Sure, Barack Obama is the first Black president, but he had to be raised by White people to get there!

Hmmm ...

The article involves taking bets on the existence of the Higgs Boson particle (a.k.a. the "god" particle) - not the literal existence of something that can be called a "god." Get your facts straight!

Actually it is about betting on the literal existence of God. It's just that the nickname "God Particle" has most people, including bookmakers, confused.

Perhaps you will step up where so many other conservatives have run away: how will homosexual marriage damage heterosexual marriage? By what mechanism would legalizing marriage between same-gender couples result in damage to the marriages of heterosexual couples?

I simply do not see, in any manner, shape or form, how the latter follows from the former, and I have never seen anyone, anywhere, even attempt to explain it. Everybody who uses this argument simply takes that as an axiom. Then again, I rarely see anybody ask this question, which I also find incomprehensible.

So, John, if you are able to explain this to me, I am all ears.

Fuck, both my parents oppose gay marriage as "not normal" (no stronger reason than that they dont' like it, really), yet in their own youth, back in the sixties, they argued with their own elders about how black people were equal and deserved the same consideration that white people deserved, and even defended the right of interracial couples to marry. They are otherwise quite liberal-leaning even now, but every so often something like this will break out, where they think the rights of another person should depend on whether or not they personally find the issue "icky". "NO they do NOT have a marriage, I have a MARRIAGE, and THEY shouldn't have the SAME THING that I have, because THEIR relationship is ABNORMAL". Sorry, Ma, but I still fail to see how the marriage of those two gay guys somehow "hurts" or "diminishes" your marriage. And as for defending a stupid word, that's what she said to me about "under God" in the pledge: "well, it's just a word, it doesn't really hurt you, can't you jsut let us have it?" Well, if that's your argument, can't you just let them have marriage?

Hell, she didn't even WANT to get married herself but just shack up and my dad threw an ultimatum at her. And now she prides herself (PRIDES HERSELF!) on how not one of her three kids has any interest in committing to marriage with anyone--just like their ol' Ma.

Look, I love my folks and will be absolutely devastated when they go, but it's times like this that I kind of look forward to the older generation dying off and taking their antique bigotries with them. I look forward to Prop 8 being defeated in the (possibly near) future, as the final relic of a fading homophobic minority that it is. I hope to be living in California at that time so I can proudly cast my ballot against the tyranny of the ignorant. Smirk all you want, Mom, but you're going to lose in the end.

Okay, that was mostly a big vent. I am pissed and will continue to be pissed about Prop 8. I'm thrilled over all the steps made in the right direction for once, with stem cell research and physician assisted suicide and decriminalization of pot--may those advancements continue, grow, and spread. And I am ecstatic about Obama's win, though my nervouse headache ended with a full-blown migraine on Election Day and it took me until now to be able to really thrill over it. The first black president, while amazing, is the least of it. Imagine if in the 1930's the Nazi's had been outvoted and driven back by the German populace?

(and if that's how I viewed this election, can you blame me for having a nervous migraine?)

That all said, can anyone point me to a place where I can get the straight-up, non-projected-but-definite new split of the House and Senate? I hear it went well and that Obama may well have the majority he needs to perhaps make a real difference. :)

And isn't it absolutely delicious how the Rethugs are spitting little blame-wads back and forth like the hateful little vipers they are? My my, they're upset? Well, imagine how much worse it would be if the election had been stolen--by which I mean, now you know how I felt during the last two presidential elections.

Of course, getting fifty states to stop endorsing "marriage" would probably raise more opposition than gay marriage does now, so I don't think that's the way to go.

The only way I think "civil unions" would work if the government decided to get completely out of marriage. Basically let everyone, man, woman, straight, gay, bi, human, animal, vegetable get a civil union together if both consent. (Granted, it'd be a bit difficult to get the consent of a animal or a vegetable...)

Getting consent from humans isn't too hard and last I checked they were animals (and you left out intelligent computers and aliens that don't come from Mexico).

But anyway, all that would really be would be changing the name from "marriage" to "civil union", nothing would actually change in such a case so there's really no point playing such semantic game. As for how civil unions will actually work, they'll just be renamed to marriage later on with a civil union possibly becoming something else or just an alternative terminology for those who don't like marriage but want to marry anyway.

@ john

Then all your perceived gains will vanish "like a fart in the wind." People will do as they always do; they will go to church and draw into their families, just like what happened right after 9/11.

Er...this may be just me, but it sure sounds like you're supporting another 9/11...

I'd go for "Jim Toucan", both for the pun and the rainbow bill.

The reason for choosing "flamingo" is twofold: first, they're one of the species in which John is sticking his fingers in his ears and LA-LA-LA-ing the observation of homosexual behavior, and second, being pink and all, they're something stereotypically-minded Americans will immediately associate with gays, decreasing the number who will need the meaning of the expression explained to them.

In my opinion, changing the definition of marriage would harm the meaning of a heterosexual marriage.

Actually, I feel that if anything would devalue my marriage, it would be the commitment my wife and I made to each other being denied to other people who love each other just as much.

John, all "rights" are agreed upon by the masses. No form of marriage is any right in and of itself (except with a special definition of "right"). Gays will have just as much a right to marry in the same way as heterosexuals if it is agreed upon. The necessary precondition for it being "agreed upon" is that it will be seen acceptable and preferable by a sufficient number of people with power/say in the government. The reason I think it should be agreeable is that it is intrinsically more fair than traditionally defined marriage.

In my opinion, changing the definition of marriage would harm the meaning of a heterosexual marriage.

Yes it will alter the meaning of marriage. And for the better, in my opinion. However, "heterosexual marriage" I think will stay the same.

To John: Hey, it seems you've sobered out a bit. I really do appreciate it!

Anyway, I just wanted to make this clear, once again. The existence of homosexuality is normal; it is found in nature in a considerable number of animal species. However, homosexuality itself is an abnormal thing, similar to liking anime or having red hair. I'm not saying you or anybody else was wrong on this point, I just wanted to clarify it. I don't quite know how much genes have a role in determining sexuality, but I am quite certain it is not up to "choice." And lastly, although I do find it somewhat bizarre (which doesn't predicate any dislike by any means), I am not sad for gays being that gay. I am sad for what results: social animosity and a small pool of understanding and like people.