<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_20_0012203</id>
	<title>Legal War For WA State Sunshine Law</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256040780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>joeszilagyi writes <i>"In a major battle in Washington State, anti-gay rights groups created and got R-71 on the 2009 election ballot. This is a public initiative to put same-sex civil unions up for public vote. The real legal war then erupted: activists created <a href="http://whosigned.org/">WhoSigned.org</a> to take advantage of WA state's Public Records Act, and put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website. Lawsuits quickly followed, and today it <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010094187\_apwadomesticpartnerships2ndldwritethru.html">reached the United States Supreme Court</a>, in a matter of months. The records appear to have always <a href="http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Acr65.pdf">been public</a>, but have only been available in digital form since 2006. An assault on civil rights, an assault on marriage, or an assault on sunshine laws and freedom of information?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>joeszilagyi writes " In a major battle in Washington State , anti-gay rights groups created and got R-71 on the 2009 election ballot .
This is a public initiative to put same-sex civil unions up for public vote .
The real legal war then erupted : activists created WhoSigned.org to take advantage of WA state 's Public Records Act , and put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public , SEO-optimized website .
Lawsuits quickly followed , and today it reached the United States Supreme Court , in a matter of months .
The records appear to have always been public , but have only been available in digital form since 2006 .
An assault on civil rights , an assault on marriage , or an assault on sunshine laws and freedom of information ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>joeszilagyi writes "In a major battle in Washington State, anti-gay rights groups created and got R-71 on the 2009 election ballot.
This is a public initiative to put same-sex civil unions up for public vote.
The real legal war then erupted: activists created WhoSigned.org to take advantage of WA state's Public Records Act, and put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website.
Lawsuits quickly followed, and today it reached the United States Supreme Court, in a matter of months.
The records appear to have always been public, but have only been available in digital form since 2006.
An assault on civil rights, an assault on marriage, or an assault on sunshine laws and freedom of information?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807139</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1256049960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People who are opposed to same-sex marriage don't necessarily "hate on gays." They're just... opposed to same-sex marriage. In fact, it's this broad-stroke-painted stereotype of everyone who opposes gay marriage as no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals that the peeps who voted for this in Washington state are trying to avoid getting tarred with. Their opposition has done a real good job of perpetuating that stereotype, and it's no more valid than the one of gays as all being lisping, limp-wristed nancy boys.</p></div><p>

This is a good point, and an important distinction. However, we do need to be clear about the fact that these people (anti-gay marriage advocates) are looking to have legislation passed to limit the rights of a whole sector of society, and they need to be taken to task for it. That is like saying that Strom Thurmond didn't "hate on blacks" He was just... in support of segregation. Like I said, your point is well taken, and the distinction certainly needs to be taken into account, but there comes a point where we need to draw a line in the sand as to what we will and will not consider to be acceptable behavior in a free society.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are opposed to same-sex marriage do n't necessarily " hate on gays .
" They 're just... opposed to same-sex marriage .
In fact , it 's this broad-stroke-painted stereotype of everyone who opposes gay marriage as no-necked , knuckle-dragging , fag-bashing , Republican-voting , Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals that the peeps who voted for this in Washington state are trying to avoid getting tarred with .
Their opposition has done a real good job of perpetuating that stereotype , and it 's no more valid than the one of gays as all being lisping , limp-wristed nancy boys .
This is a good point , and an important distinction .
However , we do need to be clear about the fact that these people ( anti-gay marriage advocates ) are looking to have legislation passed to limit the rights of a whole sector of society , and they need to be taken to task for it .
That is like saying that Strom Thurmond did n't " hate on blacks " He was just... in support of segregation .
Like I said , your point is well taken , and the distinction certainly needs to be taken into account , but there comes a point where we need to draw a line in the sand as to what we will and will not consider to be acceptable behavior in a free society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are opposed to same-sex marriage don't necessarily "hate on gays.
" They're just... opposed to same-sex marriage.
In fact, it's this broad-stroke-painted stereotype of everyone who opposes gay marriage as no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals that the peeps who voted for this in Washington state are trying to avoid getting tarred with.
Their opposition has done a real good job of perpetuating that stereotype, and it's no more valid than the one of gays as all being lisping, limp-wristed nancy boys.
This is a good point, and an important distinction.
However, we do need to be clear about the fact that these people (anti-gay marriage advocates) are looking to have legislation passed to limit the rights of a whole sector of society, and they need to be taken to task for it.
That is like saying that Strom Thurmond didn't "hate on blacks" He was just... in support of segregation.
Like I said, your point is well taken, and the distinction certainly needs to be taken into account, but there comes a point where we need to draw a line in the sand as to what we will and will not consider to be acceptable behavior in a free society.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29813439</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>virg\_mattes</author>
	<datestamp>1256029380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>&gt; For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects?</i> <br>
<br>
Completely specious argument, unless animals have suddenly gained the right to own property or sign contracts or whatever else you can attach to adult humans.  Comparing gay marriage with these things is a weak argument because animals and objects aren't consenting adults.  Please give it up, because only an idiot would try to defend it at this point.<br>
<br>
<i>&gt; Where exactly do you prefer to set the moral standard for marriage if not between a man and a woman?</i> <br>
<br>
I'm going to go back to "consenting adults" on this one.  Why should I consider that immoral?  Because your holy book says so?<br>
<br>
<i>&gt; I agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their race however I'm also someone who believes a person *does* have control over their sexual preferences and therefore should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standards. And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the West and the people continue to show they are against gay marriage (not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though).</i> <br>
<br>
Since your argument fits perfectly when you substitute "religion", your argument fails the test of Constitutional equality.  If you don't like that, Iran would be your best choice, or the Vatican City.  And as a side note, gay people do get "special" treatment because of their orientation, it's just negative treatment, just like blacks and Jews used to get.<br>
<br>
<i>&gt; Of course, if you are a liberal who believes there is no personal responsibility and by extension you have no control over your sexual preferences then you believes that you are being treated unfairly in the eyes of the law when you are told you cannot marry someone of the same sex. The lack of personal responsibility is a major issue in American society today that needs remedied, fast.</i> <br>
<br>
"Liberal" isn't a curse word, no matter what Sean Hannity would have you believe.  It's a nice try to tie personal responsibility to bias, though.  As much as I hate to prove Godwin true, that's pretty much exactly the tack that the Third Reich took, in treating Jews like they deserved the trouble they got by not renouncing Judaism.  So, even if you believe that gays have control of their sexual preference, you're still in great company for telling them that they should just accept the discrimination for their choice, and that fighting to change a law they see as unjust is not their place.  Well done.<br>
<br>
Virg</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; For laws that are even less specific , would you prefer to have the ability ( or let others have the ability ) to marry animals or inanimate objects ?
Completely specious argument , unless animals have suddenly gained the right to own property or sign contracts or whatever else you can attach to adult humans .
Comparing gay marriage with these things is a weak argument because animals and objects are n't consenting adults .
Please give it up , because only an idiot would try to defend it at this point .
&gt; Where exactly do you prefer to set the moral standard for marriage if not between a man and a woman ?
I 'm going to go back to " consenting adults " on this one .
Why should I consider that immoral ?
Because your holy book says so ?
&gt; I agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their race however I 'm also someone who believes a person * does * have control over their sexual preferences and therefore should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standards .
And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the West and the people continue to show they are against gay marriage ( not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though ) .
Since your argument fits perfectly when you substitute " religion " , your argument fails the test of Constitutional equality .
If you do n't like that , Iran would be your best choice , or the Vatican City .
And as a side note , gay people do get " special " treatment because of their orientation , it 's just negative treatment , just like blacks and Jews used to get .
&gt; Of course , if you are a liberal who believes there is no personal responsibility and by extension you have no control over your sexual preferences then you believes that you are being treated unfairly in the eyes of the law when you are told you can not marry someone of the same sex .
The lack of personal responsibility is a major issue in American society today that needs remedied , fast .
" Liberal " is n't a curse word , no matter what Sean Hannity would have you believe .
It 's a nice try to tie personal responsibility to bias , though .
As much as I hate to prove Godwin true , that 's pretty much exactly the tack that the Third Reich took , in treating Jews like they deserved the trouble they got by not renouncing Judaism .
So , even if you believe that gays have control of their sexual preference , you 're still in great company for telling them that they should just accept the discrimination for their choice , and that fighting to change a law they see as unjust is not their place .
Well done .
Virg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects?
Completely specious argument, unless animals have suddenly gained the right to own property or sign contracts or whatever else you can attach to adult humans.
Comparing gay marriage with these things is a weak argument because animals and objects aren't consenting adults.
Please give it up, because only an idiot would try to defend it at this point.
&gt; Where exactly do you prefer to set the moral standard for marriage if not between a man and a woman?
I'm going to go back to "consenting adults" on this one.
Why should I consider that immoral?
Because your holy book says so?
&gt; I agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their race however I'm also someone who believes a person *does* have control over their sexual preferences and therefore should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standards.
And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the West and the people continue to show they are against gay marriage (not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though).
Since your argument fits perfectly when you substitute "religion", your argument fails the test of Constitutional equality.
If you don't like that, Iran would be your best choice, or the Vatican City.
And as a side note, gay people do get "special" treatment because of their orientation, it's just negative treatment, just like blacks and Jews used to get.
&gt; Of course, if you are a liberal who believes there is no personal responsibility and by extension you have no control over your sexual preferences then you believes that you are being treated unfairly in the eyes of the law when you are told you cannot marry someone of the same sex.
The lack of personal responsibility is a major issue in American society today that needs remedied, fast.
"Liberal" isn't a curse word, no matter what Sean Hannity would have you believe.
It's a nice try to tie personal responsibility to bias, though.
As much as I hate to prove Godwin true, that's pretty much exactly the tack that the Third Reich took, in treating Jews like they deserved the trouble they got by not renouncing Judaism.
So, even if you believe that gays have control of their sexual preference, you're still in great company for telling them that they should just accept the discrimination for their choice, and that fighting to change a law they see as unjust is not their place.
Well done.
Virg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808489</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1256055300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First Post!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>First Post ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Post!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810763</id>
	<title>Meaning of an initiative</title>
	<author>denbesten</author>
	<datestamp>1256062620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those looking in from outside the US borders, an initiative petition is a document filed by a group of ordinary citizens asking that a particular issue be put up for election.  Amongst other things, it is required that a certain percentage of voters sign the initiative indicating that they feel it should come up for a vote.</p><p>I have signed referendums and initiatives both for causes I intend to vote for and for causes I intend to vote against.  My signature on an initiative is an indication that I agree that we should vote on it.  It is not an indication of which way I will vote.</p><p>TFA states "signers of the petition fear hostile confrontations".  If true, this must be addressed.  The courts seem like a good place to determine if the fear is well founded, and if so, the legislature ought to figure out how to address it.</p><p>BTW, I am not a resident of Washington, so my name can not appear on this initiative.  Please don't confront me hostily<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those looking in from outside the US borders , an initiative petition is a document filed by a group of ordinary citizens asking that a particular issue be put up for election .
