Is anyone other than the End grasping my logic here? I never once made the statement that guy's shouldn't get the same and equal rights as everyone else. I only stated the repercusions of altering the definition of marriage. What do you guy's not understand about that? Necro, do you really thik I would stand behind a logic that would conclude slavery should still be legal, that's an entirly different issue. Do you not see the problems we will face from those few radicals who would seek to perverse the grey area's opened by redefining marriage? It's very obvious, and yet none of you seem to understand my concerns. You guy's attack my intellegence, fire off with assine comments and chose to interpet my statements as oppresive. That is just wrong,. I am making valid claim, changing the constitutional clause of marriage for the good of a few, contrast the sentiments of the majority. I am I not correct here? Of course I am, why else do you suppose those who are pushing this, do not want it to be placed on a ballot? ecause the majority of Americans would not vote to make a change to the definiton. Yet everyone in the Administration agrees that allowing same sex partners the very same benifits of married couples is feasable. This can be done via legislation with out changng our constituion. Right now, the people of America wish to keep the definiton the same. If and or when the majority decides it has no problems redefining marriage, then you can have a contitutional change. At the moment, more oppose such a change, by a very large margin. Since when do we allow the agenda of so few, alter the course of so many? I do not see any valid arguements from any of you. Although you guy's have such a compasion for your fellow humans, that I can really respect. I am not talking about exterminating gay's, I was simply saying the American people are not ready for that change. At the same time, I was describing the type of trouble we would have, since our legal/police infulstructure are not equiped to handle this. It would cause a mess of litigation, from those who seek to have thier life styles normalized as well. I am concerned, just as our founding father were, hence the definition they drafted into our constituion. It's a protection from such issue's as I described in my first post. I really do not understand the comotion these statements I made here caused. I had several politcal figures here over look my statements , and not a one could extract a valid argement from the RB opposition. Compasion was recognized, and emotion was detected, yet no grounds to assult my very accurate and valid points. Even those pushing for this change understand the consequences of the change, and are working a drafts/language that would help instutute this change. Even the radicals, understand that a can of worms will be opened, and are tying to finds ways to eliminate the grey area. Now not a one of you can tell me this is not a concern. I swear sometimes we allow our emotion to over rule our logic. I do love your compassion RB, it's just misdirected on this issue, but I am sure you will see my true intent here. It was not to slam the life style or even hender it, it was to expose the problems such actions would cause. I hope you kids could understand me position a bit more now.

Respect..

__________________
FUCKA BABYLON BANDIT!!!