Miffs not-hate thread

[Miffed22001]

Maybe Will has opinions on gays he'd like to share with the group.

i cannot stand agy people in any way.
I will make a joke at their expense, yet i have never discriminated against them in any way, shape or form nor would i ever.

Am i wrong to not like someone because of this?

I think you'd have difficulty saying i am either right or wrong, i just dont like what they stand for.

[biondino]

If will had just said "I hate blacks" I can disagree with him but there's no argument to be had. When he says that racial attacks shouldn't be criminalised, then yes, there's an argument to be had.

Oh, and making jokes at their expense IS discrimination, Miffy, maybe not the worst but it's a textbook example.

[biondino]

Actually, nice worm-can-opening, fella:

I don't think gay people "stand for" getting off with same-gendered people, they just do it because that's what they want to do. It's not a political statement, they're not trying to convert you (well, I dunno, you might be particularly delicious). So perhaps you phrased it badly?

[Miffed22001]

If will had just said "I hate blacks" I can disagree with him but there's no argument to be had. When he says that racial attacks shouldn't be criminalised, then yes, there's an argument to be had.

Oh, and making jokes at their expense IS discrimination, Miffy, maybe not the worst but it's a textbook example.

i work with people of indian origin and would promot e any of them in a moment if i thought they were capable of being a manager in the environment i work in.

But id still laugh at a 'corner shop' joke. WIll suggests there is a difference, as did that fat racist comic (bernard manning? although he was a racist) so if you laugh at a joke that has racist conotations eg spoon joke about a black kid being a bat does that make you racist?
or is that just the same as laughing at a joke about the french having never defended paris?

At which piont can you joke about the colour/creed/race of somebody without it being a direct slur on their type? OR is that not possible...?

is joking about a fan of a crap football club not exactly the same as racism?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Wow this is the best thread we've had in awhile.

E-dramaaaaaaaa

[Miffed22001]

Actually, nice worm-can-opening, fella:

I don't think gay people "stand for" getting off with same-gendered people, they just do it because that's what they want to do. It's not a political statement, they're not trying to convert you (well, I dunno, you might be particularly delicious). So perhaps you phrased it badly?

i think you see what im trying to say. i dont dislike somebody because they are something, no matter what that is gay/black/pink/alien/smoker etc, but because i accept that they are something, does not mean i agree with what they are and that they are allowed to exist as what they are ( i think this sorta makes more sense?)

eg i would promote a gay person in the workplace to a more significant role, but i would vote against them being allowed to marry/to have the right to adopt children.

[will641]

i find it kind of funny/ ironic that miffed's avatar is a gay one. I'm not calling you a hypocrite or anything its just really funny

[Miffed22001]

i find it kind of funny/ ironic that miffed's avatar is a gay one. I'm not calling you a hypocrite or anything its just really funny

agreed.

ironically enough, lesbianism totally doesnt do it for me. the avatar is to annoy the crap outta my g/f every time she shes me online

[IowaSkinsFan]

that they are allowed to exist as what they are

What are you saying here? It comes off as I think all gay people should die but I assume this is far from the case...

[will641]

i am just really curious if biondino is a 9/11 conspiracy believer?
should we start another thread on 9/11?

[euphoricism]

I think he's saying that gay sex is essentially a fetish that has become quite popular and turned into a culture, and that society is catering to that culture when it really shouldn't have to, because there is nothing particularly special about having a sexual fetish. No one really gives special treatment to people with shoe fetishes, or cross dressers, or people who like to get whipped or tied up.

Which is kind of a fair point.

[euphoricism]

i am just really curious if biondino is a 9/11 conspiracy believer?
should we start another thread on 9/11?

For fucks sake dude, get off the 9/11 conspiracy shit.

[will641]

i am just really curious if biondino is a 9/11 conspiracy believer?
should we start another thread on 9/11?

For fucks sake dude, get off the 9/11 conspiracy shit.

I'm sorry but it is a very good scale I use if I am going to listen to their POV, because anybody who believes the 9/11 conspiracy is an idiot.

[Galapogos]

i dont dislike somebody because they are something, no matter what that is gay/black/pink/alien/smoker etc,

You've never been on the wrong end of one of their anal probes then my friend.

Edit: Same could be said about gay men I guess.

Edit #2: Ha! I actually made myself lol, I don't care if it wasn't even that funny

[euphoricism]

i am just really curious if biondino is a 9/11 conspiracy believer?
should we start another thread on 9/11?

For fucks sake dude, get off the 9/11 conspiracy shit.