Amongst other things , it is required that a certain percentage of voters sign the initiative indicating that they feel it should come up for a vote.I have signed referendums and initiatives both for causes I intend to vote for and for causes I intend to vote against .
My signature on an initiative is an indication that I agree that we should vote on it .
It is not an indication of which way I will vote.TFA states " signers of the petition fear hostile confrontations " .
If true , this must be addressed .
The courts seem like a good place to determine if the fear is well founded , and if so , the legislature ought to figure out how to address it.BTW , I am not a resident of Washington , so my name can not appear on this initiative .
Please do n't confront me hostily : - ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those looking in from outside the US borders, an initiative petition is a document filed by a group of ordinary citizens asking that a particular issue be put up for election.
Amongst other things, it is required that a certain percentage of voters sign the initiative indicating that they feel it should come up for a vote.I have signed referendums and initiatives both for causes I intend to vote for and for causes I intend to vote against.
My signature on an initiative is an indication that I agree that we should vote on it.
It is not an indication of which way I will vote.TFA states "signers of the petition fear hostile confrontations".
If true, this must be addressed.
The courts seem like a good place to determine if the fear is well founded, and if so, the legislature ought to figure out how to address it.BTW, I am not a resident of Washington, so my name can not appear on this initiative.
Please don't confront me hostily :-).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806187</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1256044920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is going to get interesting when people whose names are on the list claim not to have signed it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is going to get interesting when people whose names are on the list claim not to have signed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is going to get interesting when people whose names are on the list claim not to have signed it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806763</id>
	<title>VOTE DOWN SAME SEX SEX MARRIAGE EVERYWHERE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VOTE DOWN SAME SEX SEX MARRIAGE EVERYWHERE!  They are an abomination and an obamanation!  They are liberal garbage! and immoral!  They are welcome to immigrate to other countries!</p><p>They are part of what is wrong with this nation now!</p><p>Impeach b.o.!  Impeach ALL democrats!</p><p>No public option healthcare!  All the bills are from corrupt, greedy polititians!  Stop forcing hospitals providing healthcare to illegal aliens!</p><p>No amnesty for illegal aliens!  they entered illegally, deport them!  no more automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens!</p><p>Less government intervention in our lives and businesses!</p><p>Lower taxes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VOTE DOWN SAME SEX SEX MARRIAGE EVERYWHERE !
They are an abomination and an obamanation !
They are liberal garbage !
and immoral !
They are welcome to immigrate to other countries ! They are part of what is wrong with this nation now ! Impeach b.o. !
Impeach ALL democrats ! No public option healthcare !
All the bills are from corrupt , greedy polititians !
Stop forcing hospitals providing healthcare to illegal aliens ! No amnesty for illegal aliens !
they entered illegally , deport them !
no more automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens ! Less government intervention in our lives and businesses ! Lower taxes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VOTE DOWN SAME SEX SEX MARRIAGE EVERYWHERE!
They are an abomination and an obamanation!
They are liberal garbage!
and immoral!
They are welcome to immigrate to other countries!They are part of what is wrong with this nation now!Impeach b.o.!
Impeach ALL democrats!No public option healthcare!
All the bills are from corrupt, greedy polititians!
Stop forcing hospitals providing healthcare to illegal aliens!No amnesty for illegal aliens!
they entered illegally, deport them!
no more automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens!Less government intervention in our lives and businesses!Lower taxes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807787</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>PHPNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1256052540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>False equivalence. One is a conscious, sentient adult, the other is an animal. Or an inanimate object. You're an idiot.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>So if skin colour was a choice you'd be happy to discriminate? Gotcha. You're a hateful, dumb, bigot.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, you're wrong and pretty dumb. Or a troll, I'm not sure which.</p></div><p>This is what I hate about slashdot nowadays. "You don't agree with me? I'll demean you and make you look stupid, rather than providing an adult conversation." I don't care if the person you're replying to *sounded* stupid. You sound just as stupid when you treat others the way you do. Your point of view looks just as ridiculous when you lower yourself to the level of an insulting jerk. Grow up.<br> <br>I'm *so tired* of people who proclaim freedom for all and are against hate and discrimination, but are okay with slandering and maligning those who do not agree with them. It's like saying "No more hate! But if you don't agree with me it's okay for me to discriminate against you, because you're stupid." What do you call that? I call it more of the same hate just turned around, and it has to stop from *both* sides before we can move on in this country. Good grief.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>False equivalence .
One is a conscious , sentient adult , the other is an animal .
Or an inanimate object .
You 're an idiot.So if skin colour was a choice you 'd be happy to discriminate ?
Gotcha. You 're a hateful , dumb , bigot.Basically , you 're wrong and pretty dumb .
Or a troll , I 'm not sure which.This is what I hate about slashdot nowadays .
" You do n't agree with me ?
I 'll demean you and make you look stupid , rather than providing an adult conversation .
" I do n't care if the person you 're replying to * sounded * stupid .
You sound just as stupid when you treat others the way you do .
Your point of view looks just as ridiculous when you lower yourself to the level of an insulting jerk .
Grow up .
I 'm * so tired * of people who proclaim freedom for all and are against hate and discrimination , but are okay with slandering and maligning those who do not agree with them .
It 's like saying " No more hate !
But if you do n't agree with me it 's okay for me to discriminate against you , because you 're stupid .
" What do you call that ?
I call it more of the same hate just turned around , and it has to stop from * both * sides before we can move on in this country .
Good grief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>False equivalence.
One is a conscious, sentient adult, the other is an animal.
Or an inanimate object.
You're an idiot.So if skin colour was a choice you'd be happy to discriminate?
Gotcha. You're a hateful, dumb, bigot.Basically, you're wrong and pretty dumb.
Or a troll, I'm not sure which.This is what I hate about slashdot nowadays.
"You don't agree with me?
I'll demean you and make you look stupid, rather than providing an adult conversation.
" I don't care if the person you're replying to *sounded* stupid.
You sound just as stupid when you treat others the way you do.
Your point of view looks just as ridiculous when you lower yourself to the level of an insulting jerk.
Grow up.
I'm *so tired* of people who proclaim freedom for all and are against hate and discrimination, but are okay with slandering and maligning those who do not agree with them.
It's like saying "No more hate!
But if you don't agree with me it's okay for me to discriminate against you, because you're stupid.
" What do you call that?
I call it more of the same hate just turned around, and it has to stop from *both* sides before we can move on in this country.
Good grief.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809357</id>
	<title>What happened to the Constitution?</title>
	<author>cheddarlump</author>
	<datestamp>1256057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This entire firestorm is a smokescreen for the real issue:  in a democratically elected representative republic, our representatives create laws that are either voted into existance, or dissapear.  I'm a conservative, and a resident of WA.  I believe that the public petition should be public, as all it does is bring the initiative to the voter.  It's conceivable that somebody signed the petition that doesn't agree with R71, just to have it brought before the voter and be dismissed.  The entire gay marriage argument is moot, as this ref. has nothing to do with gay marriage, but civil unions.
   If the gay community wants the laws and traditions of our state to change, they need to change enough minds to make it happen on the ballot, or move to where it's already legal/in place.  My beliefs as well as those who disagree with me are irrelevant in our country and state, as beliefs aren't law.  You want it changed, change it the legal way.
  I'm not a bigot, I moved here to raise my children in a way that I want, around people that think like I do, because it's a free country and I sill have the right to do that.  I chose this area for a reason, and there are plenty of places in this nation that are not like this place.  I didn't stay in a highly liberal area and try to change their minds.
  I guess my point is that if you don't like the way things are where you are, try to change them the legal way or move.  Why is it impossible to believe that there are always going to be different types of people in the country who can't agree on everything?  Is it really wrong to live around those who believe likewise by choice, instead of trying to strong-arm those around you into adopting your way of life?
  Even as a conservative, I make no judgement calls on how others wish to live their lives, I simply choose to live mine differently, and away from those who I disagree with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This entire firestorm is a smokescreen for the real issue : in a democratically elected representative republic , our representatives create laws that are either voted into existance , or dissapear .
I 'm a conservative , and a resident of WA .
I believe that the public petition should be public , as all it does is bring the initiative to the voter .
It 's conceivable that somebody signed the petition that does n't agree with R71 , just to have it brought before the voter and be dismissed .
The entire gay marriage argument is moot , as this ref .
has nothing to do with gay marriage , but civil unions .
If the gay community wants the laws and traditions of our state to change , they need to change enough minds to make it happen on the ballot , or move to where it 's already legal/in place .
My beliefs as well as those who disagree with me are irrelevant in our country and state , as beliefs are n't law .
You want it changed , change it the legal way .
I 'm not a bigot , I moved here to raise my children in a way that I want , around people that think like I do , because it 's a free country and I sill have the right to do that .
I chose this area for a reason , and there are plenty of places in this nation that are not like this place .
I did n't stay in a highly liberal area and try to change their minds .
I guess my point is that if you do n't like the way things are where you are , try to change them the legal way or move .
Why is it impossible to believe that there are always going to be different types of people in the country who ca n't agree on everything ?
Is it really wrong to live around those who believe likewise by choice , instead of trying to strong-arm those around you into adopting your way of life ?
Even as a conservative , I make no judgement calls on how others wish to live their lives , I simply choose to live mine differently , and away from those who I disagree with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This entire firestorm is a smokescreen for the real issue:  in a democratically elected representative republic, our representatives create laws that are either voted into existance, or dissapear.
I'm a conservative, and a resident of WA.
I believe that the public petition should be public, as all it does is bring the initiative to the voter.
It's conceivable that somebody signed the petition that doesn't agree with R71, just to have it brought before the voter and be dismissed.
The entire gay marriage argument is moot, as this ref.
has nothing to do with gay marriage, but civil unions.
If the gay community wants the laws and traditions of our state to change, they need to change enough minds to make it happen on the ballot, or move to where it's already legal/in place.
My beliefs as well as those who disagree with me are irrelevant in our country and state, as beliefs aren't law.
You want it changed, change it the legal way.
I'm not a bigot, I moved here to raise my children in a way that I want, around people that think like I do, because it's a free country and I sill have the right to do that.
I chose this area for a reason, and there are plenty of places in this nation that are not like this place.
I didn't stay in a highly liberal area and try to change their minds.
I guess my point is that if you don't like the way things are where you are, try to change them the legal way or move.
Why is it impossible to believe that there are always going to be different types of people in the country who can't agree on everything?
Is it really wrong to live around those who believe likewise by choice, instead of trying to strong-arm those around you into adopting your way of life?
