[Yargk]

I knew someone would jump on the gay comment. Of course there are many people who have gay friends and don't support gay marriage and of course many of them live in rural areas. I never said anything contrary to this. What I did say is that gay marriages wouldn't be banned. This is because out of all the people who found gay friends many of them would change their minds or at least enough that the proposals of such a ban would never be passed. Don't jump to conclusions, I was speaking statistically.

Also much of what I said is taught in almost every high school that your children will attend. It's by no means radical. The fact that people who live in urban settings are exposed to more is part of any good civics class. So is the fact that they are in general more accepting of alternate life styles. So who makes a better decision? The rural group where a certain percentage has gay friends and knows what kind of people they are, or the urban group, where a much larger percentage has gay friends and knows what kind of people they are?

I have no gripes with you if you aren't against tax breaks nor are you prejudicist. The only people who annoy me are those who take away people's rights when it doesn't effect them. I'm now arguing for people's rights when I will never need a gay marriage myself (i like the grid girls posts as much as the next guy). I understand the idea of defining what marriage is, the problem is that history has shown that separate can't be equal and what do these people have if they don't have marriage. I don't think people choose to be gay so they should have something that is regarded with just has much respect as marriage is.