I'm sorry but it is a very good scale I use if I am going to listen to their POV, because anybody who believes the 9/11 conspiracy is an idiot.

Anyone who goes around asking if people believe in 9/11 conspiracies in order to gauge their worth in arguing about racism is a fucking idiot.

I believe will641 is a prime example of why FTR needs an "ignore all posts by User" function.

[will641]

i think you are taking me too seriously by that comment

[euphoricism]

I'm fully aware you're just trolling.

Even more of a reason to add an "ignore all posts by user" option.

[biondino]

Will, no, I don't have any interest in conspiracy theories about 9/11. I'm a leftie, not a nutjob

It's absolutely possible to make racist, sexist etc. jokes that are funny. They may be any number of other things, but if they work as jokes, then they're funny, period - and the shock factor often (usually?) makes them funnier.

[will641]

Will, no, I don't have any interest in conspiracy theories about 9/11. I'm a leftie, not a nutjob

It's absolutely possible to make racist, sexist etc. jokes that are funny. They may be any number of other things, but if they work as jokes, then they're funny, period - and the shock factor often (usually?) makes them funnier.

well at least we can agree on that.

[Miffed22001]

that they are allowed to exist as what they are

What are you saying here? It comes off as I think all gay people should die but I assume this is far from the case...

rather the opposite. Do i think gays are humans with (relativly) the same rights? yes sure.
Do i agree with gay 'rights' like adopting children. No

Would i help shoot gays if gay bashing were legal? Id find it difficult to act, i dont agree with the unjust killing of any person, but i also dont like 'gayness' (you know what i mean dont twist it.

Its like when the US invaded IRq. Was it right? No, becasue no countrys soverignty should be broken by another. BUT, did it need to be done, yes.

[Jack Sawyer]

Its like when the US invaded IRq. Was it right? No, becasue no countrys soverignty should be broken by another. BUT, did it need to be done, yes.

Why invading a defenseless country with an asshole good-for-nothing dictator at the helm "needed to be done"?


To this day, the haven't found shit. Or does the US Army operate like Minority Report?

[will641]

Its like when the US invaded IRq. Was it right? No, becasue no countrys soverignty should be broken by another. BUT, did it need to be done, yes.

Why invading a defenseless country with an asshole good-for-nothing dictator at the helm "needed to be done"?


To this day, the haven't found shit. Or does the US Army operate like Minority Report?

saddam admitted that after the sanction was over he was planning to resume nuclear projects.

[biondino]

Are you saying shooting gays needs to be done, Miffed? Are you saying there's any justification for doing so? I'd STRONGLY advise you to back out at this point because you're getting to a very disturbing point in your bigotry.

[salsa4ever]

that they are allowed to exist as what they are

What are you saying here? It comes off as I think all gay people should die but I assume this is far from the case...

rather the opposite. Do i think gays are humans with (relativly) the same rights? yes sure.
Do i agree with gay 'rights' like adopting children. No

Why not?
What should be the requirement of being able to adopt children? IQ > 110? Wealth? Participation in an institutional marriage? A stable life? No criminal record? University education? Heterosexuality?
Should I be allowed to adopt a child? I think I have a lot of love to give (no not in that way), and I'm wealthy, intelligent, university educated, and criminal-record-free. Would it change if I was gay?

How about gay 'rights' like being able to drive? At what point, does a right change from a "relatively the same" [basic] human right like that to vote, and to get career opportunity to a right that ought to be denied to gays (of which you've mentioned marriage and adoption)?

[will641]

if i may try to take a stab at miffeds inner thoughts. I think he doesnt think they ought to be shot, i think he just wouldnt lose sleep over it if they were.

[salsa4ever]

I think he's saying that gay sex is essentially a fetish that has become quite popular and turned into a culture, and that society is catering to that culture when it really shouldn't have to, because there is nothing particularly special about having a sexual fetish. No one really gives special treatment to people with shoe fetishes, or cross dressers, or people who like to get whipped or tied up.

Which is kind of a fair point.

I partially agree. I'm willing to say that gay sex is a fetish under my definition of a fetish, and I see nothing wrong with fetishes.

However, nobody in society really cares that much whether I "like to abuse [them]", or "like to be abused".

But society doesn't deny the right to get married, or to receive the government benefits of being married, or to adopt children, or to get IVF treatment, etc etc to people with shoe fetishes. Someone who's into BDSM is much better able to hide their fetish and get an adoption approved than a gay couple. I mean it's not something they can exactly hide easily [I'm not one of those who can easily hide... (Your Song, Elton John)].