Even as a conservative, I make no judgement calls on how others wish to live their lives, I simply choose to live mine differently, and away from those who I disagree with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177</id>
	<title>Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw an article on Yahoo! the other day about an interracial couple being denied their wedding license for being interracial. In the article, it stated that the constitution says that we can marry "whoever we want".

<p>Shame that's not true. Oh well...as they say, it's the old people that are opposing gay marriage the most. We just have to wait a few years, then we can re-send gay marriage laws all over the country and finally get this biblical fear knocked out. I mean really, what year is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw an article on Yahoo !
the other day about an interracial couple being denied their wedding license for being interracial .
In the article , it stated that the constitution says that we can marry " whoever we want " .
Shame that 's not true .
Oh well...as they say , it 's the old people that are opposing gay marriage the most .
We just have to wait a few years , then we can re-send gay marriage laws all over the country and finally get this biblical fear knocked out .
I mean really , what year is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw an article on Yahoo!
the other day about an interracial couple being denied their wedding license for being interracial.
In the article, it stated that the constitution says that we can marry "whoever we want".
Shame that's not true.
Oh well...as they say, it's the old people that are opposing gay marriage the most.
We just have to wait a few years, then we can re-send gay marriage laws all over the country and finally get this biblical fear knocked out.
I mean really, what year is it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806299</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1256045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seems that you can sue someone for a campaign to harrass and intimidate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seems that you can sue someone for a campaign to harrass and intimidate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seems that you can sue someone for a campaign to harrass and intimidate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809907</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256059800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Within the rights-based understanding of society, you might have a point.  But there are other understandings of society that think there is an objectively best form of human flourishing.  Within such an understanding, one could say from an analysis of human biology that the ideal form of adult flourishing is a relationship between a man and a woman that includes sex and commitment.</p><p>This does not reduce to (a) nor does it apply to (b).  Instead, it builds this on an idea of science.  That science being that biologically you need a male and female for genes to survive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Within the rights-based understanding of society , you might have a point .
But there are other understandings of society that think there is an objectively best form of human flourishing .
Within such an understanding , one could say from an analysis of human biology that the ideal form of adult flourishing is a relationship between a man and a woman that includes sex and commitment.This does not reduce to ( a ) nor does it apply to ( b ) .
Instead , it builds this on an idea of science .
That science being that biologically you need a male and female for genes to survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Within the rights-based understanding of society, you might have a point.
But there are other understandings of society that think there is an objectively best form of human flourishing.
Within such an understanding, one could say from an analysis of human biology that the ideal form of adult flourishing is a relationship between a man and a woman that includes sex and commitment.This does not reduce to (a) nor does it apply to (b).
Instead, it builds this on an idea of science.
That science being that biologically you need a male and female for genes to survive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818163</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>glitch23</author>
	<datestamp>1256051220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So when did you choose to be a heterosexual?</p></div><p>For most people it is the right thing to do. That's like asking when did someone choose to begin stealing or killing. At a certain point in life innocence is lost. Then the choices are made such as whether to be homosexual, partake in bestiality, etc. I don't have to choose to not be a murderer but I do have to choose to murder. The correlation being that in the beginning, at birth, we are all heterosexual. If it was due to genetics people wouldn't choose to revert back to being heterosexual but they can so obviously the genes aren't there. Personally, my belief is that God wouldn't punish someone for being born a certain way. The Holy Bible states that homosexuals will not make it into Heaven. It is our choices that distinguish us from each other. That is why I know people aren't born to be homosexual. You can choose to disagree but that doesn't warrant a Troll moderation (for those who already showed that they disagreed).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Just to enjoy the intolerance of a bunch of <b>religious wackos</b>,</p></div><p>Who is showing their intolerance now? I can tolerate homosexuals. They can do whatever they want with their life. What I don't tolerate is the fact they feel they should get special treatment, like someone who is born in a racial minority. They also want others to accept their lifestyle. That isn't my job to agree with what they chose. They have already proved they don't agree with heterosexuals so why should heterosexuals agree with them? I agree there are racial inequalities and I don't agree with them; someone can't help (and they shouldn't have to) what race they are or from what ethnic background they come from. Although Affirmative Action went too far I think in some cases. Someone shouldn't get special treatment for the decisions they make. They also shouldn't have special protections. When you give a group of people who make a certain decision special protections (i.e. the new Hate Crimes bill trying to be passed right now) *that's* when you instill societal inequalities. I don't agree with a homosexual person being almost killed. That person should be charged with attempted murder but that doesn't mean the gay person being beaten deserves special protections to a heterosexual. If they do then that is saying homosexuals are better and more important than heterosexuals and therefore any crime against them deserves to be prosecuted more severely than a crime against a heterosexual.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So when did you choose to be a heterosexual ? For most people it is the right thing to do .
That 's like asking when did someone choose to begin stealing or killing .
At a certain point in life innocence is lost .
Then the choices are made such as whether to be homosexual , partake in bestiality , etc .
I do n't have to choose to not be a murderer but I do have to choose to murder .
The correlation being that in the beginning , at birth , we are all heterosexual .
If it was due to genetics people would n't choose to revert back to being heterosexual but they can so obviously the genes are n't there .
Personally , my belief is that God would n't punish someone for being born a certain way .
The Holy Bible states that homosexuals will not make it into Heaven .
It is our choices that distinguish us from each other .
That is why I know people are n't born to be homosexual .
You can choose to disagree but that does n't warrant a Troll moderation ( for those who already showed that they disagreed ) .Just to enjoy the intolerance of a bunch of religious wackos,Who is showing their intolerance now ?
I can tolerate homosexuals .
They can do whatever they want with their life .
What I do n't tolerate is the fact they feel they should get special treatment , like someone who is born in a racial minority .
They also want others to accept their lifestyle .
That is n't my job to agree with what they chose .
They have already proved they do n't agree with heterosexuals so why should heterosexuals agree with them ?
I agree there are racial inequalities and I do n't agree with them ; someone ca n't help ( and they should n't have to ) what race they are or from what ethnic background they come from .
Although Affirmative Action went too far I think in some cases .
Someone should n't get special treatment for the decisions they make .
They also should n't have special protections .
When you give a group of people who make a certain decision special protections ( i.e .
the new Hate Crimes bill trying to be passed right now ) * that 's * when you instill societal inequalities .
I do n't agree with a homosexual person being almost killed .
That person should be charged with attempted murder but that does n't mean the gay person being beaten deserves special protections to a heterosexual .
If they do then that is saying homosexuals are better and more important than heterosexuals and therefore any crime against them deserves to be prosecuted more severely than a crime against a heterosexual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when did you choose to be a heterosexual?For most people it is the right thing to do.
That's like asking when did someone choose to begin stealing or killing.
At a certain point in life innocence is lost.
Then the choices are made such as whether to be homosexual, partake in bestiality, etc.
I don't have to choose to not be a murderer but I do have to choose to murder.
The correlation being that in the beginning, at birth, we are all heterosexual.
If it was due to genetics people wouldn't choose to revert back to being heterosexual but they can so obviously the genes aren't there.
Personally, my belief is that God wouldn't punish someone for being born a certain way.
The Holy Bible states that homosexuals will not make it into Heaven.
It is our choices that distinguish us from each other.
That is why I know people aren't born to be homosexual.
You can choose to disagree but that doesn't warrant a Troll moderation (for those who already showed that they disagreed).Just to enjoy the intolerance of a bunch of religious wackos,Who is showing their intolerance now?
I can tolerate homosexuals.
They can do whatever they want with their life.
What I don't tolerate is the fact they feel they should get special treatment, like someone who is born in a racial minority.
They also want others to accept their lifestyle.
That isn't my job to agree with what they chose.
They have already proved they don't agree with heterosexuals so why should heterosexuals agree with them?
I agree there are racial inequalities and I don't agree with them; someone can't help (and they shouldn't have to) what race they are or from what ethnic background they come from.
Although Affirmative Action went too far I think in some cases.
Someone shouldn't get special treatment for the decisions they make.
They also shouldn't have special protections.
When you give a group of people who make a certain decision special protections (i.e.
the new Hate Crimes bill trying to be passed right now) *that's* when you instill societal inequalities.
I don't agree with a homosexual person being almost killed.
That person should be charged with attempted murder but that doesn't mean the gay person being beaten deserves special protections to a heterosexual.
If they do then that is saying homosexuals are better and more important than heterosexuals and therefore any crime against them deserves to be prosecuted more severely than a crime against a heterosexual.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29819189</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the West and the people continue to show they are against gay marriage (not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though)</i></p><p>Yeah...us kooky Northeast commie-pinko liberal types, cooped up in our offices behind ivy-covered walls.  We've really held this country in the dark ages with our disgustingly liberal ideas like:</p><p>Representative Democracy<br>Indian equality<br>Slave emancipation<br>Female suffrage<br>Black suffrage<br>Miscegenation</p><p>Yeah, yeah, we understand where you are coming from. If somebody isn't like you, that means they are <i>different</i>!</p><p>We just don't think "different" is a bad thing.  Historically speaking, you scoff at our crazy notions.  Thankfully, your kids have always seen the writing on the wall.  End result: you don't change your mind; you die, and your children are embarrassed by your backwards attitudes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the West and the people continue to show they are against gay marriage ( not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though ) Yeah...us kooky Northeast commie-pinko liberal types , cooped up in our offices behind ivy-covered walls .
We 've really held this country in the dark ages with our disgustingly liberal ideas like : Representative DemocracyIndian equalitySlave emancipationFemale suffrageBlack suffrageMiscegenationYeah , yeah , we understand where you are coming from .
If somebody is n't like you , that means they are different ! We just do n't think " different " is a bad thing .
Historically speaking , you scoff at our crazy notions .
Thankfully , your kids have always seen the writing on the wall .
End result : you do n't change your mind ; you die , and your children are embarrassed by your backwards attitudes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the West and the people continue to show they are against gay marriage (not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though)Yeah...us kooky Northeast commie-pinko liberal types, cooped up in our offices behind ivy-covered walls.
We've really held this country in the dark ages with our disgustingly liberal ideas like:Representative DemocracyIndian equalitySlave emancipationFemale suffrageBlack suffrageMiscegenationYeah, yeah, we understand where you are coming from.
If somebody isn't like you, that means they are different!We just don't think "different" is a bad thing.
Historically speaking, you scoff at our crazy notions.
Thankfully, your kids have always seen the writing on the wall.
