President Obama Endorses Same-Sex Marriage

@Still_I_Cry said:

@stise said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@TheDudeOfGaming: Same.

@Milkman: Wasn't posing an argument. Simply saying I disagree. The only embarrassment here is the hoard of people attacking me for saying "I disagree."

To be fair, you didn't just disagree. You included a dismissive generalization of gay marriage supporters.

No, I included a dismissive generalization of people that attack me for disagreeing..To be fair.

I dunno, I feel like "college students wailing about equality" is a broader categorization than that. It's possible to wail about equality without attacking anyone.

I don't get why people care. What's the big difference between a marriage and a civil union, aside from religious implications?

@stise said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@stise said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@TheDudeOfGaming: Same.

@Milkman: Wasn't posing an argument. Simply saying I disagree. The only embarrassment here is the hoard of people attacking me for saying "I disagree."

To be fair, you didn't just disagree. You included a dismissive generalization of gay marriage supporters.

No, I included a dismissive generalization of people that attack me for disagreeing..To be fair.

I dunno, I feel like "college students wailing about equality" is a broader categorization than that. It's possible to wail about equality without attacking anyone.

I can assure you it wasn't meant as a sweeping generalization of people who support gay rights.

@mandude said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@mandude said:

More like "You're stupid because you disagree with me, and are denying me certain liberties based on that principle."

Well, sorry. Personally, I am surprised my opinion holds such weight in your life.

It's pretty obvious I wasn't speaking for myself. Just elaborating on his statement, since you left out a pretty important part, and then criticised his statement sans completion.

It was also pretty obvious I took it that way for the sake of sarcasm.

@Red said:

I don't get why people care. What's the big difference between a marriage and a civil union, aside from religious implications?

Because it signifies that people aren't willing to fully accept gay/lesbian couples. A Civil Union is better than nothing though.

@Red said:

I don't get why people care. What's the big difference between a marriage and a civil union, aside from religious implications?

Whats the difference between only being able to sit at the back of the bus and being allowed to sit where ever you like?

The exclusion is demeaning and shows a lack of acceptance.

@Still_I_Cry said:

@mandude said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@mandude said:

More like "You're stupid because you disagree with me, and are denying me certain liberties based on that principle."

Well, sorry. Personally, I am surprised my opinion holds such weight in your life.

It's pretty obvious I wasn't speaking for myself. Just elaborating on his statement, since you left out a pretty important part, and then criticised his statement sans completion.

It was also pretty obvious I took it that way for the sake of sarcasm.

I think this is why you are getting the reaction you are getting. You're not taking any criticism serious, nor do you seem to be taking your own opinion seriously enough to even illustrate it.

OMG SOCIALISM! You guys are turning into pinko gay commies like us (Canada)

not really i hate harper

@SethPhotopoulos said:

@spartanlolz92 said:

@PlasmaBeam44 said:

@SuperSambo said:

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

@Animasta said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Animasta said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

This is news? I thought everyone knew this by now..

Can't say I agree with him.

*Queue hoard of angry college students wailing about equality*

homophobe

It's not wailing about equality. It's people being denied the same rights as others. Animasta hit the nail on the head here.

Disagreeing with homosexual marriage is definitely homophobia.

/eye roll

yep, it is.

Nope, it's not.

It's not homophobia, but it is stupid.

Incredibly stupid. What people do behind closed doors is no ones business but their own. I find it very selfish of people to sit back with their families and kids and deny someone who has a different sexuality than their own the opportunity to have the same because they find it "icky" or whatever. It's not like you're getting married to someone of the same sex and it will have no bearing on your life whatsoever. And these people who think that it will lead to legalizing incest or bestiality are extremely stupid.

well the arguments that homesexuality is natural is kinda dumb because then you can opne up the door for pedophiles aswell

they can claim the exact same thing

With homosexual marriage there is an agreement between consenting adults. Children aren't considered mature enough to make those decisions. They don't necessarily understand everything that's going on and it could potentially harm them. Also pedophilia (unless I'm mistaken) isn't very well documented in nature whereas homosexuality is.

