NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK

[Guns N RockMusic]

Homosexual sperm is just as potent as heterosexual....I know plenty of cases and know women personally who have used the sperm of gay people/their gay friends to impregnate themselves.

Again, your taking advanced human technology to justify something at a primal level. ?Gay apes can't donate their sperm to female apes, nor can they work at wal-mart to pay taxes for head start.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Ok, but those ants you use have a specific roll in their colony do they not? ?What roll do homosexuals exclusively play in the propagation of human beings?

Many...any, really, other than actual procreation. Care giver, provider (directly or indirectly), protector (directly or indirectly)....any of the archtypical roles. ?They can even fulfill the roles of paternal or maternal figure....as well as hetero adopted parents can (we'll leave out the morality debate on that one and focus strictly on the biological parenting role).

You can't just assert that their role can be "played" by any other human. ?You have to prove they don't play any role at all. ?And you can't do that because it's just not true. ?A role doesn't have to be "specialized" to be part of the process, it just has to occur.

Whatever, we're arguing in circles here.? I have no problem with gay people being married to one another.? Put it up to vote and I'll punch the ballot.? However, by standard definitions, I have logically shown that being gay is abnormal.? It doesn't take logic to show that, it's just common sense.? But if you want to argue semantics, fine I don't care anymore.? I harbor no malice towards homosexuals and to continue to argue this point would be futile.? I've come to realize that putting this much effort onto a stance that makes it look like I hold certain views that I don't is just stupid.? So I'll wave my white flag.? You win.

[The Dog]

Homosexual sperm is just as potent as heterosexual....I know plenty of cases and know women personally who have used the sperm of gay people/their gay friends to impregnate themselves.

Again, your taking advanced human technology to justify something at a primal level.  Gay apes can't donate their sperm to female apes, nor can they work at wal-mart to pay taxes for head start.

Good point, you're right. 

Can you answer my question about how all this logic and "abnormal" conclusions relates to gay rights to marriage though?

[pilferk]

Again, your taking advanced human technology to justify something at a primal level. ?Gay apes can't donate their sperm to female apes, nor can they work at wal-mart to pay taxes for head start.

And you're assuming ?a) the lack of an instinct rather than the inability to carry out the instinct, b) that tool use in the ability to accomplish a goal, satisfy a need, or complete an instinctual behavior is outside of the norm. ?Homo-erectus would be interested to learn that...of course, they'd also all be dead if it was true.

[pilferk]

Whatever, we're arguing in circles here.? I have no problem with gay people being married to one another.? Put it up to vote and I'll punch the ballot.? However, by standard definitions, I have logically shown that being gay is abnormal.? It doesn't take logic to show that, it's just common sense.? But if you want to argue symantics, fine I don't care anymore.? I harbor no malice towards homosexuals and to continue to argue this point would be futile.? I've come to realize that putting this much effort onto a stance that makes it look like I hold certain views that I don't is just stupid.? So I'll waive my white flag.? You win.

This is pretty much what I expected your response to be, now.

You haven't, by standard definitions or otherwise, shown, logically or otherwise, that being gay is abnormal.? You've presented a logical fallacy, based on your opinions and no clinical knowledge on the subject of genetics, biology, or human sexuality, that shows what you want it to show.? It's not common sense, it's common rhetoric...and it's certainly not entirely semantics.? I've shown (and nonlinear, too) that, on the contrary, homosexuality is actually well within the norm...it's just a less likely occurance.? Again, not "abnormal" within the context of the kind of discussion you're engaging in.

Using your logical "proof", you realize that one could take it to prove that homosexuals are not biological organisms or humans?? The fact is, your "assumptions" aren't based in hard science.? They're based wholly on your very limited understanding of the subject we're discussing.? And that's where the logical fallacy rears it's ugly head.? You can't draw a conclusion, logically, based on an unproven (or disproven) conclusion.? And you've got a big one in there.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Homosexual sperm is just as potent as heterosexual....I know plenty of cases and know women personally who have used the sperm of gay people/their gay friends to impregnate themselves.

Again, your taking advanced human technology to justify something at a primal level.? Gay apes can't donate their sperm to female apes, nor can they work at wal-mart to pay taxes for head start.

Good point, you're right.?

Can you answer my question about how all this logic and "abnormal" conclusions relates to gay rights to marriage though?

