Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Animalman, your questions are annoyingly inane and nitpicky, and the answers to your questions are obvious. Or at least they should be after 37 pages.



Dave, your responses are insulting and avoid actually answering the question, which isn't "obvious". They're not "obvious", because you haven't answered the questions. Instead, you spend pages upon pages blasting gays and liberals, ranting about how everyone is out to get you, trying to force their evil political agenda on unfortunate individuals like yourself.

Instead of actually answering the question, you throw your arms in the air and roll your eyes, as if the mere fact that someone can ask them is offensive to you. Which it shouldn't be, because they're valid questions, and ones you, again, haven't answered. At least, not to my satisfaction. Sorry, but I don't find just "because (blank) says so", to be an acceptable answer. You might think that ends the discussion right there, but to me, it doesn't. To really answer the question, you have to tell me why, and prove to me that your reasoning holds water.

Quote:

Animalman said:
I don't believe any of it. It's a hyperbolic distortion to say gays have no rights.



Of course they have some rights. Civil unions just don't provide nearly as many benefits as marriage does.

Quote:

If they don't have "spousal" death benefits, for example, they can just as easily write a will. As was explored earlier in the topic.



It goes far beyond what's detailed in a will. As stated in the article I posted:

"If one partner in a gay relationship dies, the other cannot receive Social Security survivor's benefits. Not so for marrieds."

Quote:

Why are you even asking this STUPID STUPID question ?!?

The proposed civil union laws we hear about every night on the news.



I asked it sarcastically, because I think it's a "STUPID STUPID" statement. The proposed civil unions are hardly any different from the current institution, and that the laws are meaningless unless insurance companies recognize them otherwise(as detailed in the article I posted). For politicans to pretend that's not true just insults the intelligence of all Americans.

Quote:

Given gays' use of any secular rights to launch an assault on religious freedom, they don't deserve them.



That's a scary thought, Dave. What if gays used the same logic to say religious individuals didn't deserved their rights?

Quote:

Another STUPID STUPID statement of yours. Congratulations on re-inventing the obvious.

Obviously, not all agnostics approve of gay marriage. Obviously not all agnostics oppose gay marriage either.



I never said or implied you were using this generalization to describe all agnostics. I'm wondering why you would think even a majority of agnostics would be opposed to the gay lifestyle.

You continually cite public opinion polls, but are those polls specifically sampling agnostic individuals, or people in general?

The most common argument by far I've seen opposing the gay lifestyle is one based on scripture. Agnostics don't follow scripture. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some that don't approve of it for other reasons, but from my personal experience, I see no reason to believe they are the norm.

If there is a poll involving an exclusively agnostic sample section, I'd be very curious to see it.

MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.