[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Wrong. You're responding to a point you clearly didn't get.

Then please explain further.

Hostile? WHAT?

I'm sorry, I'm being pointed - not hostile. I'll try to include the proper amount of emoticons and smilies if it will soothe your conscious.

Then I apologise. It looked hostile to me, but perhaps I was getting excited myself.

Again, I really don't give a damn, and I have presented what I believe would be a proper compromise (a term the minority never seems to understand).Did you read the explanation?It wasn't meant as an insult to everybody who disagrees with me, as you say. It was meant as an observation of EVERYONE IN GENERAL.

Then you include yourself in that statement? Again I apologise. It seemed dismissive to me.

People tend to find a way to spin things into meaning what they want them to mean, rather than taking them at face value. Your response was an excellent case-in-point. I suspect you wanted to find every line I wrote to be wrong, and therefore you argued as though I said something I didn't.

Perhaps. I don't know myself well enough to judge that.

Thanks for proving my point.

If you mean the one about misinterpreting or over-reacting, then you're welcome. If you meant something within the "Gay Marriage" argument itself, you'll need to explain.

Nor, in this case, is it wrong.

That's your opinion, nothing more. It might very well be wrong.

Nope...

And yet you are so adamant about it. You claim to have no dog in this hunt, yet you argue as if it's your very life's passion. Me, I don't care about it either, but I do care very much about people's rights.

That sounds like something you should work on.

I've already worked on it. That's why I admit that my reactions may be wrong, and support the rights of those I disagree with.

What I find offensive is when the minority insists upon infringing upon the established traditions of the majority when THEY CAN REAP THE SAME BENEFITS WITHOUT DOING SO!

So why deny them the right to just do so?

But considering that you've so convieniently lumped me into the anti-gay crowd, you've gone far to make my point that compromise, and as such, the middle ground is beyond the grasp of your side's capability.

But you don't advocate a middle ground. You advocate the restriction of a percieved benefit from a portion of the population, and your basis for doing so seems to be solely morality. What you advocate is not compromise at all.

And "your side"? What exactly is "my side". I've said I find homosexuality distasteful, so it can't be that. The side of advocating equal rights for all?