Quote:

klinton said:
It's assumed 'basic' physiology. The risks you are implying, and the subsequent ban on gay marriage, are not to be presented based on assuptions. Show me a medical paper (and not a church endorsed piece of shit) that explains severe noteworthy 'health risks' and I will accept your argument.



"Assumed"? They're "assumed"? I read it from a fucking National Geographic magazine. Where do you pull your info from? It's not like you've provided anything to prove that 'anal sex isn't harmful', so stones in a glass house.

Quote:

What the hell...you just danced around in a circle. You said civil unions are adaquate. I told you marriage as a concept is not what you are saying (the bastion of child bearing families everywhere), and you reply 'that's not the issue'...when in fact it's your whole fucking argument. No one is asking for 'special' rights here except for you.



One strawman after a fucking 'nuther.

The type of marriage you're looking at is concept, because currently, in this day and age, the institution is about family security. This isn't a suggested form of government I'm speaking of, it's the reality of the situation. And by the by, I find it awfully amusing how you're junking your request for secular arguments. First you give lip-service that religious views aren't present in government, and now you're trying to denounce secularly appointed and decades standing laws. Spousal financial rights isn't the issue. It's family extensions that's the issue.

And yes, you are asking for special rights in lieu not only of the controversey surrounding whether or not homosexuality should be viewed as a mental disease, but also in your chosen ignorance of civil unions. I don't know where the hell you're getting this 'you're the one who wants special rights bullshit.