It doesn't, that's why I don't want to argue it anymore.  I don't want people to confuse my argument with being anti-gay or in this case, anti-gay marriage so I'm going to stop.

[Surfrider]

Sorry, not it's not.? How do you determine what a suspect classification is and what one is not?? If you are not looking at the original meaning of the amendment then you have to look at any discrimination.? Here, you are specifically targeting a law at pedophiles.? Of course, I agree with the law, but don't sit and say that it isn't targeted at pedophiles.? This is no different than targeting a law at homosexuals.? Am I saying that pedophiles are the same as homosexuals?? Of course not.? The same goes with pologomists and bigamists.? Legislatures can pick and choose, courts cannot.

Sorry, but it is.? And no amount of rationalizing or backpedaling with change that fact.

It's not backpedaling.  It is simply an attempt to make you understand the argument.  Clearly you don't.

You used the example SPECIFICALLY because it was inflamatory.? And it IS wrongheaded.?

You are absolutely right; that is exactly why I chose that example.  However, the example is not meant to criticize homosexuals or condone pediphilia.  In fact, quite the opposite.  I am trying to explain to you guys that the courts cannot pick and choose morally what is a suspect class and what is not.  I am not going to get too far into it because it is complex, but under a substantive due process analysis courts have to frame issues.  The broader they frame the issue the more things are taken out of the hands of the legislature.  The same is true of equal protection, which is the subject of the posts.  All laws discriminate to some extent.  Outside of race, and arguably gender, there are no classifications that can be made that isn't simply the opinion of five judges.  On the contrary, the legislature can say that we think that polygamy, bigamy, and child pornography is bad, but sodomy, gay marriage, and gay rights are not.  In the Courts it is all or nothing.  The example I used was simply to show that there are still moral choices that need to be made.  However, by having the court decide these issues in broad swoops of the law, the Court's decisions preempt any state government from making these moral choices.

You could have used far better examples and you know it (the polygamy example was a bit better, for example).? You did it for effect.? And that's pandering no matter what you try to assert to the contrary.

Pandering to what?  It's more like proving a point.

Berkley, I've often respected your opinion, whether it differs from mine or not, on many issues.? This time...well, you've lost some of that respect.? I know that might not matter much to you, but I think it deserves to be said.

And I have often respected your opinion.  Despite some of our disagreements, I have always thought that you make well-thought out arguments and are pretty reasonable.  I definately consider you to be one of the two to three most intelligent and thoughtful posters on this board.  With that said, your opinion does matter to me.  However, after rereading my posts, I am sorry to say that I think you missed the argument and immediately throught I was comparing homosexuality and pedophilia on a moral level.  You were right, I was.  However, the comparison was to show that there is certain nonheterosexual behavior that is on a higher moral ground and valued higher than others.  I was using the example to boost homosexuality not demean it.  If you still cannot follow the argument, I apologize.  My argument is sound and not offensive to any reasonable person.  If you can't follow it, it is probably my failure to express myself sufficiently.

You are equating the two, even if it is for the purposes of juxtaposition.? You asked what makes the two classes so different and presented a situation which equates the two. I know WHY you did it...but it was intellectually dishonest to do so.? You now seem to want to backpedal from that but...you'd be better served just appologizing for using the inflamatory argument and move on.

Again, I am not equating the two the way that you believe I am equating them.  I do not see how it was inellectually dishonest at all.  I wish you would not use that term.  Otherwise, explain to me how I was intellectually dishonest.

Apologize for what?  I hope you will better understand the argument after reading this post.  If not, tell me where it is wrong.  Don't make broad statements that are impossible to respond to.

[Surfrider]

I actually do not have too much of a problem with gay marriage.? I oppose the way that it is being pushed on the american people through incorrect interpretations of the law.

Oooooh ok...you don't have TOO MUCH of a problem with gay marriage..thats cool?

I actually am in favor of absolute equal rights.? I am against calling it marriage.? Just as I think the Christian right should be sensitive to equal rights for homosexuals, I think homosexuals should be sensitive to the importance of marriage within the Christian faith.

I don't understand what you mean by the way gay marriage is being pushed on the american people?

Every state where gay marriage has come to a vote, the people have soundly rejected it.? Courts are imposing it the states by broad interpretations of the Constitutions.?

