I havent attacked you at all, just your ignorant posts: Please, oh please respond

"For Christ's sweet sake man, it isn't semantics! Marriage is a union of woman and man, how much more simple can this possibly be? "

No simpler, it can only be more complex. First, when marriage laws were written in the USA, no studies whatsoever had been undertaken to see if homosexuality had biological origins - thus, without this piece of information, the original law was flawed or wrong, not considering the ramifications of such research. Research has all shown that homosexuality has biological origins, and thus (since it in not a choice), laws, acts, or even actions against homosexuality become DISCRIMINATION.

You say gay people and straight people have the same rights: They do not.

Marriage enables a straight couple to reap tax benefits which are unavailable to homosexuals, unless they fake a "straight" marriage... clearly an affront to marriage as a concept from "time immemorial".

Which would you rather have, fake gay-straight marriages abusing the law in your country, or changed laws (which were flawed at the time of inception)?

By writing the laws to exclude a natural state of being (homosexual)

and affording one group of another natural state of being, your country has engaged in state sponsored discrimination

To put it in an unrelated analogy you can follow: If the original laws for murder did not include murder with depleted uranium (which was not weaponized at the time of espousal of murder laws) would it make sense to pardon those murdering w/depleted uranium? I'm sure you know the answer to that. Would the laws be changed to fit science? Not if you had your "time immemorial" way.

You don't hear a lot of dog-fuckers, incest-makers, or ass-to-mouthers demanding marriage rights (ATMs not included) or laws allowing their practice, simply because they see that their perversions/whatever are by choice, not a biological phenomenon.

Rewriting marriage laws based upon a more accurate assessment of Human Nature ascertained via the miracle of science

If you don't believe me, back in "Time Immemorial", religious fuckhats and the morons who followed them pushed their agenda to an extreme - resulting in the Dark Ages. And the JEsus-Miracle of the Crusades.

A constitutional amendment including anything religious (such as anti-homo legislation) would have the founders of your country rolling in their graves.

Supporting a constitutional amendment to this end signifies that you have no knowledge about your countries' fantastic inception, and agreeing with the impartation of Christian Law into your country's is about as unpatriotic as you can get.

However, it would seem your argument is based on a standard religious practice (which you may or may not realize; those sneaky churchmatitions work in "mysterious ways"): FUCK SCIENCE(aka human-acquired knowledge), GOD IS RIGHT. This is made clear right at the start of the bible, with Adam and Eve. Having eaten the Apple of KNowledge of Good and Evil, god cast the two out - the underlying message there is GET SMART WITH ME (god) AND YOU ARE FUCKED, SAYETH THE LORD. This type of thinking has been central to Christianity since "time immemorial", and is the type of thinking you are applying to your current argument.

Upon reviewing your posts, Morlock, I have in fact decided to attack you personally. You are a fucking retard who could not effectively debate a six year old as to the illogic of giving him a cup of coffee at 9:00pm, his or her stated bedtime. Here are some examples of your brilliance for all to revel in.

"How have I shown an inability to temper emotion with reason?" <- This was asked at the beginning of one post. He goes on to say:
"Disgust comes from one's gut, well true disgust anyways"
"Chilled monkey brains as dessert disgusts me......- my stomach tells me."
So, his disgust, (which he bases his anti-homo rants, and anti-homo stance upon) is something he derives from the same emotion he feels when faced with impalatable food. I would say that basing "rational" arguments on dietary preferences not only demonstrates an "inability to temper emotion with reason", but also an inability to feel and guage normal emotions (I'm no psychologist, but this is referred to as Psychopathic). The connection of dietary response to monkey-brain eating (disgust), with response to child-murder (disgust) would either suggest that Morlock has problems eating murdered children, killing monkeys, or that his own words "- my stomach tells me" should lead us to believe he has ceased thinking with his brain, and begun thinking with his navel. Perhaps his response to the "homosexual acts" he is bigotted against is based on his imagined consumation of the fecal-matter-semen-lube froth, or Santorum resultant to such relations. Clearly, we should be listening to this fucking stomach-thinking mongo.

I suppose another possibility is that MorLock believes his central nervous system is located in his digestional tract. A simple analysis of the biology of humans would point this fact/assumption as incorrect - I would therefore suggest any opinion or interpretation of facts, events, science, or anything at all, proposed, eloquated, said, typed by someone under the impression they can "feel disgust" with their gut, is not going to reflect a sane viewpoint whatsoever.

Also, he claims JediLuke is "operating under the mistaken notion that emotions are rational". I think the use of stomach-emotions under the assumption they are "rational" is at least as retarded as using actual, human-style emotions.

"Quote the evidence of my anti-homosexual bigotry"
Ok.
"since they've shown that their social track record is HORRENDOUS" (I would like to say that straight people, simply due to their abundance, have demonstrably fucked society worse than homos can ever hope to)

"[paraphrasing here] Gays are responsible for the rise of AIDS"

I don't know the ins and outs of this (no pun intended hehehe) but from what I understand, the early spread of AIDS in America owes a lot to the indiscriminate sexual habits of the male homosexual community. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say we wouldn't have AIDS without the male homosexual community though.

This is yet another piece of anti-homo scripture - think about it, 95% of people are straight. How could homos be responsible for the rise of ANY sexually transmitted disease? How did it jump to straight people - air? I would suggest that the straight people who (if you belive AIDS is a "gay disease") contracted AIDS (however they did it) were totally complicit in the non-protected sex which resulted in that transfer. If AIDs didn't come from eating bush-meat in Africa.

You are stupid.