So that brings us full circle. Society gives gays special treatment, that they don't gove to other harmless sexual paraphilias. The bad kind. Society is able to do it because gayness is a lot more conspicuous than having a shoe fetish or a costume/roleplay fetish. I mean, not many people know what kind of stuff I'm into or want to try once at some point, but they'd all know if I'm gay. Society is encouraged to mete out special negative treatment to gays by those who think the Bible prohibits gayness (but it doesn't say anything about shoe fetishes).

[swiggidy]

So can a homosexual, who is sexually attracted to the same sex, and not turned on by the opposite sex call heterosexual sex a fetish?

Note: I only read Salsa's post, so if this has been covered feel free to ignore me.

[salsa4ever]

To me, no.

It's incredibly difficult to define fetish but I'll try. I think it's a sexual attraction to an activity or an aspect of one's sexual partner that is either totally irrelevant, or counter-productive to our genetic wiring of wanting to continue our gene line.

Now that sounds incredibly complicated. What I'm saying is that being attracted to the opposite sex isn't a fetish cos it's what our Darwinian genes are wired to do. Attraction to nice feminine breasts etc. is not a fetish because we're genetically wired to be attracted to characteristics that suggest the partner is going to be fertile and feminine. But if the attraction extends to completely oversized breasts to the point where it's dangerous to health, then the opposite argument applies (our partner is now anything but "healthy" or well placed to continue our gene line).

Atraction to amputees is a fetish cos it's the opposite case. Same with homosexuality: it's entirely contrary to our genetic disposition widen our gene pool. Incest as well given what we know now about the eugenic concerns. Something like roleplay/costuming or BDSM or shoe fetishism is entirely irrelevant.

It's probably a flawed definition cos I haven't thought seriously about how to define a fetish, but there you go.

[euphoricism]

# A sexual fixation on a concept, object, or body part. A person with a fetish feels a compulsive need to use the object in order to obtain sexual gratification, and cannot achieve pleasure without it. ...

[will641]

i dont understand how gay sex is a fetish but heterosexual sex isnt? a fetish is a fixation on something. i dont see how one draws that conclusion. anyone care to elaborate?

[bode]

Oh, and making jokes at their expense IS discrimination, Miffy, maybe not the worst but it's a textbook example.

warning, troll post:

i make jokes about gays, blacks, rednecks, hippies, preppy white people, rich people, poor people, democrats, republicans, women, etc. i am atleast 2 of these, some would argue more. Does that make me racist/sexist/intollerant?

[euphoricism]

i dont understand how gay sex is a fetish but heterosexual sex isnt? a fetish is a fixation on something. i dont see how one draws that conclusion. anyone care to elaborate?

Go away, troll

[will641]

i dont understand how gay sex is a fetish but heterosexual sex isnt? a fetish is a fixation on something. i dont see how one draws that conclusion. anyone care to elaborate?

Go away, troll

bite me you anti american scum.

[salsa4ever]

# A sexual fixation on a concept, object, or body part. A person with a fetish feels a compulsive need to use the object in order to obtain sexual gratification, and cannot achieve pleasure without it. ...

well then heterosexual sex is as much a fetish as homosexual sex under your definition. Is that the intent?

[chardrian]

I can use my other parts with miffed so he can stand me

[bigspenda73]

Why in the world would this thread ever be started?

[salsa4ever]

I split it from the other garbage thread cos we clearly segued from hate crime to a debate on homosexuality and the definition of a sexual fetish

[will641]

wow that is amazing, i was trying to find a good gay joke and besides the one liners like, the rest were really crappy:
What's the definition of dried fruit?
A fag with a vasectomy.

[salsa4ever]

come on you can do better than that. do some research and gimme a better gay joke

[thizzSantaCruz]

wow this thread blows dick

[bigspenda73]

I think you'd have difficulty saying i am either right or wrong, i just dont like what they stand for.

wow, that's just unbelievably ignorant in every way imaginable.

[will641]

wow this thread blows dick

is this a really funny pun or a serious comment. either way lols

[will641]

come on you can do better than that. do some research and gimme a better gay joke

How do you know when you're in a gay church?
Only half the congregation kneels to pray!

What do you call a mix between a Homo and a Dinosaur?
A Mega-sore-ass!

(arab joke)
What's 20 feet long and wrapped around a cunt?
A turban!

[salsa4ever]

come on you can do better than that. do some research and gimme a better gay joke

How do you know when you're in a gay church?
Only half the congregation kneels to pray!