End result: you don't change your mind; you die, and your children are embarrassed by your backwards attitudes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806957</id>
	<title>Retarded debate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256049240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say we take away the right to be married from everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say we take away the right to be married from everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say we take away the right to be married from everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808175</id>
	<title>Honestly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256054160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you ask me, marriage is one of the dumbest inventions of mankind.  It was invented by religion, it rarely has anything to do with love in my experience.</p><p>Why on earth would you put arbitrary boundaries and conditions on love?  Who are you to dictate to anyone who they may or may not love, when, whyfor and whatever?  Moreover, who are you to tell your lover they can't love someone else?</p><p>But forget all that - why enter an "agreement" where both of you have only the vaguest notion of what the other thinks it entails? Way to set yourself up for all sorts of problems. </p><p>No, more...why are you marrying THAT PERSON?  Fuck, they just want the ring, house, car, 1.5 kids, it's the status they want, because it's fashionable to be married, or there are financial benefits to it, you're merely secondary to that, collateral.</p><p>It's a pathetically boring script - A meets B, A and B date for a while, A and B get engaged, A and B get married, get a house, car, pop out some kids, etc.  Because, well, because that's just how it's done, how everyone else does it, because, y'know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ask me , marriage is one of the dumbest inventions of mankind .
It was invented by religion , it rarely has anything to do with love in my experience.Why on earth would you put arbitrary boundaries and conditions on love ?
Who are you to dictate to anyone who they may or may not love , when , whyfor and whatever ?
Moreover , who are you to tell your lover they ca n't love someone else ? But forget all that - why enter an " agreement " where both of you have only the vaguest notion of what the other thinks it entails ?
Way to set yourself up for all sorts of problems .
No , more...why are you marrying THAT PERSON ?
Fuck , they just want the ring , house , car , 1.5 kids , it 's the status they want , because it 's fashionable to be married , or there are financial benefits to it , you 're merely secondary to that , collateral.It 's a pathetically boring script - A meets B , A and B date for a while , A and B get engaged , A and B get married , get a house , car , pop out some kids , etc .
Because , well , because that 's just how it 's done , how everyone else does it , because , y'know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ask me, marriage is one of the dumbest inventions of mankind.
It was invented by religion, it rarely has anything to do with love in my experience.Why on earth would you put arbitrary boundaries and conditions on love?
Who are you to dictate to anyone who they may or may not love, when, whyfor and whatever?
Moreover, who are you to tell your lover they can't love someone else?But forget all that - why enter an "agreement" where both of you have only the vaguest notion of what the other thinks it entails?
Way to set yourself up for all sorts of problems.
No, more...why are you marrying THAT PERSON?
Fuck, they just want the ring, house, car, 1.5 kids, it's the status they want, because it's fashionable to be married, or there are financial benefits to it, you're merely secondary to that, collateral.It's a pathetically boring script - A meets B, A and B date for a while, A and B get engaged, A and B get married, get a house, car, pop out some kids, etc.
Because, well, because that's just how it's done, how everyone else does it, because, y'know?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806311</id>
	<title>Dear Jesus.</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1256045700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Save us from your followers.</p><p>Why is this even an issue?</p><p>I don't want to see you getting it on in public, but that goes for straights too. What you do behind closed doors is none of my business just as what I do is none of yous.</p><p>If nothing else, just be smug about it and think on the inside how there'll be more room in heaven for you and your family.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Save us from your followers.Why is this even an issue ? I do n't want to see you getting it on in public , but that goes for straights too .
What you do behind closed doors is none of my business just as what I do is none of yous.If nothing else , just be smug about it and think on the inside how there 'll be more room in heaven for you and your family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Save us from your followers.Why is this even an issue?I don't want to see you getting it on in public, but that goes for straights too.
What you do behind closed doors is none of my business just as what I do is none of yous.If nothing else, just be smug about it and think on the inside how there'll be more room in heaven for you and your family.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29811545</id>
	<title>From what I've seen ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1256065320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... of the conservatives here in WA state, some of them are afraid of being outed by their gay lovers. I mean if you give gays the right to marry, some guys are going to expect their sugar daddies to leave their wives, come out of the closet and make 'honest men' out of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... of the conservatives here in WA state , some of them are afraid of being outed by their gay lovers .
I mean if you give gays the right to marry , some guys are going to expect their sugar daddies to leave their wives , come out of the closet and make 'honest men ' out of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... of the conservatives here in WA state, some of them are afraid of being outed by their gay lovers.
I mean if you give gays the right to marry, some guys are going to expect their sugar daddies to leave their wives, come out of the closet and make 'honest men' out of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808141</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256053980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects?"</p><p>If those animals or inanimate objects are conscious, uncoerced, adult, and capable of making an informed decision, yes.  It's none of my business who people choose to marry, as long as the participants are consenting adults or the equivalent.</p><p>Now I really must get back to my basement to work on my fembot project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For laws that are even less specific , would you prefer to have the ability ( or let others have the ability ) to marry animals or inanimate objects ?
" If those animals or inanimate objects are conscious , uncoerced , adult , and capable of making an informed decision , yes .
It 's none of my business who people choose to marry , as long as the participants are consenting adults or the equivalent.Now I really must get back to my basement to work on my fembot project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects?
"If those animals or inanimate objects are conscious, uncoerced, adult, and capable of making an informed decision, yes.
It's none of my business who people choose to marry, as long as the participants are consenting adults or the equivalent.Now I really must get back to my basement to work on my fembot project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29812449</id>
	<title>A public, SEO optimized website?</title>
	<author>Linux\_ho</author>
	<datestamp>1256068380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Next thing you know, the story will be picked up by the Mainstream MSM Media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next thing you know , the story will be picked up by the Mainstream MSM Media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next thing you know, the story will be picked up by the Mainstream MSM Media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806251</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>PiAndWhippedCream</author>
	<datestamp>1256045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course the constitution doesn't say that we can marry whoever we want.  That would be grammatically in correct, the constitution says we can marry *whomever* we want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the constitution does n't say that we can marry whoever we want .
That would be grammatically in correct , the constitution says we can marry * whomever * we want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the constitution doesn't say that we can marry whoever we want.
That would be grammatically in correct, the constitution says we can marry *whomever* we want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806237</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256045340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, I don't have a problem with churches not allowing same-sex marriages. However, the state should have no such rule. It's ridiculous. There is no direct or indirect effect on the state by allowing same-sex couples to marry. I don't see how they could ever win in a court of law.<br> <br>

It just shows you how biased judges are. If they were unbiased, the same sex marriage ban wouldn't last 5 minutes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I do n't have a problem with churches not allowing same-sex marriages .
However , the state should have no such rule .
It 's ridiculous .
There is no direct or indirect effect on the state by allowing same-sex couples to marry .
I do n't see how they could ever win in a court of law .
It just shows you how biased judges are .
If they were unbiased , the same sex marriage ban would n't last 5 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I don't have a problem with churches not allowing same-sex marriages.
However, the state should have no such rule.
It's ridiculous.
There is no direct or indirect effect on the state by allowing same-sex couples to marry.
I don't see how they could ever win in a court of law.
It just shows you how biased judges are.
If they were unbiased, the same sex marriage ban wouldn't last 5 minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807937</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>mishehu</author>
	<datestamp>1256053200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And to continue on yours and many other intelligent folks' lines of reasoning, it's funny how so many people don't know their history...   While I don't know if Alexander the Great himself had homosexual tendencies, I do know that he created a very large empire.  Later on the Romans then ended up taking over much of that empire.  Both the Greeks and the Romans of 2000-2500 years ago had a lot of homosexual tendencies in their culture, with numerous leaders preferring young boys for sex.  Seems like they still built empires and were vastly successful for periods of time.</p><p>I myself have no problem with homosexuals having the right to be married.  The only condition that I put on it that it have the same legal ramifications as heterosexual couples would have.  For example, Dick and John have been married for over 7 years and now want to divorce?  Ok, we'll split up all the assets just like we would with a heterosexual couple...</p><p>On a side note, one thing I remembered from an anthropology class that I had to take in college is that there's a difference between sex and gender.  Sex is what physical attributes you have on your body, and gender is what role you participate in.  The case study was of some Native American tribes where somebody who is biologically male would assume a female role in the household and/or tribal society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And to continue on yours and many other intelligent folks ' lines of reasoning , it 's funny how so many people do n't know their history... While I do n't know if Alexander the Great himself had homosexual tendencies , I do know that he created a very large empire .
Later on the Romans then ended up taking over much of that empire .
Both the Greeks and the Romans of 2000-2500 years ago had a lot of homosexual tendencies in their culture , with numerous leaders preferring young boys for sex .
Seems like they still built empires and were vastly successful for periods of time.I myself have no problem with homosexuals having the right to be married .
The only condition that I put on it that it have the same legal ramifications as heterosexual couples would have .
For example , Dick and John have been married for over 7 years and now want to divorce ?
Ok , we 'll split up all the assets just like we would with a heterosexual couple...On a side note , one thing I remembered from an anthropology class that I had to take in college is that there 's a difference between sex and gender .
Sex is what physical attributes you have on your body , and gender is what role you participate in .
The case study was of some Native American tribes where somebody who is biologically male would assume a female role in the household and/or tribal society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And to continue on yours and many other intelligent folks' lines of reasoning, it's funny how so many people don't know their history...   While I don't know if Alexander the Great himself had homosexual tendencies, I do know that he created a very large empire.
Later on the Romans then ended up taking over much of that empire.
Both the Greeks and the Romans of 2000-2500 years ago had a lot of homosexual tendencies in their culture, with numerous leaders preferring young boys for sex.
Seems like they still built empires and were vastly successful for periods of time.I myself have no problem with homosexuals having the right to be married.
The only condition that I put on it that it have the same legal ramifications as heterosexual couples would have.
For example, Dick and John have been married for over 7 years and now want to divorce?
Ok, we'll split up all the assets just like we would with a heterosexual couple...On a side note, one thing I remembered from an anthropology class that I had to take in college is that there's a difference between sex and gender.
Sex is what physical attributes you have on your body, and gender is what role you participate in.
The case study was of some Native American tribes where somebody who is biologically male would assume a female role in the household and/or tribal society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808703</id>
	<title>R-71 has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriag</title>
	<author>Kate6</author>
	<datestamp>1256055960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The important thing to know about the situation in Washington is that no one is actually looking to change that.  R-71 is not in any way shape or form about gay marriage.  It's about <b>domestic partnerships</b>.  In May of 2009, Washington governor Christine Gregoire signed into law <a href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688" title="wa.gov" rel="nofollow">Senate Bill 5688</a> [wa.gov], the "everything but marriage" bill, which makes it so that within the state of Washington, domestic partnerships will have the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples.  Hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney rights, the right to adopt and raise children...  All the things that two consenting adults who love each other and are genuinely committed to each other <b>oought</b> to have.  This bill did not in any way shape or form suggest that domestic partnerships should be recognized as marriages, though.  (See <a href="http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/news-view.asp?pressRelease=1236&amp;newsType=1" title="wa.gov" rel="nofollow">this article</a> [wa.gov] and <a href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688" title="wa.gov" rel="nofollow">the actual text of the bill</a> [wa.gov]).
