>>>>>>>Afaic, the whole thing is utter nonsense. It revolves entirely around two things - religion, and the desire to have something that others with whom one disagrees, cannot have. A sad commentary on Californian priorities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree with you. The whole thing is fed by professional protesters who care about their or someone else right to 'marry' his/her partner much less than about own ego and/or political gain. Some people just cannot stand someone else clinging to traditional values like going to church or marrying the opposite sex. It is not enough to them that their behavior is accepted and protected by law. They want anyone else to behave like them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nice try, but the 'protesters' do not care at all about "someone else clinging to traditional values like going to church or marrying the opposite sex". As far as they're concerned, those people can go on doing what they've always done - no sweat. They'd merely like the privilege of doing the same. you feel it's fair to bar them, so in fact, you are the one who can't stand others not behaving like you (ie - be heterosexual if they want to get married).
>>>>
>>>>Marrying is not about behavior, it is about traditional behavior. Also, I said many times already in this thread that it is not a privilege, at least not one that must be distributed to any taker just for equality sake. It is a responsibilty to conform him/herself to certain kind of traditional behavior, and, as long as it is optional, it is not discriminatory. If you don't like this kind of behaviour that take another one and be happy; but don't tell me how my traditional behavior should be re-defined.
>>>
>>>Then do you also stick to the tradition of only using a stick as big as your thumb to beat your women-folk? Did/do you plan on selecting your sister's/daughter's husbands for them? That's also traditional behavior. if not, why not? Are you not traditional? Isn't that the point you're trying to make? It's 'tradition', nothing more?
>>>
>>It depends on traditions. I guess that you have your own set expressed in your message.
>>
>>>And what, exactly, is the difference between 'behavior' and 'traditional behavior'
>>>
>>>Try again, Edward, please - maybe if you try enough times you'll actually hit an argument that makes sense.
>>
>>Every sense is individual. One person logical point is an idiocy for another especially when own logics run low
>
>And I have yet to see any logic to any of your arguments yet, including this one. And gee, nice attempt at an assumption.

I am sorry but I am not in business of selling logics. You don't see it, so good for you. I suspect that any point that I could address on this issue you would perceive as having no logics. Correct? When someone disagrees with your points (make no mistake I do not represent fringe group here), it does not mean that logics do not exist there. It may just indicate different kind of logics, not one that you use/like, so 'no logics' claim cannot be true.