Closing -- Willis

It seems to be time for some apologizing and explanation.

I chose to post those 17 reasons because as I said, I was short on time, and you wanted to keep blog momentum up. However this does not mean that I just posted the first text I could find. I do believe gay people are unfairly picked on. That is why I chose to post in support of them with my name on the post.
If it seems I took your attacks too personally, I believe a counter example would be if you posted an excerpt on the benefits of republicanism from their website, and I countered with a post attacking republicans, and calling all of their ideals stupid.
Even if I didn't agree with my first post on this topic, I feel that you can't attack a subject or ideal, and then get upset when somebody fights back.

As far as the horse example goes, I find the big difference here the fact that horses are not human and do not follow the other laws of our society. Horses are not taxed, they don't attend jury duty, they aren't going to college or running for office, etc. I don't enjoy the frequent comparisons of gay people with animals which seem to deem them as less than human. I also don't think that we should make decisions based on a small handful of possible scenarios that you admit are "far-fetched".
I still think gay couples should have the right to marry despite the stance of "America".

I didn't mean to say that I don't value your opinion. I was trying to imply that calling one political side names tends to make one seem like an extremist for the other side. People tend to listen to extremist opinions feeling that there is too much spin to determine the truth, or that the extremist doesn't know what they're talking about because they've closed off the other side of the discussion. I was attempting to do this is a somewhat comical manner, but apparently I failed.

I also never called you a stupid, ignorant, bigot. I don't consider you an older generation, nor did I intend to imply that anybody older than me is a bigot. In my mind I had a picture of a grandpa telling his grandkids that he can't believe they let them negros buy their own houses and vote. Back in his day ....
I know that I didn't call you ignorant, because I probably would have thought it was spelled with 2 r's and then given up on the word and changed my train of thought.
The nu-uh comment was simply to represent the childish argument path we were headed down consisting of-
"I think [.....]"
"You're stupid!"
"Nu-uh, you're stupid!"
"Your mom's stupid!"
*punches thrown*


As for my leaving my "petty arguing" and returning to the discussion, I think I made many valid points which were backed by scientific evidence. I'll admit that my post was a bit hostile, and I apologize for that. I didn't mean to attack you personally. I was simply trying to convince readers of my point of view, but I wrote the post while feeling defensive.

If my posts have truly convinced you to be alright with a homosexual couple choosing to commit to each other, even without legal status, then I consider it a success.

While I never expected our debates to be entirely professional, this one seems too serious for the jovial manner in which we typically debate things. I suggest future topics along the lines of "What's really going on in 'The Prestige'", or "The phonetics of the word Warm".