I don't mean to rain on your parade but as the chat of Tera so totally not at all creepily pointed out last week, pedophilia was practiced commonly by people in the past. Not saying it is alrite(it is a terible thing nd is completely repulsive) but yo ucan't just ignore the facts because they hurt your point. The reason animals don't practice it is they do not have an age of consent for them to be violating in the first place.

And 2 days later obama gets an invitation to ellen.

@StalkingTurnip said:

Not saying it is alrite(it is a terible thing nd is completely repulsive) but yo ucan't just ignore the facts because they hurt your point.

No, they don't. Stop comparing gays and pedophiles, thanks.

Too bad he waited until he was almost out of office. From what I gather, the usual way presidents operate is a) promise a bunch of shit, b) keep a meager hold onto your power for 3 years while you try your best to compromise for change, then c) execute on your promises at the very end when you're already on the way out.

@StalkingTurnip said:

@SethPhotopoulos said:

@spartanlolz92 said:

@PlasmaBeam44 said:

@SuperSambo said:

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

@Animasta said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Animasta said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

This is news? I thought everyone knew this by now..

Can't say I agree with him.

*Queue hoard of angry college students wailing about equality*

homophobe

It's not wailing about equality. It's people being denied the same rights as others. Animasta hit the nail on the head here.

Disagreeing with homosexual marriage is definitely homophobia.

/eye roll

yep, it is.

Nope, it's not.

It's not homophobia, but it is stupid.

Incredibly stupid. What people do behind closed doors is no ones business but their own. I find it very selfish of people to sit back with their families and kids and deny someone who has a different sexuality than their own the opportunity to have the same because they find it "icky" or whatever. It's not like you're getting married to someone of the same sex and it will have no bearing on your life whatsoever. And these people who think that it will lead to legalizing incest or bestiality are extremely stupid.

well the arguments that homesexuality is natural is kinda dumb because then you can opne up the door for pedophiles aswell

they can claim the exact same thing

With homosexual marriage there is an agreement between consenting adults. Children aren't considered mature enough to make those decisions. They don't necessarily understand everything that's going on and it could potentially harm them. Also pedophilia (unless I'm mistaken) isn't very well documented in nature whereas homosexuality is.

I don't mean to rain on your parade but as the chat of Tera so totally not at all creepily pointed out last week, pedophilia was practiced commonly by people in the past. Not saying it is alrite(it is a terible thing nd is completely repulsive) but yo ucan't just ignore the facts because they hurt your point. The reason animals don't practice it is they do not have an age of consent for them to be violating in the first place.

It being done in the past is not a good argument to support something.

And after reading about the community on Tera, I feel sorry for the people making the game.

@Animespara: I hope he dances again!

@mandude said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@mandude said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@mandude said:

More like "You're stupid because you disagree with me, and are denying me certain liberties based on that principle."

Well, sorry. Personally, I am surprised my opinion holds such weight in your life.

It's pretty obvious I wasn't speaking for myself. Just elaborating on his statement, since you left out a pretty important part, and then criticised his statement sans completion.

It was also pretty obvious I took it that way for the sake of sarcasm.

I think this is why you are getting the reaction you are getting. You're not taking any criticism serious, nor do you seem to be taking your own opinion seriously enough to even illustrate it.

I am getting the reaction I am getting for three reasons..

1. People can't seem to comprehend that there are people who disagree with gay marriage. They deal with this by attacking the person.

2. People saw what they wanted to see in my post.

3. "You're A Homophobe!". The new expansion to the "You're A Racist!" card game.

This is my last post here regardless, I never intended to start an argument.

@CH3BURASHKA said:

Too bad he waited until he was almost out of office. From what I gather, the usual way presidents operate is a) promise a bunch of shit, b) keep a meager hold onto your power for 3 years while you try your best to compromise for change, then c) execute on your promises at the very end when you're already on the way out.

He's got another 4 years.

@StalkingTurnip said:

@SethPhotopoulos said:

@spartanlolz92 said:

@PlasmaBeam44 said:

@SuperSambo said:

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

@Animasta said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Animasta said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

This is news? I thought everyone knew this by now..

Can't say I agree with him.

