same sex marriage

Although on first read I could not understand your statement, "[w]hat do you have against men?", it is possible that you are not familiar with the word "suffrage." This refers not to pain but to voting.

America has killed over 50 million babies in the last 40 years since Roe v. Wade was decided without a single vote from Congress, by nine Supreme Court members who are all dead now.

Communist China has killed over 500 million babies, according to published reports, with its "one child" policy.

Almost half the time an abortion is committed, the child killed is male. So I'm certainly not "hating" on men or women when I posit that one of the offspring of the progressive movement is the notion of abortion on demand (which is not law in the USA as of today, but it is a goal.) The same liberal Supreme Court justices who are happy to consult foreign law when formulating their decisions should probably be aware that only 5 countries out of 193 permit abortion on demand and certainly none of Europe.

But we're talking about perversity in marriage, which we never permitted among Indian tribes wishing to gain citizenship. Likewise. the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act banned Mormons from practicing their version of "marriage equality." The Supreme Court has already found that laws banning polygamy are constitutional.

P.S., Please, please, don't tell us that you want to get pregnant solely to have an abortion, just for the experience and/or thrill of it. Yikes.

How many children do you kill every time you masturbate? That is as-ridiculous as most of the fundamentalist opposition to abortion.

Now, this is not to say there is no need for a sane discussion on reducing the point at which elective abortions can be performed; medical science has advanced dramatically since Roe vs Wade, but only misogynistic ideologues demand zero abortion.

I think again we are parsing words because we live in a sound-bite world where the winner of the argument tends to be the one who can hang the best nametag on his team or goal.

Abortion kills human beings. Saying "fetus," which is Latin for baby, instead of "baby," is papering over the issue. Calling it "choice" when a woman decides to terminate her unborn baby's life and "anti-choice" when there are any limits applied, is doublespeak. Saying "marriage equality" instead of "homosexual marriage" or "marriage between two men or two women" likewise is weasel-wording, just as the news media sides against Israel every day by calling Bethlehem and Judea "the West Bank" (which is what Trans-Jordan started calling it in 1948).

I don't demand *zero* abortion, but in modern times there are not many cases where the mother's life is truly in danger and can only be saved by destroying her child. Whereas, those in opposition seem to honestly believe that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an government-funded abortion immediately with no questions, no counseling, and her parents don't need to be consulted.

Oh, and FYI, deeming your opposition *insane* comes at the end of a conversation, or at the beginning of a war.

You are the one starting to 'assume bad faith'; my remarks about the quality of debate were not aimed at you. But, at the "ideologue's" position you seem to back.