Without going into a tangent about who we feel made better arguments than whoever else, I merely wanted to point out that my feelings regarding the matter carry no prejudice. I'll steer clear of Neo-con MBs for the exact reasons stated. I will say, however, that whilst Dave was going over repeated points ad nauseum that I felt his justification for doing so was valid since he was being asked the same questions by other posters who were there since the start. In any event, I, myself, wouldn't file that event under "circle-jerking".
Quote: Animalman said: This country was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and thus deserve equal rights.
But here's the clincher Animalman: The fact that society had marital requisites in mind (reproductive sex), combined with the fact that the legal institution wasn't founded while the homosexual rights movement was screaming its presence, marriage simply wasn't created with such a facet, in which case, homosexuals weren't purposely excluded, which speaks against it being an act of discrimination, and, incidently, a smothering of one's rights. The rights merely weren't created, and now that idea is staking root today when there's many scientific implications to note, it has to be considered carefully whether or not this right should actually be created.
