SCOTUS/Prop 8 predictions?

Dude, I've been a vocal supporter of marriage equality for a fuckin' while. Here, on Facebook, on my blog, fuckin' everywhere. You doubt that you're easy?

You're easy like Sunday mornin', you dense fuck.

Except you'll be allowed to do it as well.

Both sexes will be able to marry either sex. You know, equality.

Fortunately for me, I only see you here, where you've been harping on the right to marry the opposite gender red herring. When you argue against gay marriage, I'll go ahead and assume you are, you no, against it.

Dumbass.

They already can. The only thing they can't already do is get the state to give them special perks because of it -- which the government shouldn't be giving anybody, anyway. That's why I'm for it -- why is the government discriminating against unmarried people, by the way? Where are our tax breaks?

Seeing as you admit to being an untrustworthy liar, I'm not too concerned by your opinion.

What, on the internet? Dude, if you don't lie on the internet, you're an idiot.

Let me provide you with a handy graph that will show you how to proceed:

Castle is coming off a bit like Tasvir. It's quite sad, really. I actually expected better from him.

just wanted to see what this looks like:

Yeah, it's like he got his dosages wrong or something. Who argues against something they claim to support?

If you're an anonymous coward who lies all the time, your calling anyone else an idiot is of no consequence.

Really?

What kind of sheep supports something without ever questioning it and solidifying their support through test and trial?

I'm not anonymous, you desiccated harpy, my name is right on this account.

Looks like some shit that's not permitted in rep comments, AFAIK.

Perhaps you're right. I probably should have said I expect more from Castle than I do from Tasvir's stump. But even that might be stretching things.

Bite me.

Here's the hilarious thing: The same crowd who are supposedly crusading for gay marriage in the name of "inclusiveness"*... look how they react to the people whose points of view differ from their own.

"Progressive" principles on display.

*I'm for gay marriage because I'm against the State saying who can and cannot marry, not because of any "inclusiveness" bullshit.

Really?
We're doing this one now?

No, you're doing that one.

I'm doing this one:

Don't be fucking hypocrites. Inclusiveness means including everybody, -- even the people whose ideas you don't like.

That's the one I'm doing. Then again, I don't believe in that inclusiveness bullshit. Some peoples' ideas are just fucking wrong. But you won't catch me mewling any fucking baby talk about "inclusiveness", either.

Your ass isn't banned, is it?

You're assuming a little much, there, Mikey boy. How do you know Lanz doesn't agree with my horrible, horrible ideas on things?

Hey John, is there an emoticon for "deadbeat" that you could point me towards?

Your ability to effectively insult anyone who doesn't share your cowardice is also vitiated. But do keep trying.

What 'cowardice' are you harping on, harpy?

Read it and weep, haters

O'Reilly: Gay Marriage Critics Just "Thump Bible"

to clarify, they are looking for people who are civilized and logical to do the reasonable thing and mind their own business. You may choose to think of this as "acceptance" if you wish.
Just as people accept the existence in society of those who, for instance, hold religious views we disagree with.

Those who are such poor human beings that they can't do that minimal thing, are invited to fuck off. no one is trying to change YOUR (collectively) minds.

I can't be arsed to argue against such a blindingly obvious troll attempt.

The counter-argument is too obvious to be worth the bother of typing it out.

it is exactly that reality that made the troll attempt so obvious to me

We already have equality, the homos want laws and rules changed just for them. Should we change the rules because some pervert wants to fuck an elephant? The laws need to apply equally to all, and they do right now. The things one person cannot do is the same as another.