If it becomes a law and gays have the right to marry, what is being pushed on to anyone?

If a legislature passes it, I am all for it.? However, this is not the strategy.? The strategy is to shop the cases to liberal judges that remove the issue from the legislature and debate.

? straight people can still get married, still have the same benefits.? I'm not being a smart ass, I'm just curious what you mean.

Hope that claifies my position.

[Bud Fox]

 I have logically shown that being gay is abnormal.

Guess you don't fuck your girlfriend in the ass huh?

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

 I have logically shown that being gay is abnormal.

Guess you don't fuck your girlfriend in the ass huh?

you mean his boyfriend ?

[pilferk]

It's not backpedaling.? It is simply an attempt to make you understand the argument.? Clearly you don't.

I understand the argument.? But by using a specifically inflamatory example you undermine the strength of the argument.? It's intellectually dishonest because you're attempting to tie in the reaction to the example to strengthen your argument.? That's pandering (meaning this definition: "To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses", not the one involving prostitution. ) rather than hyperbole.? And, quite frankly, I think it's beneath you.

You are absolutely right; that is exactly why I chose that example.? However, the example is not meant to criticize homosexuals or condone pediphilia.? In fact, quite the opposite.?

That's my point.? And you just admitted it.? So, again, I find that offensive when better, less inflamatory examples could have just as easily made your point.? Drawing the comparison, even for the justaposition you were using it for, just serves to weaken your point.

However, after rereading my posts, I am sorry to say that I think you missed the argument and immediately throught I was comparing homosexuality and pedophilia on a moral level.? You were right, I was.? However, the comparison was to show that there is certain nonheterosexual behavior that is on a higher moral ground and valued higher than others.? I was using the example to boost homosexuality not demean it.? If you still cannot follow the argument, I apologize.? My argument is sound and not offensive to any reasonable person.? If you can't follow it, it is probably my failure to express myself sufficiently.

No, I understood the argument.? I thought you constructed it poorly by choosing the examples you did....and if you look at Mr. Flagg's early arguments, you'll see more of an example of just WHY I thought it was a poor choice...a very, very, very poor choice.

[Surfrider]

It's not backpedaling.? It is simply an attempt to make you understand the argument.? Clearly you don't.

I understand the argument.? But by using a specifically inflamatory example you undermine the strength of the argument.? It's intellectually dishonest because you're attempting to tie in the reaction to the example to strengthen your argument.? That's pandering (meaning this definition: "To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses", not the one involving prostitution. ) rather than hyperbole.? And, quite frankly, I think it's beneath you.

You are absolutely right; that is exactly why I chose that example.? However, the example is not meant to criticize homosexuals or condone pediphilia.? In fact, quite the opposite.?

That's my point.? And you just admitted it.? So, again, I find that offensive when better, less inflamatory examples could have just as easily made your point.? Drawing the comparison, even for the justaposition you were using it for, just serves to weaken your point.

However, after rereading my posts, I am sorry to say that I think you missed the argument and immediately throught I was comparing homosexuality and pedophilia on a moral level.? You were right, I was.? However, the comparison was to show that there is certain nonheterosexual behavior that is on a higher moral ground and valued higher than others.? I was using the example to boost homosexuality not demean it.? If you still cannot follow the argument, I apologize.? My argument is sound and not offensive to any reasonable person.? If you can't follow it, it is probably my failure to express myself sufficiently.

No, I understood the argument.? I thought you constructed it poorly by choosing the examples you did....and if you look at Mr. Flagg's early arguments, you'll see more of an example of just WHY I thought it was a poor choice...a very, very, very poor choice.

I respectfully disagree.? Other examples, such a polygamy, are not considered as morally repugnant as child pornography.? The reaction to a polygamy example may be: hey, that should be legal as well.? I don't think anyone would say the same of child pornography.? Thus, important moral choices must still be made.? How is it intellectually dishonest to tie in a reaction?? That is the specific point of the argument.? Certain things we find more morally repugnant than others.? Legislatures are a better place to pick and choose.? Courts make broad sweeping decisions that can't pick and choose as easily.?

[Guns N RockMusic]

 I have logically shown that being gay is abnormal.

Guess you don't fuck your girlfriend in the ass huh?