</p><p>
And before someone tries to argue with me about the right to adopt...  I'd like to point out that the reality of the situation is that there's tons of kids out there growing up in foster care, and that growing up in a home with 3-4 other children you aren't related to, some of whom were taken from their parents because the parents were neglectful or abusive, is known to frequently be a very traumatic experience.  Whereas being raised by a gay couple would, at most, subject you to some teasing from other children at school.
</p><p>
R-71 is an attempt to overturn SB 5688.  Plain and simple.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage.  It is not in any way shape or form related to any religious belief.  Washington State has never contemplated the issue of gay marriage.  I've seen plenty of conservative literature claiming that gays "already have all the same rights" so that the "attack on traditional marriage" has to be about something other than basic human rights.
</p><p>
Well, at least in Washington, it very definitely isn't.  (Oregon has actually had similar legislation in place for a few years now.)  Gays are in no way shape or form interested in being allowed to legally use the word "marriage" to refer to our relationships here.  We're only interested in having all the equivalent secular, legal rights.  And R-71 is a vote about whether or not we should have those rights.  But of course...  There's a highly deceptive campaign going on with regards to it...  And many of the people going in to vote on it may in fact have been led to <b>falsely believe</b> that they're voting on something related to gay <b>marriage</b>.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The important thing to know about the situation in Washington is that no one is actually looking to change that .
R-71 is not in any way shape or form about gay marriage .
It 's about domestic partnerships .
In May of 2009 , Washington governor Christine Gregoire signed into law Senate Bill 5688 [ wa.gov ] , the " everything but marriage " bill , which makes it so that within the state of Washington , domestic partnerships will have the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples .
Hospital visitation rights , inheritance rights , power of attorney rights , the right to adopt and raise children... All the things that two consenting adults who love each other and are genuinely committed to each other oought to have .
This bill did not in any way shape or form suggest that domestic partnerships should be recognized as marriages , though .
( See this article [ wa.gov ] and the actual text of the bill [ wa.gov ] ) .
And before someone tries to argue with me about the right to adopt... I 'd like to point out that the reality of the situation is that there 's tons of kids out there growing up in foster care , and that growing up in a home with 3-4 other children you are n't related to , some of whom were taken from their parents because the parents were neglectful or abusive , is known to frequently be a very traumatic experience .
Whereas being raised by a gay couple would , at most , subject you to some teasing from other children at school .
R-71 is an attempt to overturn SB 5688 .
Plain and simple .
It has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage .
It is not in any way shape or form related to any religious belief .
Washington State has never contemplated the issue of gay marriage .
I 've seen plenty of conservative literature claiming that gays " already have all the same rights " so that the " attack on traditional marriage " has to be about something other than basic human rights .
Well , at least in Washington , it very definitely is n't .
( Oregon has actually had similar legislation in place for a few years now .
) Gays are in no way shape or form interested in being allowed to legally use the word " marriage " to refer to our relationships here .
We 're only interested in having all the equivalent secular , legal rights .
And R-71 is a vote about whether or not we should have those rights .
But of course... There 's a highly deceptive campaign going on with regards to it... And many of the people going in to vote on it may in fact have been led to falsely believe that they 're voting on something related to gay marriage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The important thing to know about the situation in Washington is that no one is actually looking to change that.
R-71 is not in any way shape or form about gay marriage.
It's about domestic partnerships.
In May of 2009, Washington governor Christine Gregoire signed into law Senate Bill 5688 [wa.gov], the "everything but marriage" bill, which makes it so that within the state of Washington, domestic partnerships will have the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples.
Hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney rights, the right to adopt and raise children...  All the things that two consenting adults who love each other and are genuinely committed to each other oought to have.
This bill did not in any way shape or form suggest that domestic partnerships should be recognized as marriages, though.
(See this article [wa.gov] and the actual text of the bill [wa.gov]).
And before someone tries to argue with me about the right to adopt...  I'd like to point out that the reality of the situation is that there's tons of kids out there growing up in foster care, and that growing up in a home with 3-4 other children you aren't related to, some of whom were taken from their parents because the parents were neglectful or abusive, is known to frequently be a very traumatic experience.
Whereas being raised by a gay couple would, at most, subject you to some teasing from other children at school.
R-71 is an attempt to overturn SB 5688.
Plain and simple.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage.
It is not in any way shape or form related to any religious belief.
Washington State has never contemplated the issue of gay marriage.
I've seen plenty of conservative literature claiming that gays "already have all the same rights" so that the "attack on traditional marriage" has to be about something other than basic human rights.
Well, at least in Washington, it very definitely isn't.
(Oregon has actually had similar legislation in place for a few years now.
)  Gays are in no way shape or form interested in being allowed to legally use the word "marriage" to refer to our relationships here.
We're only interested in having all the equivalent secular, legal rights.
And R-71 is a vote about whether or not we should have those rights.
But of course...  There's a highly deceptive campaign going on with regards to it...  And many of the people going in to vote on it may in fact have been led to falsely believe that they're voting on something related to gay marriage.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29812879</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1256070060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly! You hit the nail on the head with that!</p><p>There is no reasonable position that specifically opposes gay marriage. The opposition is completely based on mysticism and "ewww, yuck." I think it's insane gay marriage has to even be discussed at all, as it seems blatantly obvious to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
You hit the nail on the head with that ! There is no reasonable position that specifically opposes gay marriage .
The opposition is completely based on mysticism and " ewww , yuck .
" I think it 's insane gay marriage has to even be discussed at all , as it seems blatantly obvious to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
You hit the nail on the head with that!There is no reasonable position that specifically opposes gay marriage.
The opposition is completely based on mysticism and "ewww, yuck.
" I think it's insane gay marriage has to even be discussed at all, as it seems blatantly obvious to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808287</id>
	<title>Let them marry</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1256054580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So that they can be as miserable as the rest of us married folk!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that they can be as miserable as the rest of us married folk !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that they can be as miserable as the rest of us married folk!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806241</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256045340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean really, what year is it?</p></div><p>2009.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Oh....</p><p>Was that question rhetorical? Sorry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean really , what year is it ? 2009 .
...Oh....Was that question rhetorical ?
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean really, what year is it?2009.
...Oh....Was that question rhetorical?
Sorry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810617</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>VisceralLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1256062020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're stretching the meaning of the word "hate" here.  Someone may be against gay marriage because they believe it's sinful, but that doesn't mean they hate the practitioners... just that they want it not to be legal because they think it's wrong.  See the difference?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're stretching the meaning of the word " hate " here .
Someone may be against gay marriage because they believe it 's sinful , but that does n't mean they hate the practitioners... just that they want it not to be legal because they think it 's wrong .
See the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're stretching the meaning of the word "hate" here.
Someone may be against gay marriage because they believe it's sinful, but that doesn't mean they hate the practitioners... just that they want it not to be legal because they think it's wrong.
See the difference?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806785</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>LMacG</author>
	<datestamp>1256048520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when did you choose to be a heterosexual?</p><p>Further, why do you think somebody would choose to be gay?  Just to enjoy the intolerance of a bunch of religious wackos, be unable to marry the person they love, be able to be fired from their job just because of their homosexuality, be beaten to within an inch of one's life (Google 'Jack Price Queens NY')?</p><p>Yeah, it's a choice.</p><p>Moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when did you choose to be a heterosexual ? Further , why do you think somebody would choose to be gay ?
Just to enjoy the intolerance of a bunch of religious wackos , be unable to marry the person they love , be able to be fired from their job just because of their homosexuality , be beaten to within an inch of one 's life ( Google 'Jack Price Queens NY ' ) ? Yeah , it 's a choice.Moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when did you choose to be a heterosexual?Further, why do you think somebody would choose to be gay?
Just to enjoy the intolerance of a bunch of religious wackos, be unable to marry the person they love, be able to be fired from their job just because of their homosexuality, be beaten to within an inch of one's life (Google 'Jack Price Queens NY')?Yeah, it's a choice.Moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806577</id>
	<title>Re:My vote, my business</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1256047380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you really think petitions should be top secret, you may change your tune when somebody who doesn't like you take a petition to evict you from your town, signed by every person on town.  Remember, to prevent intimidation, it's top secret so nobody is allowed to view it, but trust him, the entire town wants you out, better get packing.  If you can't look at names, that's the same as a vote where nobody can count the votes.  You pull a lever, and then the president announces he won another term.  Trust him, he's the president after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really think petitions should be top secret , you may change your tune when somebody who does n't like you take a petition to evict you from your town , signed by every person on town .
Remember , to prevent intimidation , it 's top secret so nobody is allowed to view it , but trust him , the entire town wants you out , better get packing .
If you ca n't look at names , that 's the same as a vote where nobody can count the votes .
You pull a lever , and then the president announces he won another term .
Trust him , he 's the president after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you really think petitions should be top secret, you may change your tune when somebody who doesn't like you take a petition to evict you from your town, signed by every person on town.
Remember, to prevent intimidation, it's top secret so nobody is allowed to view it, but trust him, the entire town wants you out, better get packing.
If you can't look at names, that's the same as a vote where nobody can count the votes.
You pull a lever, and then the president announces he won another term.
Trust him, he's the president after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807875</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1256052900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>People who are opposed to same-sex marriage don't necessarily "hate on gays." They're just... opposed to same-sex marriage. </i> <br>
<br>
Other than pure spite, what <b>possible</b> incentive or reasoning would someone have for being opposed to gay marriage?
<br> <br>
I've only seen a few arguments and they're all either hateful or just plain goofy.<br>
<br>
One is "It doesn't fit with the tradition of marriage!"  That goes into the "goofy" category; marriage was originally a way of joining two estates to secure more or better property rights in a family, or for bartering (your son can have my daughter's hand in marriage if you give me three goats and a cow).  Children were raised by the mother, the father if he stuck around, and the community at large.  We come from tribal hunter-gatherer ancestors, fellas -- they didn't have all this wedding-and-marriage stuff.
<br> <br>
  Many cultures have accepted, or continue to accept bigamy, arranged marriages, forced marriage ("shotgun wedding" type, or slavery type), and other things that we wouldn't consider "traditional".  It is only in our fairly modern, WASPy world that we think "marriage is between one man, one woman, and for love only" -- but there is absolutely  nothing "traditional" about that.
<br>
<br>
The other main argument always revolves around some aspect of "the gay agenda" or, less commonly, "the liberal agenda".  Apparently all these gays only want to get married so they can adopt children, turn the children gay (probably using their mystic gay voodoo, passed gayly down from one gay generation to the next), and perpetuate their gayness.  Or something.  The "gay agenda" or "think of the children" argument is so left-field I can't even really figure out what the hell they're talking about, but it gets brought up every time.<br>
<br>
If someone could come up with a rational reason why gays shouldn't get married, and it actually made sense, wasn't some bigoted crap, and wasn't off in the loony bin, then maybe there'd be some merit to saying "I don't hate gays but I oppose gay marriage."  I, however, have yet to see a rational argument, so I ask again: Why would anyone be opposed to gays getting married, except for the sick pleasure of denying someone else a right that most others enjoy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are opposed to same-sex marriage do n't necessarily " hate on gays .