What do you call a mix between a Homo and a Dinosaur?
A Mega-sore-ass!

(arab joke)
What's 20 feet long and wrapped around a cunt?
A turban!

A significant improvement!

These get the salsa4ever stamp of funnyness.

[thizzSantaCruz]

For real though... my last comment sucked. My take on the subject is personally I don't care about what people do in their private time. Sexual preference does not change a person from being a person. Discrimination is not right. Miffed's comment about not caring if they were killed for being gay kind of disturbed me. There is no way I would support killing anyone for their sexual preference.

[TheFaucet]

gays disgust me imo
homosexuality is deviant and immoral imo
homos shouldn't be allowed to get married imo
but aside from that, gays should be afforded all the rights that a heterosexual is given imo, eventually they should be allowed to serve in the military while openly admitting they're gay

[Miffed22001]

Are you saying shooting gays needs to be done, Miffed? Are you saying there's any justification for doing so? I'd STRONGLY advise you to back out at this point because you're getting to a very disturbing point in your bigotry.

quite the opposite. I belive people of any race, religion or sexual orinetation should be allowed to live life in the way that suits them and should not be discriminated against in any way.
However, in being giving the equal freedoms they deserve i also feel that sometimes they cannot have every single right that someone else does as i keep using as an example, the ability to adopt or bring up children in the case of homosexuals.

If gay bashing were legal i wouldnt ever join in, never ever, the same way i wouldnt openly racially abuse any person of a different colour than me.
but as biondino says, we are all racist to some degree when we laugh at a joke about someone elses colour.
But i laugh at this joke because its comedy related to what someone is, not because its comedy at a black/chinese/asians expense.

Can you see the difference?

Edit: has anyone seen the southpark episode where they have a flag and its a blackstick man who is hanging and not the white one and the kids dont get they are being racist? this expalains sort of what im trying to say)

[will641]

just out of curiosity miffed, does S & M sex disgust you?

[zook]

Why all the hate? FTR needs more love. I'm gonna pm chard...

[Jimmy Mac]

[salsa4ever]

However, in being giving the equal freedoms they deserve i also feel that sometimes they cannot have every single right that someone else does as i keep using as an example, the ability to adopt or bring up children in the case of homosexuals.

You keep saying this, but you don't explain why?

I'm trying to get my head around why it is that adopting children or using reproduction technologies in the case of lesbians is a special right that should be denied to gays? Clearly, you agree they have the right to live, and it seems you're prepared to give them the right to not be bashed. I'm trying to understand you here, why is the adoption right your protoype right of something that they shouldn't have?

For your reference.

Why not?
What should be the requirement of being able to adopt children? IQ > 110? Wealth? Participation in an institutional marriage? A stable life? No criminal record? University education? Heterosexuality?

[Pelion]

Lol salsa you remind me of the guy in the life of brian who is fighting for his right to have babies.

[biondino]

Opposition to gay marriage is the one thing that absolutely, 100% foxes me. I've never heard a convincing argument, even a reason, but for some people it's still a big thing.

[will641]

Lol salsa you remind me of the guy in the life of brian who is fighting for his right to have babies.

oh yeah that is really funny.

Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But you can't have babies.
Stan: Don't you oppress me.
Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
[Stan starts crying.]
Judith: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
Reg: What's the point?
Stan: What?
Reg: What's the point in fighting for his right to have babies if he can't have babies?
Stan: It's symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

[will641]

Opposition to gay marriage is the one thing that absolutely, 100% foxes me. I've never heard a convincing argument, even a reason, but for some people it's still a big thing.

i think it's a similar thing as religion. I have never heard a convincing argument to believe that god exists, and likewise, they have never heard one that he doesn't exist. So, it's just simply a matter of your personal stance on gays.

[bigred]

Can we get rid of fat people marriage too? That's probably not a good environment for children. They shouldn't be able to adopt either because their kids have a better chance of being overweight. Oh, people who chew their gum loud too. They "bother me." I don't want any kids to be future loud gum chewers. Oh, let's ban "people who watch the NBA" marriage. I dislike the NBA and they could create more NBA fans, that bothers me. In fact, let's just go ahead and ban everyone that disagrees with anything I believe in. God forbid they enjoy the privileges of marriage and a family if they hold different views on life.

Why stop there? If fat people can't breed, marry, or integrate themselves into society, what's the point in letting them live? Same with all the other people who disagree with me. I say we band together and eradicate all these groups of unbelievers, these infidels. Man, I can't believe no one has thought of this before!