Although I don't care to discuss my private life on a public forum, the two aren't related.  If I were to engage in anal sex with my girlfriend, it would be purely for sexual gratification.  I would still be attracted to her because she is a female and has a vagina, not because I want to poon her in the ass.

[Guns N RockMusic]

 I have logically shown that being gay is abnormal.

Guess you don't fuck your girlfriend in the ass huh?

you mean his boyfriend ?

Really classy Wat-Ever.  Aren't you supposed to be making video games, or did they reject your ass because of your total lack of originality and humor.

[pilferk]

How is it intellectually dishonest to tie in a reaction??

Because rather than live or die on the merit of the argument, you're attempting to bolster your point with emotion rather than merit.? Again, it's pandering...which by it's definition, when used in "debate",? is intellectually dishonest.? I'm sorry you don't like the term, or take offense by it's use, but it is what it is.? You can feel free to disagree (obviously you do).? But I just don't respect the way you made your point....and it's obvious others posting here feel the same way.  And it's made even more obvious by the turn the discussion took after your post.....rather than discuss the point, the discussion instead turned to the inflamatory piece of it.  I think that's all the evidence you should need about the effectiveness of the tactic you used.

[Surfrider]

How is it intellectually dishonest to tie in a reaction??

Because rather than live or die on the merit of the argument, you're attempting to bolster your point with emotion rather than merit.

I think you are missing the point.? Because this is a complex argument, beyond the grasp of many on this board, an example must be used to explain the argument to many.  Under my argument, an example has to be chosen that shows the difference between two things morally.? Many people believe that polygamy and gay marriage are on the same level.? The point would not be made by using polygamy as an example.? The merit of the argument is that we must make moral choices.? On the one side, we have two things that are totally different but would be looked at the same under a broad decision on the basis of moral jurisprudence.? I am not appealing to emotion to skew the merit of the argument.? The argument is that we judge things differently morally.? I gave a perfect example of that.? Your reaction to the example, in fact, confirmed the strength of the example in support of my argument.

Again, it's panderng...which by it's definition, when used in "debate",? is intellectually dishonest.? I'm sorry you don't like the term, or take offense by it's use, but it is what it is.

Again, I don't see how I am exploiting the weakness in others.? I simply used a clear cut example of two things that are not at the same moral level.? How is it intellectually dishonest to use a strong example?? Sometimes examples have to be used to prove arguments.? Is it pandering everytime SLC or others quote the death toll in Iraq to bolster their position?? Just because an example is strong, and a lesser example could be used, does not mean you are pandering.? It is definately not intellectually dishonest.? I believe it is intellectually dishonest to characterize the nature of my argument and call me intellectually dishonest when you have yet to counter or explain how my argument or my example is wrong or misguided.? Instead, you simply continue to state that my use of child pornography as an example is pandering.? If I am being intellectually dishonest then tell me where my argument is incorrect?? Tell me why my example does not work?? I assume that either you can't or you don't understand the argument.? ?

You can feel free to disagree (obviously you do).? But I just don't respect the way you made your point....and it's obvious others posting here feel the same way.? And it's made even more obvious by the turn the discussion took after your post.....rather than discuss the point, the discussion instead turned to the inflamatory piece of it.? I think that's all the evidence you should need about the effectiveness of the tactic you used.

I can't speak for other people that can't handle an adult discussion.? Some people don't read closely enough and follow logical arguments.? They read what they want to read.? I can't help that; I also do not take responsibility for that.? Notice how I did not enter that discussion.? There are many posters on this board that can't handle intellectual debate.? I have limited my posts to the legal side the gay marriage debate.? I have purposely not entered the debate on the moral arguments.? ?

Again, tell me how my example is wrong or incorrect?? Tell me how it doesn't prove my point.? Perhaps you don't like the substance of my argument or the conclusion that I come to.? If so, counter it.? Tell me how my example is wrong.

[pilferk]

Again, tell me how my example is wrong or incorrect?? Tell me how it doesn't prove my point.? Perhaps you don't like the substance of my argument or the conclusion that I come to.? If so, counter it.? Tell me how my example is wrong.