" They 're just... opposed to same-sex marriage .
Other than pure spite , what possible incentive or reasoning would someone have for being opposed to gay marriage ?
I 've only seen a few arguments and they 're all either hateful or just plain goofy .
One is " It does n't fit with the tradition of marriage !
" That goes into the " goofy " category ; marriage was originally a way of joining two estates to secure more or better property rights in a family , or for bartering ( your son can have my daughter 's hand in marriage if you give me three goats and a cow ) .
Children were raised by the mother , the father if he stuck around , and the community at large .
We come from tribal hunter-gatherer ancestors , fellas -- they did n't have all this wedding-and-marriage stuff .
Many cultures have accepted , or continue to accept bigamy , arranged marriages , forced marriage ( " shotgun wedding " type , or slavery type ) , and other things that we would n't consider " traditional " .
It is only in our fairly modern , WASPy world that we think " marriage is between one man , one woman , and for love only " -- but there is absolutely nothing " traditional " about that .
The other main argument always revolves around some aspect of " the gay agenda " or , less commonly , " the liberal agenda " .
Apparently all these gays only want to get married so they can adopt children , turn the children gay ( probably using their mystic gay voodoo , passed gayly down from one gay generation to the next ) , and perpetuate their gayness .
Or something .
The " gay agenda " or " think of the children " argument is so left-field I ca n't even really figure out what the hell they 're talking about , but it gets brought up every time .
If someone could come up with a rational reason why gays should n't get married , and it actually made sense , was n't some bigoted crap , and was n't off in the loony bin , then maybe there 'd be some merit to saying " I do n't hate gays but I oppose gay marriage .
" I , however , have yet to see a rational argument , so I ask again : Why would anyone be opposed to gays getting married , except for the sick pleasure of denying someone else a right that most others enjoy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are opposed to same-sex marriage don't necessarily "hate on gays.
" They're just... opposed to same-sex marriage.
Other than pure spite, what possible incentive or reasoning would someone have for being opposed to gay marriage?
I've only seen a few arguments and they're all either hateful or just plain goofy.
One is "It doesn't fit with the tradition of marriage!
"  That goes into the "goofy" category; marriage was originally a way of joining two estates to secure more or better property rights in a family, or for bartering (your son can have my daughter's hand in marriage if you give me three goats and a cow).
Children were raised by the mother, the father if he stuck around, and the community at large.
We come from tribal hunter-gatherer ancestors, fellas -- they didn't have all this wedding-and-marriage stuff.
Many cultures have accepted, or continue to accept bigamy, arranged marriages, forced marriage ("shotgun wedding" type, or slavery type), and other things that we wouldn't consider "traditional".
It is only in our fairly modern, WASPy world that we think "marriage is between one man, one woman, and for love only" -- but there is absolutely  nothing "traditional" about that.
The other main argument always revolves around some aspect of "the gay agenda" or, less commonly, "the liberal agenda".
Apparently all these gays only want to get married so they can adopt children, turn the children gay (probably using their mystic gay voodoo, passed gayly down from one gay generation to the next), and perpetuate their gayness.
Or something.
The "gay agenda" or "think of the children" argument is so left-field I can't even really figure out what the hell they're talking about, but it gets brought up every time.
If someone could come up with a rational reason why gays shouldn't get married, and it actually made sense, wasn't some bigoted crap, and wasn't off in the loony bin, then maybe there'd be some merit to saying "I don't hate gays but I oppose gay marriage.
"  I, however, have yet to see a rational argument, so I ask again: Why would anyone be opposed to gays getting married, except for the sick pleasure of denying someone else a right that most others enjoy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29816387</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256041740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the demeaning rebut was deserved. The post he was replying to was full of logical flaws, lies and nonsense.</p><p>&ldquo;Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.&rdquo;</p><p>-Thomas Jefferson (on a different topic)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the demeaning rebut was deserved .
The post he was replying to was full of logical flaws , lies and nonsense.    Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions .
Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.    -Thomas Jefferson ( on a different topic )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the demeaning rebut was deserved.
The post he was replying to was full of logical flaws, lies and nonsense.“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions.
Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”-Thomas Jefferson (on a different topic)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29829635</id>
	<title>Political Aim</title>
	<author>tylikcat</author>
	<datestamp>1256124360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much of the point of this is to suggest that gay folk are scary and threatening, and that social conservatives are oppressed?

I don't think the intimidation argument is necessarily invalid in all cases - posting the names and addresses of abortion providers does constitute a threat. I'm not saying this is a parallel, and the petition process is rather different, but it's an interesting line to work through.

But. I'm from Washington State. I grew up in the queer district in Seattle. I remember an awful lot of gay bashing. Conservative bashing? Not so much. And that would be news - it's got the man bites dog thing going for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of the point of this is to suggest that gay folk are scary and threatening , and that social conservatives are oppressed ?
I do n't think the intimidation argument is necessarily invalid in all cases - posting the names and addresses of abortion providers does constitute a threat .
I 'm not saying this is a parallel , and the petition process is rather different , but it 's an interesting line to work through .
But. I 'm from Washington State .
I grew up in the queer district in Seattle .
I remember an awful lot of gay bashing .
Conservative bashing ?
Not so much .
And that would be news - it 's got the man bites dog thing going for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of the point of this is to suggest that gay folk are scary and threatening, and that social conservatives are oppressed?
I don't think the intimidation argument is necessarily invalid in all cases - posting the names and addresses of abortion providers does constitute a threat.
I'm not saying this is a parallel, and the petition process is rather different, but it's an interesting line to work through.
But. I'm from Washington State.
I grew up in the queer district in Seattle.
I remember an awful lot of gay bashing.
Conservative bashing?
Not so much.
And that would be news - it's got the man bites dog thing going for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256046780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I saw an article on Yahoo! the other day about an interracial couple being denied their wedding license for being interracial. In the article, it stated that the constitution says that we can marry "whoever we want".

Shame that's not true. Oh well...as they say, it's the old people that are opposing gay marriage the most. We just have to wait a few years, then we can re-send gay marriage laws all over the country and finally get this biblical fear knocked out. I mean really, what year is it?</p></div><p>For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects? Where exactly do you prefer to set the moral standard for marriage if not between a man and a woman? I agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their race however I'm also someone who believes a person *does* have control over their sexual preferences and therefore should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standards. And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the West and the people continue to show they are against gay marriage (not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though). Of course, if you are a liberal who believes there is no personal responsibility and by extension you have no control over your sexual preferences then you believes that you are being treated unfairly in the eyes of the law when you are told you cannot marry someone of the same sex. The lack of personal responsibility is a major issue in American society today that needs remedied, fast.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>then we can re-send gay marriage laws</p></div><p>By the way, your use of the word "re-send" is not correct. I believe you mean "rescind".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw an article on Yahoo !
the other day about an interracial couple being denied their wedding license for being interracial .
In the article , it stated that the constitution says that we can marry " whoever we want " .
Shame that 's not true .
Oh well...as they say , it 's the old people that are opposing gay marriage the most .
We just have to wait a few years , then we can re-send gay marriage laws all over the country and finally get this biblical fear knocked out .
I mean really , what year is it ? For laws that are even less specific , would you prefer to have the ability ( or let others have the ability ) to marry animals or inanimate objects ?
Where exactly do you prefer to set the moral standard for marriage if not between a man and a woman ?
I agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their race however I 'm also someone who believes a person * does * have control over their sexual preferences and therefore should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standards .
And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the West and the people continue to show they are against gay marriage ( not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though ) .
Of course , if you are a liberal who believes there is no personal responsibility and by extension you have no control over your sexual preferences then you believes that you are being treated unfairly in the eyes of the law when you are told you can not marry someone of the same sex .
The lack of personal responsibility is a major issue in American society today that needs remedied , fast.then we can re-send gay marriage lawsBy the way , your use of the word " re-send " is not correct .
I believe you mean " rescind " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw an article on Yahoo!
the other day about an interracial couple being denied their wedding license for being interracial.
In the article, it stated that the constitution says that we can marry "whoever we want".
Shame that's not true.
Oh well...as they say, it's the old people that are opposing gay marriage the most.
We just have to wait a few years, then we can re-send gay marriage laws all over the country and finally get this biblical fear knocked out.
I mean really, what year is it?For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects?
Where exactly do you prefer to set the moral standard for marriage if not between a man and a woman?
I agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their race however I'm also someone who believes a person *does* have control over their sexual preferences and therefore should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standards.
And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the West and the people continue to show they are against gay marriage (not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though).
Of course, if you are a liberal who believes there is no personal responsibility and by extension you have no control over your sexual preferences then you believes that you are being treated unfairly in the eyes of the law when you are told you cannot marry someone of the same sex.
The lack of personal responsibility is a major issue in American society today that needs remedied, fast.then we can re-send gay marriage lawsBy the way, your use of the word "re-send" is not correct.
I believe you mean "rescind".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29813843</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256030940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So what Judge Settle is saying here is that First Amendment rights mean that not only can you say whatever the hell you want, but no one is allowed to dislike you for saying it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Straw man arguments are lies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what Judge Settle is saying here is that First Amendment rights mean that not only can you say whatever the hell you want , but no one is allowed to dislike you for saying it.Straw man arguments are lies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what Judge Settle is saying here is that First Amendment rights mean that not only can you say whatever the hell you want, but no one is allowed to dislike you for saying it.Straw man arguments are lies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806955</id>
	<title>Re:My vote, my business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256049240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Women's Suffrage- read up on it.<br>Jim Crow laws- read up on them.<br>So, it was ok to intimidate/harass/and essentially shove out the minority (being African-Americans or women), and not let them push back by any means to get equality?</p><p>Equality means just that, all are equal. You don't get to tell others how to live their lives (other than don't kill people, or infringe on their rights, and doesn't every "good book" request that anyway?).</p><p>You are fully entitled to not like people, but when you try to take away capabilities that you get, that is where BS needs to be called.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Women 's Suffrage- read up on it.Jim Crow laws- read up on them.So , it was ok to intimidate/harass/and essentially shove out the minority ( being African-Americans or women ) , and not let them push back by any means to get equality ? Equality means just that , all are equal .
You do n't get to tell others how to live their lives ( other than do n't kill people , or infringe on their rights , and does n't every " good book " request that anyway ?
) .You are fully entitled to not like people , but when you try to take away capabilities that you get , that is where BS needs to be called .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Women's Suffrage- read up on it.Jim Crow laws- read up on them.So, it was ok to intimidate/harass/and essentially shove out the minority (being African-Americans or women), and not let them push back by any means to get equality?Equality means just that, all are equal.