*Queue hoard of angry college students wailing about equality*

homophobe

It's not wailing about equality. It's people being denied the same rights as others. Animasta hit the nail on the head here.

Disagreeing with homosexual marriage is definitely homophobia.

/eye roll

yep, it is.

Nope, it's not.

It's not homophobia, but it is stupid.

Incredibly stupid. What people do behind closed doors is no ones business but their own. I find it very selfish of people to sit back with their families and kids and deny someone who has a different sexuality than their own the opportunity to have the same because they find it "icky" or whatever. It's not like you're getting married to someone of the same sex and it will have no bearing on your life whatsoever. And these people who think that it will lead to legalizing incest or bestiality are extremely stupid.

well the arguments that homesexuality is natural is kinda dumb because then you can opne up the door for pedophiles aswell

they can claim the exact same thing

With homosexual marriage there is an agreement between consenting adults. Children aren't considered mature enough to make those decisions. They don't necessarily understand everything that's going on and it could potentially harm them. Also pedophilia (unless I'm mistaken) isn't very well documented in nature whereas homosexuality is.

I don't mean to rain on your parade but as the chat of Tera so totally not at all creepily pointed out last week, pedophilia was practiced commonly by people in the past. Not saying it is alrite(it is a terible thing nd is completely repulsive) but yo ucan't just ignore the facts because they hurt your point. The reason animals don't practice it is they do not have an age of consent for them to be violating in the first place.

Our people practiced pederasty and stuff like that a very very very long time ago. Human culture and science has evolved to the point where we recognize that pedophilia is harmful to children. Homosexuality isn't harmful to anyone. A long time ago people would kill to sacrifice to the gods, people threw their literal shit in the street, and people burned witches. We were also exploring the world all those years ago, creating new technologies, and having straight sex. We constantly evolve, we learn many new things. We have abandoned, adopted, and kept many habits throughout our years on this planet. I don't see how that hurts my argument.

Great

@Still_I_Cry said:

@mandude said:

I think this is why you are getting the reaction you are getting. You're not taking any criticism serious, nor do you seem to be taking your own opinion seriously enough to even illustrate it.

I am getting the reaction I am getting for three reasons..

1. People can't seem to comprehend that there are people who disagree with gay marriage. They deal with this by attacking the person.

2. People saw what they wanted to see in my post.

3. "You're A Homophobe!". The new expansion to the "You're A Racist!" card game.

This is my last post here regardless, I never intended to start an argument.

Well, I'm not sure what there is to be said about stooping to that exact level when someone is trying to engage in proper debate about it.

You know what else was practiced by people in the past? Ritual sacrifice. Burning people at the stake. Crucifixion. Slavery. So yeah, pedophilia was practiced before. But so were those things.

@beej said:

@Dagbiker: Is there any good argument though? I haven't seen a single good one forwarded. The best one is that states ought to get out of all marriage, but that's not legally applicable at the moment as states DO choose to give this benefit to straight couples, so until they stop gay people are well within their rights to demand this benefit. The civil union argument is blatantly homophobic as whoever forwards it is willing to grant all the benefits of marriage to gay people, the only thing they don't want is to let gay people call it marriage which can have no rational basis.

They should also have their own schools and water fountains. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL!

@Still_I_Cry said:

@stise said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@TheDudeOfGaming: Same.

@Milkman: Wasn't posing an argument. Simply saying I disagree. The only embarrassment here is the hoard of people attacking me for saying "I disagree."

To be fair, you didn't just disagree. You included a dismissive generalization of gay marriage supporters.

No, I included a dismissive generalization of people that attack me for disagreeing.

You didn't state an opinion. You stated a one-off comment that was designed to incite rage. Maybe think a little harder before you drop some dumbass comment like that in the future.

Great! Now if only he could get Congress and state governments to agree with him.

@Red said:

I don't get why people care. What's the big difference between a marriage and a civil union, aside from religious implications?

A civil union's similarity to marriage varies from place to place, as well as legal recognition of the benefits it grants. Peep this handy map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

Furthermore, as a couple of others pointed out, it's kind of a "separate but equal" situation. Why do homosexuals and heterosexuals need exclusive channels to seek the same benefits? Why is the homosexuals' channel so much more legally limiting? The solution would be for governments to grant marital rights and benefits to one status accessible by any couple, requiring heterosexual couples to obtain a secular civil union in addition to their religious marriage to secure those benefits. You can imagine how well that'd go over.

