The form of your comments has improved -- thanks for dropping the all caps yelling -- but until the content of your comments becomes much more calm and much less hyper-personalized, I'll leave it to others to consider the attempt to engage you in substantive discussion.

the content of your comments have attacked me for the way I was born and you tell me not to hyperpersonalize the discussion. you have potently proven yourself a complete selfish iddiot. you have hyperpersonally demeaned me and are discriminitory toward me for something I have no choice in. and you have the gall to tell me to not take it personally? I don't care at this point how uneducated you are, you crossed a line that you don't know how to undo so you tell me to not take it personally.

have you forgotten that homsexuals are people too. just like you. or are you still clinging to the idea that since you're a hetero you have an inside track on the reality of homosexuals lives and what we should think, what we deserve and what we should do with ourselves? we are people, chairm. we're not just an abstract thing in this world that it's ok to denegrate and belittle without consequence.

focus on this:

what is my threat of retribution? asking for your education credentials? are you afraid to tell everyone in here that you have no authority to speak on this issue because you aren't an anthropologist, a pediatricial, sociologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, a member of the apa or the ama?

I will call you on all your bs that you spew in here.

" Also, threats of retribution are a very poor substitute for an actual argument." What's that all about? Are you in here with your lies just to argue?

And, again, with respect, please refrain from yelling with all caps. Also, threats of retribution are a very poor substitute for an actual argument.

Explain to all of us EXACTLY what the expense to marriage will be if us homos get married.

And you're right, we are about pushing for the advantage of the gay identity group of homosexuals, whatever that means, to be treated exactly the same way you think you as a hetero should be treated. WITH RESPECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I threatened nobody. Again, I'd love to know your education credentials, chairm and tc with real names.

What do you think I'm going to do, find you and beat the crap out of you? That what the homosexual comminuty has put up with for YEARS, and you just think we want to visit upon you what you guys through legislation have thrown our way. And don't play stupid, homophobia is the only institutionalized discriminatory prejudice that is legal, and you know it, unless you really are as ignorant as you two portray yourselves to be. You guys are even trying to go as far as making it MORE legal to descriminate against homosexuals.

Thanks for not yelling with all caps.

Marriage benefits society and society benefits the social institution of marriage. There is no exploitation of identity groups, on my part, nor on the part of those who defend marriage qua marriage.

The SSM campaign, on the other hand, is entirely about pushing for the advantage of the gay identity group at the expense of the social institution of marriage.

I'm VERY interested to know you level of education, with your real name. And please try not to lie. I can look it up. I have a close friend of many years who works at the federal level of the dept of ed.

For the record, you assumming I'm yelling at you is totally on par with everything else you assume about homosexuals and people who are proven to be smarter than you. Nice attempt at evading a question that hits at the heart of you. I dare you to say you don't think you've been exploiting homosexuals with the H8 you've been spewing out on these posts about gay marriage and homosexuals in general. I dare you.

After you answer the question, I'd also like to know if you went to your local gay bar last weekend and tried your ignorant discriminatory homophobic rant out on them. I'm just sayin"........

Emma, the problem with that statement is that when same sex couples and gay advocates come across data such as this study here that suggests the best possible arrangement for children is with a mom and a dad, they attack it rather than embrace it. This is not the first study to show that the natural family is far superior at addressing the needs of children. It flies directly in the face of the theory that whatever is good for the adult must be good for the child.

The fact that you have not even considered what this study might have to say about what is best for children shows that you are perfectly willing to continue pushing the gay agenda and take a wait and see approach to the consequences for children. Whether you choose to see it or not, this is the great experiment. This is in fact exploiting children for the socio political benefit of those pushing the same sex movement's unquestionable and unalterable dogma.