You don't get to tell others how to live their lives (other than don't kill people, or infringe on their rights, and doesn't every "good book" request that anyway?
).You are fully entitled to not like people, but when you try to take away capabilities that you get, that is where BS needs to be called.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807509</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256051520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now they can't go around pretending to be all cool and tolerant. I'd love to see their hipocrit faces when they are judged by the rest of their hipocrit friends who were smart enough not to sign the petition...<br>Eat shit motherfuckers!!</p></div><p>With tolerance like this, who needs the Nazis!...</p><p>And in fairness, "tolerance" has been a by-word for the gay movement for as long as I can remember; even as they practice the same intolerance which you so eloquently spout....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now they ca n't go around pretending to be all cool and tolerant .
I 'd love to see their hipocrit faces when they are judged by the rest of their hipocrit friends who were smart enough not to sign the petition...Eat shit motherfuckers !
! With tolerance like this , who needs the Nazis ! ...And in fairness , " tolerance " has been a by-word for the gay movement for as long as I can remember ; even as they practice the same intolerance which you so eloquently spout... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now they can't go around pretending to be all cool and tolerant.
I'd love to see their hipocrit faces when they are judged by the rest of their hipocrit friends who were smart enough not to sign the petition...Eat shit motherfuckers!
!With tolerance like this, who needs the Nazis!...And in fairness, "tolerance" has been a by-word for the gay movement for as long as I can remember; even as they practice the same intolerance which you so eloquently spout....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29815285</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So many assholes, so few mod points.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So many assholes , so few mod points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So many assholes, so few mod points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806431</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256046660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a "fear."  If you are a Christian, it is explicitly forbidden.  Read verse 22 <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18&amp;version=NIV" title="biblegateway.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [biblegateway.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a " fear .
" If you are a Christian , it is explicitly forbidden .
Read verse 22 here [ biblegateway.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a "fear.
"  If you are a Christian, it is explicitly forbidden.
Read verse 22 here [biblegateway.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808971</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1256056740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about this: the purpose of marriage as a social contract is to provide for the care, feeding, and raising of children.  Children are a product of heterosexual relationships, not homosexual relationships.  Public parity for homosexual relationships with heterosexual is part of a larger weakening of the marriage covenant that has had horrible impacts on children.</p><p>Real example: my wife abandoned me and our 4 children, two of whom have autism.  Her excuse?  She wanted to be "free to be bisexual."  Does that mean that she went for a stable, committed, bisexual relationship?  Is there even such a thing?  Hardly.  What it really meant was that she didn't want to by a parent anymore and the GLBT community tells her she's a hero for walking out on her kids.</p><p>Sorry, but I find the whole thing repulsive.  Not because of the "ick factor", but because of the lust factor.  Marriage is supposed to be about more than sex, it's supposed to be about children, and gay marriage isn't about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this : the purpose of marriage as a social contract is to provide for the care , feeding , and raising of children .
Children are a product of heterosexual relationships , not homosexual relationships .
Public parity for homosexual relationships with heterosexual is part of a larger weakening of the marriage covenant that has had horrible impacts on children.Real example : my wife abandoned me and our 4 children , two of whom have autism .
Her excuse ?
She wanted to be " free to be bisexual .
" Does that mean that she went for a stable , committed , bisexual relationship ?
Is there even such a thing ?
Hardly. What it really meant was that she did n't want to by a parent anymore and the GLBT community tells her she 's a hero for walking out on her kids.Sorry , but I find the whole thing repulsive .
Not because of the " ick factor " , but because of the lust factor .
Marriage is supposed to be about more than sex , it 's supposed to be about children , and gay marriage is n't about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this: the purpose of marriage as a social contract is to provide for the care, feeding, and raising of children.
Children are a product of heterosexual relationships, not homosexual relationships.
Public parity for homosexual relationships with heterosexual is part of a larger weakening of the marriage covenant that has had horrible impacts on children.Real example: my wife abandoned me and our 4 children, two of whom have autism.
Her excuse?
She wanted to be "free to be bisexual.
"  Does that mean that she went for a stable, committed, bisexual relationship?
Is there even such a thing?
Hardly.  What it really meant was that she didn't want to by a parent anymore and the GLBT community tells her she's a hero for walking out on her kids.Sorry, but I find the whole thing repulsive.
Not because of the "ick factor", but because of the lust factor.
Marriage is supposed to be about more than sex, it's supposed to be about children, and gay marriage isn't about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810733</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>jackbird</author>
	<datestamp>1256062440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I knew a lesbian couple with a somewhat similar story - mom 1 left mom 2 in order to be straight, taking their kid (who mom 1 had given birth to) with her.  Mom 2, despite having raised the child to the age of 3, was not married to mom 1 in any legal sense, and so now has no parental rights to, and no contact with, her child.

Gay marriage, and yes, gay divorce, would have made the situation a lot more bearable for mom 2.

PS - I know many members of the GLBT community who would rightly excoriate your ex-wife for her choices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew a lesbian couple with a somewhat similar story - mom 1 left mom 2 in order to be straight , taking their kid ( who mom 1 had given birth to ) with her .
Mom 2 , despite having raised the child to the age of 3 , was not married to mom 1 in any legal sense , and so now has no parental rights to , and no contact with , her child .
Gay marriage , and yes , gay divorce , would have made the situation a lot more bearable for mom 2 .
PS - I know many members of the GLBT community who would rightly excoriate your ex-wife for her choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew a lesbian couple with a somewhat similar story - mom 1 left mom 2 in order to be straight, taking their kid (who mom 1 had given birth to) with her.
Mom 2, despite having raised the child to the age of 3, was not married to mom 1 in any legal sense, and so now has no parental rights to, and no contact with, her child.
Gay marriage, and yes, gay divorce, would have made the situation a lot more bearable for mom 2.
PS - I know many members of the GLBT community who would rightly excoriate your ex-wife for her choices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807031</id>
	<title>Just Fear</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1256049540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are the same people, or at least same mentality, of who live their lives in fear that the Russians are going to come over here and take their bibles away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are the same people , or at least same mentality , of who live their lives in fear that the Russians are going to come over here and take their bibles away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are the same people, or at least same mentality, of who live their lives in fear that the Russians are going to come over here and take their bibles away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807935</id>
	<title>Ballots are secret, petitions are not.</title>
	<author>EWAdams</author>
	<datestamp>1256053200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to keep your opinion secret? Then express it inside the voting booth. When you make it public, you have to answer for the consequences, which may include other people pointing out that you're a complete idiot.</p><p>Petitions are public actions, voting is a secret action. Simple as that. If you aren't prepared to stand up for your opinion, keep your mouth shut -- or write an anonymous flame on the Internet that nobody will care about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to keep your opinion secret ?
Then express it inside the voting booth .
When you make it public , you have to answer for the consequences , which may include other people pointing out that you 're a complete idiot.Petitions are public actions , voting is a secret action .
Simple as that .
If you are n't prepared to stand up for your opinion , keep your mouth shut -- or write an anonymous flame on the Internet that nobody will care about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to keep your opinion secret?
Then express it inside the voting booth.
When you make it public, you have to answer for the consequences, which may include other people pointing out that you're a complete idiot.Petitions are public actions, voting is a secret action.
Simple as that.
If you aren't prepared to stand up for your opinion, keep your mouth shut -- or write an anonymous flame on the Internet that nobody will care about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807093</id>
	<title>damned if you do, damned if you don't</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1256049720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you tell people their signatures are confidential, that makes it harder for newspapers to double-check for fraud.</p><p>If you tell people their signatures are public, it can create a chilling effect, especially for those whose friends, employers, or supervisors are opposed to the issue on the petition.</p><p>Yes, signing a petition may mean "I think this should be voted on, even if I disagree with it" but your friends, employer, or supervisor may read it as "I agree with the issue" and no amount of explaining will say otherwise.</p><p>Also, if signatures are made public and easily searched, NOT signing a petition may also get you into trouble with friends, employers, or supervisors.  Imagine a work environment where NOT signing petitions that relate to certain issues gets you shunned by your peers, with the result that your boss, not knowing what is really going on, thinks you are not a team player and sidelines you and your career stalls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you tell people their signatures are confidential , that makes it harder for newspapers to double-check for fraud.If you tell people their signatures are public , it can create a chilling effect , especially for those whose friends , employers , or supervisors are opposed to the issue on the petition.Yes , signing a petition may mean " I think this should be voted on , even if I disagree with it " but your friends , employer , or supervisor may read it as " I agree with the issue " and no amount of explaining will say otherwise.Also , if signatures are made public and easily searched , NOT signing a petition may also get you into trouble with friends , employers , or supervisors .
Imagine a work environment where NOT signing petitions that relate to certain issues gets you shunned by your peers , with the result that your boss , not knowing what is really going on , thinks you are not a team player and sidelines you and your career stalls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you tell people their signatures are confidential, that makes it harder for newspapers to double-check for fraud.If you tell people their signatures are public, it can create a chilling effect, especially for those whose friends, employers, or supervisors are opposed to the issue on the petition.Yes, signing a petition may mean "I think this should be voted on, even if I disagree with it" but your friends, employer, or supervisor may read it as "I agree with the issue" and no amount of explaining will say otherwise.Also, if signatures are made public and easily searched, NOT signing a petition may also get you into trouble with friends, employers, or supervisors.
Imagine a work environment where NOT signing petitions that relate to certain issues gets you shunned by your peers, with the result that your boss, not knowing what is really going on, thinks you are not a team player and sidelines you and your career stalls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29820465</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256115900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects?</p></div><p>As far as I'm aware, contracts (marriage included) requires mutual consent.   It's a pretty simple contractual arrangement, to be honest.   Any two people can engage in a contract, provided they are legally able to consent.</p><p>I'm not aware of any "animals or inanimate objects" capable of consent, are you?</p><p>I'm also not aware of any clause in the constitution that allows the government to restrict contract rights between two willing parties who have legally given consent.</p><p>If you remove the religious connotation and simply refer to it as "a mutual contract", you might start to see the absurdity of your claim.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For laws that are even less specific , would you prefer to have the ability ( or let others have the ability ) to marry animals or inanimate objects ? As far as I 'm aware , contracts ( marriage included ) requires mutual consent .
It 's a pretty simple contractual arrangement , to be honest .
Any two people can engage in a contract , provided they are legally able to consent.I 'm not aware of any " animals or inanimate objects " capable of consent , are you ? I 'm also not aware of any clause in the constitution that allows the government to restrict contract rights between two willing parties who have legally given consent.If you remove the religious connotation and simply refer to it as " a mutual contract " , you might start to see the absurdity of your claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects?As far as I'm aware, contracts (marriage included) requires mutual consent.
It's a pretty simple contractual arrangement, to be honest.