@gamefreak9 said:

@BraveToaster said:

Trying to secure that gay vote...

the truth is here!

well i think that it would piss off most of the religious voters.

but they should be allowed to be as happy/miserable as the straight people who are married

@CitizenKane said:

While the most powerful person in the world giving their endorsement for marriage equality is a big symbolic step in the right direction, as we saw yesterday in North Carolina there is still a long road ahead and now he needs to walk the walk.

What happened in North Carolina?

@JasonR86 said:

That's kind of a bold thing to say before elections. I would have expected it after the elections were over.

You kidding me? The reason he said that was to secure the Far Left.

@JeanLuc said:

@CitizenKane said:

While the most powerful person in the world giving their endorsement for marriage equality is a big symbolic step in the right direction, as we saw yesterday in North Carolina there is still a long road ahead and now he needs to walk the walk.

What happened in North Carolina?

They made marriage legally between a man and a woman. The bill they signed also put a lot of restrictions on things like common law marriage, and did things like make it so businesses don't have to offer benefits to the partners of unwed employees.

@ Clinkz said:

@ JasonR86 said:

That's kind of a bold thing to say before elections. I would have expected it after the elections were over.

You kidding me? The reason he said that was to secure the Far Left.

But would the far left alone be enough to carry him? Romney is a bit of a moderate Republican and I would think for Obama to succeed he needs both moderate liberals and moderate republicans to vote for him. Saying something like this is a very polarizing, un-moderate tactic. NOTE: I'm not saying his belief is wrong. I agree with him. Just, strategy-wise, it seems a little suspect.

I thought he always "endorsed" it?

@Barrock said:

@JeanLuc said:

@CitizenKane said:

While the most powerful person in the world giving their endorsement for marriage equality is a big symbolic step in the right direction, as we saw yesterday in North Carolina there is still a long road ahead and now he needs to walk the walk.

What happened in North Carolina?

They made marriage legally between a man and a woman. The bill they signed also put a lot of restrictions on things like common law marriage, and did things like make it so businesses don't have to offer benefits to the partners of unwed employees.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

@Flawed_System said:

I thought he always "endorsed" it?

Back in the 90s, he was for gay marriage. Then when he was running for President, he was in favor of same-sex civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage. And now that he's running for reelection, he's saying he thinks same-sex couples should be able to marry and hopefully states will vote to allow it.

@JeanLuc said:

@Barrock said:

@JeanLuc said:

@CitizenKane said:

While the most powerful person in the world giving their endorsement for marriage equality is a big symbolic step in the right direction, as we saw yesterday in North Carolina there is still a long road ahead and now he needs to walk the walk.

What happened in North Carolina?

They made marriage legally between a man and a woman. The bill they signed also put a lot of restrictions on things like common law marriage, and did things like make it so businesses don't have to offer benefits to the partners of unwed employees.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Here are the other things,

Unmarried parents could no longer have the same child custody and visitation rights as married parents.

Private agreements between unmarried couples might not longer have a legal basis. This means, for example, that if a couple who has cohabited and raised children together for years decides to separate, the wealthier partner would not be legally obligated to divide property with his or her partner.

The law could interfere with unmarried partners' end-of-life arrangements, such as wills, trusts, and medical powers of attorney.

Employers would no longer have to provide benefits, such as health insurance, to the partners of unmarried employees.

The fact that this is even an issue in America is really stupid. We are talking about a LEGAL CONTRACT that someone enters into with another human being. That is the marriage we are talking about, this has nothing to do with your religion. If religions want to continue to discriminate against homosexuals they have the right to do so, but being against gay marriage is like saying you're against the idea of two men or women signing a promissory note. It's really stupid.

It's a political move, I'm sure he has supported it for a long time, but waited until now to gain leverage for the election. Obama knows he is going to have a hard time getting votes because of the economy, but social issues is easing picking, especially when he desperately needs the progressive vote again. Without young and progressive voters, he won't win this thing.

