Good point. Being closed at night is discriminatory to those of us who work nights. And mcDonald's only serving breakfast at certain hours, and *not* serving other kinds of foods during those same hours is, again, discriminatory against those of us with nocturnal lifestyles.

Let's just go all the way with this discrimination stuff

Isn't it discriminatory for a business not to be open when people want it open? I would think for time in memorial people have been very frustrated over those unthoughtful, bigoted, uncaring, racist, sexist, misanthropic business owners who dare to have business hours. Don't they know that when they close, they are discriminating against all who want in while they are closed? They should be put to DEATH for their insensitivity to mankind!

I mean if we are going to just defecate on everyone's freedom of association, let's be comprehensive in our application.

Meaning...

"At the same time the top private rate was 90%, the top corporate rate was 54%..."

"western societys and cultures have held women back until the turn of the last century"

Don't think you want to go there.

"how about the woman who invented the modern concrete block? "

She should be sentenced to live out her life in a construct of the damned things?

I'm sure the bakers don't feel like they vilified homosexuals. >_>

".I think it will just force some to keep their opinions in the closet..but luckily the closets are now empty to there's room for them.."

If your metaphor meant what I thought it did, that there aren't so many bigoted people, so the closets are empty, then, anecdotally, I disagree.

They were being heterophobic.
If a straight black couple did it they would be racist themselves, for forcing the issue.

You've never seen homosexuals bashing heterosexuals? What planet have you been living on?

Is a polygamy marriage of multiple men to one woman also harmful to women?

If we can't legalize incestual marriage due to birth defects, then shouldn't we illegalize marriage between two diabetics?

What about marrying your Chihuahua?
If my mother could have married her (female) chihuahua, they couldn't have prevented me from bringing her to say goodbye, as they did.

I don't see it as a genetic mutation. At what point did this genetic mutation take place? Certainly before our ancestors were mammals, or other mammals wouldn't "carry" it.

I think calling it a genetic defect is a concession to the homosexual crowd's assertion that it's a physical manifestation, not a mental/emotional one.

Diabetes and hemophilia might also be considered genetic mutation... doesn't stop them from being defects.

I, for one, don't care what the offense was at. I'm offended by people trying to bully the normal into considering their abnormality... normal.

They can't, for two reasons:

First, groups don't have rights, only individuals. So, granting "couples" the same legal status is contradictory.

Second, pairs of homosexuals don't make up "couples".

Further, You said "when", not "if". Don't be sure it will happen before the society collapses altogether, or finally gets fed up with political correctness and associated mental gymnastics for the sake of sparing the feelings of people who demonstrate on a daily basis that they deserve no such consideration.

Of course gay animals are defective, the same way a moose that's "in love" with a cow is defective. Just not, y'know, as amusing.

So you're saying if someone does something a couple years ahead of the norm, that qualifies them as a scientist? Or that if a couple of adults decide to put a younger friend's name on their paper, that makes their younger friend a scientist? (You will note, she didn't author the papers… she CO-authored them.)

Wait, I had a younger brother who could name 3/4 of the countries of the world by the age of two. Applying your logic, he's at the very least a geographer. I mean, YOU can't name 3/4 of the countries of the world and you're an adult! (Do YOU know where Bechuanaland
is/was? My little brother did.) Given that he was doing something at age 2 that most adults cannot do in their lifetimes, ever, and he did so at such a young age (we're talking 12 years younger than Portman when she entered high school), he must be the world's pre-eminent geographer of all time!

But wait! It gets better!

He knew how to play chess at age 2. Now he wasn't very good, but since no mention was ever made of the quality or importance of Portman's two papers, we know that doesn't matter. Playing chess at age 2! Wow! I bet you want to confer on him the title of Eternal Holy Super-Duper Intergalactic Grand-Master Wizard of Chess!

Take Ben Swann (benswann.com). The guy completed his MASTERS DEGREE in history at an age when Portman was still in high school. Now that's exceptional, but applying your logic, he should be the Supreme Grand Swami of Inter-dimensional History because he completed that course of study 10 years ahead of his peers.

Doing something earlier than peers is a sign of greater ability or intelligence or the like - but it scarcely qualifies you in a field.

By the way, I've read portions of both papers (one of which was actually published while she was in college). I'm not saying they're bad papers - but there's nothing earth-shaking in either one. In fact, the first seems to be more of an argument that enzymatic reactions should be taught in high school. The second is a sort of soft-science psychology paper about development in babies.

Frankly, if it's true, I'm far more impressed by her reputed ability to speak 5 different languages. (Oh wait - Five languages? Does that make her the Extra-Special Universally-renown triple-extra expert on Languages?)

Hot? Intelligent? Talented? Absolutely!
Scientist? Not so much.

Put it this way, if Natalie Portman is the standard for female scientists, there are no female scientists.

He's definitely funny guy, but does nothing to refute my point. Even if we submit to his assertion of pre-16th century marriage (which volumes of historical fact disputes, despite his powerful argument of a significant .5% of population being some form of sexually amorphous), we're still left with the fact that now we know the undisputed superiority of western culture and traditional marriage of man/woman... much like we now know the benefits of hygiene, food refrigeration, and other essentials little known in pre-16th century.

But again, you're still avoiding the issue of property rights, which are essential for freedom and liberty to flourish.

I love how "normal" and "intended" get twisted into "mandatory".

It's like suggesting one didn't really have sex because one wore a rubber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzf...

;)

Actually, marriage between a man and woman has existed for thousands of years. While polygamy did exist (and still does) in some societies, it was still between a man and a woman/women, and even polygamy was not the norm.

But, just for the sake of the argument, even if we only look at the last 1,000 years or even the last 250 years, it must be recognized that the "traditional" marriage in western culture is superior to whatever came before it (as is western culture generally). The data is voluminous in support of this position. Facts are stubborn things, and A does equal A.

That said, even if all of that were non known, it still comes down to property rights... plain and simple.

Actually, so-called "traditional" marriage has not existed for thousands of years. In fact, what existed traditionally was polygamy. The idea of monogamy is a relatively recent innovation brought about by capitalist society.

Ludwig von Mises talks about this in his book refuting Socialism:
http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sociolog...

I think the offense was at calling it a birth DEFECT, thus implying there was something wrong with it. A better way to put it would be to call it a genetic mutation. Having blue eyes is also technically a genetic mutation, but we certainly don't call that a defect.

I'm preternaturally opposed to the use of terms like "homophobia, islamophobia, etc." being used to stifle debate.

The baker story has NOTHING to do with being afraid of gays. It has everything to do with marriage having a definition for thousands of years and vocal minority demanding a change of that definition, AND property rights.

If a store owner doesn't want to serve a customer for any reason whatsoever, that should his/her right, PERIOD!