Ridiculous threads deserve ridiculous responses and nothing more.

[TheFaucet]

gays are ridiculous

agreed

[Miffed22001]

just out of curiosity miffed, does S & M sex disgust you?

it doesnt disgust me, but it does nothing for me

[Miffed22001]

However, in being giving the equal freedoms they deserve i also feel that sometimes they cannot have every single right that someone else does as i keep using as an example, the ability to adopt or bring up children in the case of homosexuals.

You keep saying this, but you don't explain why?

I'm trying to get my head around why it is that adopting children or using reproduction technologies in the case of lesbians is a special right that should be denied to gays? Clearly, you agree they have the right to live, and it seems you're prepared to give them the right to not be bashed. I'm trying to understand you here, why is the adoption right your protoype right of something that they shouldn't have?

For your reference.

Why not?
What should be the requirement of being able to adopt children? IQ > 110? Wealth? Participation in an institutional marriage? A stable life? No criminal record? University education? Heterosexuality?

i cant elaborate on thios other than by saying something most people will take the wrong way and that is that 'nature says no, so tough luck'

eg being gay is fine, nature allows that, but it doesnt allow you children, so neither do we.
but nature doesnt get everyone to bash gays does it? which is why i feel thats wrong

[Miffed22001]

Opposition to gay marriage is the one thing that absolutely, 100% foxes me. I've never heard a convincing argument, even a reason, but for some people it's still a big thing.

do you think gay couples should be able to adopt?

[bigred]

Opposition to gay marriage is the one thing that absolutely, 100% foxes me. I've never heard a convincing argument, even a reason, but for some people it's still a big thing.

do you think gay couples should be able to adopt?

Far worse people out there...

[jyms]

I would rather gays adopted than a catholic priest.

[bigred]

I would rather gays adopted than a catholic priest.

LYNCH THE HERETIC!!!!!!

[biondino]

Opposition to gay marriage is the one thing that absolutely, 100% foxes me. I've never heard a convincing argument, even a reason, but for some people it's still a big thing.

do you think gay couples should be able to adopt?

Absolutely! If they're judged to be competent parents on the same criteria that het couples are, then I can't think of a single problem with it.

[|~|ypermegachi]

the nature argument about reproduction doesn't hold well when you consider there are people who physically cannot reproduce even though they have heterosexual preferences.

[bode]

the nature argument about reproduction doesn't hold well when you consider there are people who physically cannot reproduce even though they have heterosexual preferences.

the natural arguement about reproduction has nothing to do w/ a hetero couple being infertile. It has to do the the parts fitting together. Try plugging one electrical cord into another. Obviously it doesnt work because it was "designed" to fit into an outlet.

[|~|ypermegachi]

the nature argument about reproduction doesn't hold well when you consider there are people who physically cannot reproduce even though they have heterosexual preferences.

the natural arguement about reproduction has nothing to do w/ a hetero couple being infertile. It has to do the the parts fitting together. Try plugging one electrical cord into another. Obviously it doesnt work because it was "designed" to fit into an outlet.

i see your point, but i'm still gonna crack a joke about it. just because nature never designed the penis that way doesn't prevent it from finding itself in weird orifices.

[XTR1000]

the nature argument about reproduction doesn't hold well when you consider there are people who physically cannot reproduce even though they have heterosexual preferences.

I wouldnt throw this in here, b/c infertile couples suffer some physical disability and did not actively choose to not reproduce theirselves as they´re supposed to


but what about hetero fertile couples who decide not to want kids?

[XTR1000]

the nature argument about reproduction doesn't hold well when you consider there are people who physically cannot reproduce even though they have heterosexual preferences.

I wouldnt throw this in here, b/c infertile couples suffer some physical disability and did not actively choose to not reproduce theirselves as they´re supposed to


but what about hetero fertile couples who decide not to want kids?

[will641]

what about them? they don't want kids. it would be another thing if they don't want sex, but theres nothing wrong with not procreating.

[biondino]

the natural arguement about reproduction has nothing to do w/ a hetero couple being infertile. It has to do the the parts fitting together. Try plugging one electrical cord into another. Obviously it doesnt work because it was "designed" to fit into an outlet.

Hold on - nothing was "designed"! Male and female parts fit very well together but unless you think that some supreme being decided to create them this way (and Christianity, for example, may cause you to believe this) then you have to accept that no matter how well they do a job there's no design involved.

Most male fish ejaculate into the water - there are no parts fitting into other parts there. By your argument, they too are against nature.