He's just saying it to get your vote. He will do nothing to help legalize gay marriage in states that don't have it. Don't get suckered. I'm still voting for Romney.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Jay444111 said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Jay444111 said:

Oh, another thing... now I am not a homophobe or anything, but think about 2000 years ago when their still wasn't that many people around, they kinda HAD to populate as much as possible in order to get as many humans out there as possible, Being gay though makes that impossible so I think there is resentment over that...

I could be UNBELIEVABLY wrong but it does make sense. I mean, hell, back then a freaking sliver can kill a man so going at it like bunny rabbits and producing as many children as possible and not encouraging homosexual stuff kinda makes sense. Nowadays it doesn't and with how we are able to live compared to back then. I don't see the need for these now insane traditions which only seek to hate people for any little thing about them. Who cares if it two dudes or two girls? WHO CARES? Let them be happy together then!

The Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Romans, the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Chinese, Japanese and Indians all had famous/legendary homosexual characters in their cultures. Homosexuality is part of our history. You are, as always, unbelievably wrong.

oh... sorry then! No need to be a jerk about this whole thing. Your almost as bad as Alexwood sometimes.

Maybe stop making wild offensive claims which have no basis in reality. How about that eh? That would be nice.

Dude... people died by slivers 2000 years ago. I am not joking, that was insanely common and getting to age 20 was being INSANELY lucky. Thus families and men and women HAD to produce in order to keep humanity going! Hell, technically we are all inbreed due to how few humans there once was. However, about the homosexual thing.

Man with Man does not equal babies. Female with Female has no babies unless... using certain tools... but anyways... Back then the bible was most likely written. There most likely was a thing with the writers that humanity had to continue and that anti gay thing in it was one of the ways such as thou shalt not kill and such. Most of the bible is mainly made for the sane fact that it gives hope to the poor and weak.

I can go deeper into this. But if it wasn't for going at it like bunnies back then. You and I most likely would never have existed.

Not to sound anti homosexual or anything. I proudly support those guys/gals. Just saying that back then... without the bible and that stuff... a lot more humans may have been killed/not existed and we wouldn't be here like we are today without it. Sure holy wars and all that are horrible. But those are the power hungry jackasses in power. Hell... they would've still been in power even if the bible never existed.

Just saying. I don't mean to offend anyone, you just got to look at the past and see the results of what transpired and see the effects. Much like a scientist.

Why are you fruits talking about pedos?

@DriveupLife said:

He's just saying it to get your vote. He will do nothing to help legalize gay marriage in states that don't have it. Don't get suckered. I'm still voting for Romney.

Romney, on the other hand, will do WONDERS for gay marriage!

@DriveupLife said:

He's just saying it to get your vote. He will do nothing to help legalize gay marriage in states that don't have it. Don't get suckered. I'm still voting for Romney.

'Cause Romney's totally for gay marriage?

@Jay444111 said:

Dude... people died by slivers 2000 years ago. I am not joking, that was insanely common and getting to age 20 was being INSANELY lucky. Thus families and men and women HAD to produce in order to keep humanity going! Hell, technically we are all inbreed due to how few humans there once was. However, about the homosexual thing.

Man with Man does not equal babies. Female with Female has no babies unless... using certain tools... but anyways... Back then the bible was most likely written. There most likely was a thing with the writers that humanity had to continue and that anti gay thing in it was one of the ways such as thou shalt not kill and such. Most of the bible is mainly made for the sane fact that it gives hope to the poor and weak.

I can go deeper into this. But if it wasn't for going at it like bunnies back then. You and I most likely would never have existed.

Not to sound anti homosexual or anything. I proudly support those guys/gals. Just saying that back then... without the bible and that stuff... a lot more humans may have been killed/not existed and we wouldn't be here like we are today without it. Sure holy wars and all that are horrible. But those are the power hungry jackasses in power. Hell... they would've still been in power even if the bible never existed.

Just saying. I don't mean to offend anyone, you just got to look at the past and see the results of what transpired and see the effects. Much like a scientist.

