DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN

Snowy continues to be an extraordinarily stubborn, and straight out rude bigot in the face of extreme conflict and refuting of his arguments. While I am extremely frustrated by his inability to realize just how wrong he is, I can also respect him standing up for his views. Since I'm not very good at quoting yet I'm just gonna sum up my two most important arguments here. 1. We have no precedence on which to base the argument that a name change would upset everyone and lead to a boycott on domestic partnerships. However, we do have a precedent of allowing those who are discriminated against the same rights of marriage (i.e. interracial marriage). People got over it, and interracial couples got all the perks of marriage. Gay couples miss out on somewhere around a thousand rights (depending on location) that married people get with the title of "marriage." So I see two courses of action if we plan on ending discrimination of couple's rights. 1) allow gays to marry or 2) change names to domestic partnerships. Since apparently so many religions (except for almost every non-Abrahamic religion) are against gay "marriage," we should go with option two. This name change is purely a political thing, and would be the technical term for the partnership, this wouldn't mean that there would suddenly be no marriage ceremonies (Kind of like how we call people gay, but the technical term is homosexual). This would finally remove the religious aspect of the word marriage from federal laws. This would also be able to encompass the couples who don't believe the institution of marriage, but who are life partners (like my uncle and "aunt" who have been together for 14 years, but never married) to get the perks that only being married currently provide. 2. Protesting is the only way for things to change. If people are unaware of the problems with the Status Quo, they will continue to live their lives the way they have been. We need protesting if we are going to ever change anything. Whether its the peaceful protesting that Gandhi used to get Britain out of India, or the angry protesting of Malcolm X during the civil rights era. To say we should just lay down and wait for change is to say we should just accept our fate. The only reason gay rights have come this far is because we've made people aware that we are here.

How do you make her angry? Poke her Face HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

How you respond to conditioning is not always a choice, as a humanist theorist would believe, but is also subject to genes you are born with. Most psychologists now-a-days would argue that there is a genetic factor that comes into play as well. If a person contains a certain genetic formula that would make them more susceptible to a personality, and are also exposed to an environment where the personality could thrive, they are most likely going to have the personality. However, if they have the genes and aren't exposed to the right environment, or have the right environment but the wrong genes, they will most likely not develop that personality. It also depends on the intensity of the environment or the genes. And while there is no "gay gene," there are a combination of genes that, exposed to the right environment, are very likely to result in homosexuality. In lesbians, this gene formula even has a physical effect, causing a slight variation in how some of their ears look. And I don't really know how to respond to the children play except by saying "ewwwwwwww."

Just studied this a bit in psychology. It's not a choice, per say, it is in fact conditioning in the early stages of childhood. There is a difference. Mostly that sexuality is ambiguous during the early years but becomes set one way or the other (or both) at around age 5. The outside influences tend to be your family, and how they react with you is the determining factor in most cases. Therefore, you don't get to choose, your family chooses for you by how they treat you during the younger years of life. So yes we aren't born gay necessarily, but we still don't really get a choice.

I think the difference is that no one is persecuted for liking the color red and not blue... But you do have a valid point even if it wasn't the best analogy, opinions are any human's right. However on the flip side that means that I have the right to argue my opinion and express it. I also have the right to defend it, even if that means completely smashing heads with someone who has a different opinion.