I have, and well.  But you don't want to accept, or see, the layout of my point.  That's fine and your perogative.  I stand by my assertion, and will continue to do so.  Your argument engaged in sensationalistic pandering and, as such, was intellectually dishonest, relying not on merit (which it might have had if presented less offensively) but on calculated emotional response.  You admitted, right in your last post, that you did it and your motive, that is your lack of respect for most/some posters reading your words and a lack of faith in their ability to grasp your point otherwise.  Your own admission makes my point for me.  You said, yourself, you used the example BECAUSE it was inflamatory...not because it was particularly strong (you've come back to that because the Emperor has no clothes, I assume).  And my reaction to your argument ACTUALLY speaks directly to how ineffective it was.  Because, in using the example (and as you can see from other posters) you made it almost impossible to get PAST the example and TO the point for many.  Again, that also goes to my point about intellectual dishonesty.: You're waving  sensationalistic things out there to grab attention but could effectively make an actual point with much less extreme, much less offensive, subjects.  You're drawing attention away from what the actual point was....because you obviously didn't think you could make a strong point without the sensationalistic pandering (something you admit to in your post, actually).  I disagree.  I think you can.  But by catering to a more base element, you undermine your construct, perverting it.

You don't need to be incorrect to engage in intellectual dishonesty.  You can be completley correct.  Sometimes it's about HOW you display being correct, and construct your argument, and not just being right.  That's why it's "intellectual" and not "actual" dishonesty.  You're involved with the law...you know that perfectly well.

And not "taking responsibility" for the results of your words, and also not respecting your audience, is a cop out,  and you know it.

OH, and:
"To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses" .

[Surfrider]

Again, tell me how my example is wrong or incorrect?? Tell me how it doesn't prove my point.? Perhaps you don't like the substance of my argument or the conclusion that I come to.? If so, counter it.? Tell me how my example is wrong.

I have, and well.? But you don't want to accept, or see, the layout of my point.?

You continuously defend your characterization of my argument through false assumptions of the point I was trying to make.  The fact that you still characterize my post the same despite my explanations can only be that you fail to understand the argument and perhaps I have failed to present it  in an understandable fashion

That's fine and your perogative.? I stand by my assertion, and will continue to do so.

That's fine.  I continue to stand by mine, and I am completely certain you point is without merit.

Your argument engaged in sensationalistic pandering and, as such, was intellectually dishonest, relying not on merit (which it might have had if presented less offensively) but on calculated emotional response.

This is where I think you having trouble grasping the argument.  How was it offensive?  The argument was specifically meant to show that there are many areas that aren't recognized legally based on moral perceptions.  This is absolutely true.  The argument I presented is that among these different areas there is a wide spectrum of things.  On the one hand, we have homosexuality and gay marriage.  Which is not seen as repugnant to most and certainly not on the same level as others.  On the other hand, we have child pornography.  This is something that I believe everyone can agree is offensive and should be outlawed.  Under the analysis of equal protection or substantive due process, the Court has to frame the issue in a broad fashion to decide that either of these is protected by the Constitution.  The Court cannot pick and choose.  This is undeniable.  Thus, I am arguing that by leaving these issues to the legislature, we can pick and choose what illegal or unrecognized areas we think should continue to be banned and unrecognized and which ones should not be.  Tell me how this analysis is flawed or offensive?

You admitted, right in your last post, that you did it and your motive, that is your lack of respect for most/some posters reading your words and a lack of faith in their ability to grasp your point otherwise.?

If people want to take the words pediphilia/child pornography and homosexuality/gay marriage - when placed in the same sentence - out of the context that I was putting it in and draw other comparisons, they are free to do so.  I do not agree with those comparisons.  However, I can't prevent them from making them.  There is always going to be certain people that can't keep an argument at an intellectual level.

Your own admission makes my point for me.? You said, yourself, you used the example BECAUSE it was inflamatory...not because it was particularly strong (you've come back to that because the Emperor has no clothes, I assume).?

I guess I probably shouldn't have said that was why I used it.  I did not mean inflammatory in the sense of trying draw attention to the argument or appealing to people's prejudices.  I think "strongest" would be the more appropriate word.  It is the most clear cut example of two things that are illegal for moral reasons, but that are clearly on a different moral ground.  Why would I use polygamy when that example is clearly not as strong?  I will backtrack from agreeing with your characterization of inflammatory; that is not how I meant it.  Hopefully, this clarifies my position.   

And my reaction to your argument ACTUALLY speaks directly to how ineffective it was.? Because, in using the example (and as you can see from other posters) you made it almost impossible to get PAST the example and TO the point for many.?

