this kind of nonsense.
Here's another idea for you: instead of granting the rights and priviliges of marriage to homosexuals, how about we *take them away* from heterosexuals? After all, what have heterosexuals done that merits special treatment?