Evolution is a very efficient, but purely mechanical, system via which physical functions develop - there's no possible way you can say there's intent behind it. Bode, you don't have an argument.

[pgil]

besides, if you want to take an evolutionary look at it, it could be argued that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt more so than heterosexual couples:

there is homosexuality in animals. One explanation for why this can occur is that the homosexual individuals will help siblings to rear offspring, thereby increasing the chances of those offspring surviving and helping to spread a portion of the genes held by the homosexual individual.

If you accept this explanation, or accept that it may have some role as to why homosexuality persists in the animal kingdom, then it is a small step to the idea that a homosexual couple adopting children is exactly what nature intended. Of course this last line should not imply that there is any intentionality behind natural occurrences.

[TheFaucet]

besides, if you want to take an evolutionary look at it, it could be argued that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt more so than heterosexual couples:

there is homosexuality in animals. One explanation for why this can occur is that the homosexual individuals will help siblings to rear offspring, thereby increasing the chances of those offspring surviving and helping to spread a portion of the genes held by the homosexual individual.

If you accept this explanation, or accept that it may have some role as to why homosexuality persists in the animal kingdom, then it is a small step to the idea that a homosexual couple adopting children is exactly what nature intended. Of course this last line should not imply that there is any intentionality behind natural occurrences.

no

[Anosmic]

Evolution is a very efficient.

How can you claim it's efficient? A non-wasteful system wouldn't create stuff that wasn't fit for purpose, by definition any "survival of the fittest" scenario incorporates unfit elements which are inefficient.
Seems to me that without a guiding intelligence evolution would be "try [almost] anything, see what works" in which case it's exceptionally inefficient.

Gah! This is dull! You made me post about dull crap biondino!!


Regarding other points made:
Re: Adoption
An argument could be made that adoption from the modern p.o.v. is about replacing "missing" parents. Since parents are a pair consisting of a male and female that is recipe for the replacement. What difference does it make? That's an exceptionally difficult question and it's far from obvious what difference it makes having a single parent.

Are problems encountered with single-parent families to do with number or gender? Is an absent father a problem because it's a lack of male-parent or a lack of second parent? These questions are NOT trivial. (But I'm not saying they're not answerable).

Re: Marriage
The problem is people are labelling their relationship with a term "marriage" and this has cultural (and as a subset, religious) factors.
If someone else then says "my relationship is the same" (when it clearly isn't) then they are making value statements both about their relationship but also the one to which they are comparing.

In the west we have, for instance, largely rejected polygamous marriage as "wrong" or "abnormal" or whatever. We have for a number of centuries declared the marriage relationship to be "one man and one woman".

The question of Gay Marriage is not JUST a question of deciding whether a homosexual relationship that forms a civil partnership ought to bring with it similar social protections and rights that heterosexual marriage enjoys.

It's possible, for instance, to believe that it's unacceptable that a homosexual partner would be barred from a hospital room because it's "family only" and want inheritance, tax and alimony laws to reflect heterosexual norms for homosexual couples AND YET reject the idea that one must change one's own definition of "Marriage" to incoporate this homosexual relationship.

It may well bring with it a value judgment. But is that wrong? I mean in the same way that many western couples might regard polygamous "marriage" as "not the same as our marriage" they may feel similarly about homosexual "marriage". Do they not have that right? Must they accept it as the same thing when differences exist (and again, ontological equivalence is separate from legal egality).

There's my tuppence worth anyhoo

[biondino]

Evolution is a very efficient.

How can you claim it's efficient? A non-wasteful system wouldn't create stuff that wasn't fit for purpose, by definition any "survival of the fittest" scenario incorporates unfit elements which are inefficient.
Seems to me that without a guiding intelligence evolution would be "try [almost] anything, see what works" in which case it's exceptionally inefficient.

No, you're absolutely right. Evolution is FANTASTICALLY inefficient for the most part, for the reasons you state. However, two things need to be considered. 1) During catastrophic events, where survival is extremely tough, evolution can be effectively dramatically speeded up if some sampels of an organism have characteristics that enable survival when the rest will inevitably die. Catastrophes can be instantaneous (meteor impact) or much slower (ice age), but the mechanism remains the same.

2) the one thing evolution has is time. As it is essentially a random process, without direction or bias, the vast majority of mutations or changes in species will be useless or worse. But the ones that occasionally do hit have aeons to make a difference, which is why exquisitely adapted physical features, like the eyeball, the crossbill's beak, the woodpecker's skull, can develop from a series of rare and random mutations.