Again, if people can't handle grown-up conversations without taking things out of contexts, that is their problem not mine.  My argument does not degrade homosexuals or gay marriage in any way.  Please tell me how it does?  Your reaction to my argument has lead me to believe one of two things: either you just don't understand the argument or I didn't explain myself sufficiently.  In all do respect, your failure to understand my argument despite several posts of explaining it leads me to believe that either still down understand it or you just don't want to concede that my post was not how you originally characterized it.

Again, that also goes to my point about intellectual dishonesty.: You're waving? sensationalistic things out there to grab attention but could effectively make an actual point with much less extreme, much less offensive, subjects.

I am using the strongest clear-cut argument to prove my point.  I think any effective writer or debater would do the same.  I am sorry, but we are talking about moral laws.  When you are distinguishing between things that are moral and comparing it to things that may not be, you get into offensive subjects.  It is specifically this line of demarcation that underlies the entire point I was trying to make.

You don't need to be incorrect to engage in intellectual dishonesty.? You can be completley correct.? Sometimes it's about HOW you display being correct, and construct your argument, and not just being right.

You have failed to demonstrate that any part of my argument was constructed poorly.  Your only argument is that I juxtaposed two subjects that are completely different and not morally on the same level.  However, the entire point was that they are completely different and not on the same level, but, unfortunately, they are on the same level legally.  My argument was geared at how to legally recognize one without legally recognizing the other.

?

That's why it's "intellectual" and not "actual" dishonesty.? You're involved with the law...you know that perfectly well.

But the only instance of being intellectually dishonest that you pointed out is inaccurate.  Your characterization of my post as offensive and appealing to sensibilities is also inaccurate.  You constructed my argument the way you perceived it and then called it intellectually dishonest.  I am trying to explain to you that your construction of my argument is false.  Our entire discussion is based on a false premise that you made about my argument.

And not "taking responsibility" for the results of your words, and also not respecting your audience, is a cop out,? and you know it.

I am supposed to take responsibility for people taking my arguments and examples out of context?  Come on now.  I can't believe you would try to place the blame of that on me.

[pilferk]

Apparently it' s you having a hard time grasping the point....which doesn't surprise me all things considered. And now you're backpedaling on earlier statements because they prove my point.? And I'm convinced it's has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with desire.? But I'm not going to continue to argue in circles.? I'm sure you WISH to think my dissent has no merit but....I think it's obvious, all things considered, that it does.

I understand your argument quite well. I understand the point you were trying to make (there are two seperate moral decisions, one more reprehensible than the other...the legislature should decide which, not the courts).? It's just irresponsibly constructed using inflamatory examples simply to pander to readers you don't respect.? That's it, in a nutshell.? I'm characterizing it exactly as you have presented it, and explained it, and then using the motive you admitted to....not to mention you have, in previous posts, admitted to every bit of it.? You're waving a sensationalistic example around simply becasue it's sensationalistic and inflamatory (which you admitted and now backpedal from)....rather than because it illustrates your argument strongly.? The example you use, and the comparison it conjures, is offensive and unneccessary.? But you knew that when you constructed the argument in the first place (and admitted as much).....and thought it added some sort of weight to the point.? It doesn't.? In fact, the intellectual dishonesty of doing so detracts and obfuscates your point.

Again, you go back to the point itself.? I'm not arguing the point.? I'm arguing the way it was presented and the examples used to illustrate it....you're pandering, not solely making a point, and using examples to draw attention to the point (really, to the examples), rather than MAKE the point.

I have demonstrated, quite well, your argument was poorly constructed, I think.? YOUR OPINION is that I did not....I can live with that, all things considered.? I think my dissent has merit.? Your opinoin is that it doesn't.? Again, I can live with that, all things considered.? I had little hope of changing your mind from the get go....

As for the construction of your argument....you can argue "false premise" all you want.? But the original is there, for everyone to see, as is the resulting discussion....and the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, as are your admissions to doing exactly as I assert (though you've backpeddled now on one of your statements).? I think, as an assertion, that's all the proof I need to validate MY point.

And with that....I've made my point.? We're arguing in circles now.....

[Brody]

One question! Why don't we take this out of the courts and put it on the ballots? Why? how do you think the American people would vote for it?

Once Again I due not intend to offend anyone!