I'd say that homosexuality is such a minority that even in such circumstances, rules like that wouldn't need to be enforced to ensure humanity's survival. There are lots of ancient societies that survived well enough without outlawing homosexuality, and either way, it's not the men you'd need to be worried about, even if that were the case. One man and ninety women can make ninety babies. One woman and ninety men can only make one baby, and typically, it's homosexual men that have been the target of such laws.

@Wrighteous86 said:

@beej said:

@Dagbiker: Is there any good argument though? I haven't seen a single good one forwarded. The best one is that states ought to get out of all marriage, but that's not legally applicable at the moment as states DO choose to give this benefit to straight couples, so until they stop gay people are well within their rights to demand this benefit. The civil union argument is blatantly homophobic as whoever forwards it is willing to grant all the benefits of marriage to gay people, the only thing they don't want is to let gay people call it marriage which can have no rational basis.

They should also have their own schools and water fountains. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL!

One argument could be that they dont contribute to the population. Another argument could be the bible defines mirage as between man and women. Now I dont think there is any good reason. but that doesnt mean there isnt any reason.

@Dagbiker said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

@beej said:

@Dagbiker: Is there any good argument though? I haven't seen a single good one forwarded. The best one is that states ought to get out of all marriage, but that's not legally applicable at the moment as states DO choose to give this benefit to straight couples, so until they stop gay people are well within their rights to demand this benefit. The civil union argument is blatantly homophobic as whoever forwards it is willing to grant all the benefits of marriage to gay people, the only thing they don't want is to let gay people call it marriage which can have no rational basis.

They should also have their own schools and water fountains. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL!

One argument could be that they dont contribute to the population. Another argument could be the bible defines mirage as between man and women. Now I dont think there is any good reason. but that doesnt mean there isnt any reason.

Right, but legally speaking those arguments don't fly. Sterile, and old people can marry, and biblical definitions don't work when discussing who gets legally recognized as married. In the context of law there are no good arguments. There is no rational basis for the state to justify denying someone the full benefits and protection of the law for being gay.

@MattyFTM said:

@AlexW00d said:

@CitizenKane said:

the most powerful person in the world

lol

Who is more powerful, then?

Corporations.

Finally someone is thinking about the gay. 

Grats to Americans from the states.

...So what does Ryan thinks of all that...or is it too soon.

@Dagbiker said:

One argument could be that they dont contribute to the population.

Let gay couples adopt unwanted children. Problem solved! Oh wait, they don't want that either.

@beej said:

@Dagbiker said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

@beej said:

@Dagbiker: Is there any good argument though? I haven't seen a single good one forwarded. The best one is that states ought to get out of all marriage, but that's not legally applicable at the moment as states DO choose to give this benefit to straight couples, so until they stop gay people are well within their rights to demand this benefit. The civil union argument is blatantly homophobic as whoever forwards it is willing to grant all the benefits of marriage to gay people, the only thing they don't want is to let gay people call it marriage which can have no rational basis.

They should also have their own schools and water fountains. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL!

One argument could be that they dont contribute to the population. Another argument could be the bible defines mirage as between man and women. Now I dont think there is any good reason. but that doesnt mean there isnt any reason.

Right, but legally speaking those arguments don't fly. Sterile, and old people can marry, and biblical definitions don't work when discussing who gets legally recognized as married. In the context of law there are no good arguments. There is no rational basis for the state to justify denying someone the full benefits and protection of the law for being gay.

I think we are talking about two diffrent things, I thought we where still talking about the post you orignaly replyed to me. Saying that if a person can articulate a reason that they dont like gay marriage then they arnt homophobic.

@Jay444111 said:

Much like a scientist.

Please don't say that. There is absolutely nothing scientific in your posts. You are, as you suspected:

@Jay444111 said:

UNBELIEVABLY wrong

@Dagbiker: Right, I'm just saying in a legal context I don't think there is a single reason that actually stands. I guess you're talking about something else.

"I've thought a great deal about this and I've talked it over with many folks from all walks of life. I've even consulted the scientists at CERN as to whether or not the world would collapse in on itself if gays were allowed to marry and the scientists at CERN assured me it would not. Therefore I have decided I'm k with gay marriage."