Any two people can engage in a contract, provided they are legally able to consent.I'm not aware of any "animals or inanimate objects" capable of consent, are you?I'm also not aware of any clause in the constitution that allows the government to restrict contract rights between two willing parties who have legally given consent.If you remove the religious connotation and simply refer to it as "a mutual contract", you might start to see the absurdity of your claim.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809947</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1256059920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where exactly do you prefer to set the moral standard for marriage if not between a man and a woman?</p></div><p>"Between any number of consenting adults of any gender" will do just fine, thanks.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their race</p></div><p>So if people had control over their race, interracial marriages would be wrong?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm also someone who believes a person *does* have control over their sexual preferences</p></div><p>You're just wrong. You can also believe that Earth is flat and is 6000 years old (ouch, sorry, you probably do believe the latter), but that just marks you as intellectually deficient, nothing more. There's no scientific debate over the fact that at least in some cases homosexuality is inborn (as demonstrated by the fact that it's observed in wild animals). There may be <em>some</em> cases where it's not, but it sure as hell isn't <em>all</em> of them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standards</p></div><p>Why do you keep thinking that your own misguided beliefs are "societal standards"? Or that giving gays the same rights straight people enjoy is "special treatment"?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the West</p></div><p>Do you mean "USA" when you say "west"? The issue is pretty much settled in other western countries, FYI.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the people continue to show they are against gay marriage</p> </div><p>"A 2007 University of Washington poll found 73 percent of Washington Voters support legal recognition of same-sex relationships."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where exactly do you prefer to set the moral standard for marriage if not between a man and a woman ?
" Between any number of consenting adults of any gender " will do just fine , thanks.I agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their raceSo if people had control over their race , interracial marriages would be wrong ? I 'm also someone who believes a person * does * have control over their sexual preferencesYou 're just wrong .
You can also believe that Earth is flat and is 6000 years old ( ouch , sorry , you probably do believe the latter ) , but that just marks you as intellectually deficient , nothing more .
There 's no scientific debate over the fact that at least in some cases homosexuality is inborn ( as demonstrated by the fact that it 's observed in wild animals ) .
There may be some cases where it 's not , but it sure as hell is n't all of them.should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standardsWhy do you keep thinking that your own misguided beliefs are " societal standards " ?
Or that giving gays the same rights straight people enjoy is " special treatment " ? And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the WestDo you mean " USA " when you say " west " ?
The issue is pretty much settled in other western countries , FYI.the people continue to show they are against gay marriage " A 2007 University of Washington poll found 73 percent of Washington Voters support legal recognition of same-sex relationships .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where exactly do you prefer to set the moral standard for marriage if not between a man and a woman?
"Between any number of consenting adults of any gender" will do just fine, thanks.I agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their raceSo if people had control over their race, interracial marriages would be wrong?I'm also someone who believes a person *does* have control over their sexual preferencesYou're just wrong.
You can also believe that Earth is flat and is 6000 years old (ouch, sorry, you probably do believe the latter), but that just marks you as intellectually deficient, nothing more.
There's no scientific debate over the fact that at least in some cases homosexuality is inborn (as demonstrated by the fact that it's observed in wild animals).
There may be some cases where it's not, but it sure as hell isn't all of them.should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standardsWhy do you keep thinking that your own misguided beliefs are "societal standards"?
Or that giving gays the same rights straight people enjoy is "special treatment"?And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the WestDo you mean "USA" when you say "west"?
The issue is pretty much settled in other western countries, FYI.the people continue to show they are against gay marriage "A 2007 University of Washington poll found 73 percent of Washington Voters support legal recognition of same-sex relationships.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818639</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256054160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cannot thank you enough for this post.  Seriously, it's perfect in every way.</p><blockquote><div><p>I'm also someone who believes a person *does* have control over their sexual preferences</p></div></blockquote><p>Bullshit.  I'm attracted to girls and not to guys.  At the same time, I'm currently in the middle of the very difficult process of coming out as MtF transgender.  This is not something I have control over, and quite frankly, is something I wish I did not have to go through.</p><p>Consider this: right now if I met the girl of my dreams we could get married and be afforded all of the rights and privileges our society gives to a married couple.  Yet this isn't what I want, deep down inside.  Believe it or not, forces beyond my control are pushing me down a route from societal norms to a place where my possible dating pool is orders of magnitude smaller and where I wouldn't be able to have the same benefits as I could have right now.  Why the fuck would I put myself through any of this if it was a choice?</p><p>(Posting anonymously so as not to accidentally out myself)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not thank you enough for this post .
Seriously , it 's perfect in every way.I 'm also someone who believes a person * does * have control over their sexual preferencesBullshit .
I 'm attracted to girls and not to guys .
At the same time , I 'm currently in the middle of the very difficult process of coming out as MtF transgender .
This is not something I have control over , and quite frankly , is something I wish I did not have to go through.Consider this : right now if I met the girl of my dreams we could get married and be afforded all of the rights and privileges our society gives to a married couple .
Yet this is n't what I want , deep down inside .
Believe it or not , forces beyond my control are pushing me down a route from societal norms to a place where my possible dating pool is orders of magnitude smaller and where I would n't be able to have the same benefits as I could have right now .
Why the fuck would I put myself through any of this if it was a choice ?
( Posting anonymously so as not to accidentally out myself )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot thank you enough for this post.
Seriously, it's perfect in every way.I'm also someone who believes a person *does* have control over their sexual preferencesBullshit.
I'm attracted to girls and not to guys.
At the same time, I'm currently in the middle of the very difficult process of coming out as MtF transgender.
This is not something I have control over, and quite frankly, is something I wish I did not have to go through.Consider this: right now if I met the girl of my dreams we could get married and be afforded all of the rights and privileges our society gives to a married couple.
Yet this isn't what I want, deep down inside.
Believe it or not, forces beyond my control are pushing me down a route from societal norms to a place where my possible dating pool is orders of magnitude smaller and where I wouldn't be able to have the same benefits as I could have right now.
Why the fuck would I put myself through any of this if it was a choice?
(Posting anonymously so as not to accidentally out myself)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806847</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1256048700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I certainly hope they don't <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus\%2011:9-11&amp;version=NIV" title="biblegateway.com">eat shellfish</a> [biblegateway.com] or allow <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus\%2021:16-23&amp;version=NIV" title="biblegateway.com">little people</a> [biblegateway.com] into the priesthood. And they better keep their <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus\%2025:44-46;&amp;version=NIV;" title="biblegateway.com">slaves</a> [biblegateway.com] properly and <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus\%2015:25-30;&amp;version=NIV;" title="biblegateway.com">sacrifice birds</a> [biblegateway.com] every time they have their period.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly hope they do n't eat shellfish [ biblegateway.com ] or allow little people [ biblegateway.com ] into the priesthood .
And they better keep their slaves [ biblegateway.com ] properly and sacrifice birds [ biblegateway.com ] every time they have their period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly hope they don't eat shellfish [biblegateway.com] or allow little people [biblegateway.com] into the priesthood.
And they better keep their slaves [biblegateway.com] properly and sacrifice birds [biblegateway.com] every time they have their period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810781</id>
	<title>For The Record</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256062680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rights and privileges had already been passed in what is known here in Washington as the "Everything But Marriage Bill." Governor Gregoire signed the bill this summer. The Referendum 71 Petition would roll-back an already passed bill. Therefore, signing to put "gay marriage" on the ballot via Referendum 71 can only result in either the maintenance of the existing statues, or the retraction of a comprehensive civil unions bill. Those who signed Ref 71 signed a petition aimed to deny rather than expand access to domestic partnerships. I for one revel in the cowardice of those who think it right and good to obsess over the consensual, private affairs of others. "Do as I say, just don't look me in the face!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rights and privileges had already been passed in what is known here in Washington as the " Everything But Marriage Bill .
" Governor Gregoire signed the bill this summer .
The Referendum 71 Petition would roll-back an already passed bill .
Therefore , signing to put " gay marriage " on the ballot via Referendum 71 can only result in either the maintenance of the existing statues , or the retraction of a comprehensive civil unions bill .
Those who signed Ref 71 signed a petition aimed to deny rather than expand access to domestic partnerships .
I for one revel in the cowardice of those who think it right and good to obsess over the consensual , private affairs of others .
" Do as I say , just do n't look me in the face !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rights and privileges had already been passed in what is known here in Washington as the "Everything But Marriage Bill.
" Governor Gregoire signed the bill this summer.
The Referendum 71 Petition would roll-back an already passed bill.
Therefore, signing to put "gay marriage" on the ballot via Referendum 71 can only result in either the maintenance of the existing statues, or the retraction of a comprehensive civil unions bill.
Those who signed Ref 71 signed a petition aimed to deny rather than expand access to domestic partnerships.
I for one revel in the cowardice of those who think it right and good to obsess over the consensual, private affairs of others.
"Do as I say, just don't look me in the face!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807881</id>
	<title>If the term Marriage is the problem</title>
	<author>Drummergeek0</author>
	<datestamp>1256052960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use something else.</p><p>Marriage is a term defined by the church and I don't think any union in the government's eye should be called marriage anyway. This should already happen due to Separation of Church and State. This goes for Man and Woman, Man and Man, &amp; Woman and Woman. The government should have no right to determine what the guidelines for civil union are anyway. To the government we are just tax paying numbers, anyway.</p><p>The main point for most homosexual civil unions are to retrieve the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. Most are not looking to recognized by the church, only the state, and the government should not be able to deny those rights based on religious/bigotted beliefs.</p><p>IMHO that is one of the biggest problem with our government is that so many religious beliefs are used in making these kind of decisions. Look at Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice. Basic human rights should allow for Pro-Choice (with certain guidelines, but things like the morning after pill, and early term abortion should be allowed).</p><p>My views may be tinted by beliefs, or lack thereof, but logically it seems that because of Separation of Church and State that this should not be an issue.</p><p>Just my two cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use something else.Marriage is a term defined by the church and I do n't think any union in the government 's eye should be called marriage anyway .
This should already happen due to Separation of Church and State .
This goes for Man and Woman , Man and Man , &amp; Woman and Woman .
The government should have no right to determine what the guidelines for civil union are anyway .
To the government we are just tax paying numbers , anyway.The main point for most homosexual civil unions are to retrieve the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive .
Most are not looking to recognized by the church , only the state , and the government should not be able to deny those rights based on religious/bigotted beliefs.IMHO that is one of the biggest problem with our government is that so many religious beliefs are used in making these kind of decisions .
Look at Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice .
Basic human rights should allow for Pro-Choice ( with certain guidelines , but things like the morning after pill , and early term abortion should be allowed ) .My views may be tinted by beliefs , or lack thereof , but logically it seems that because of Separation of Church and State that this should not be an issue.Just my two cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use something else.Marriage is a term defined by the church and I don't think any union in the government's eye should be called marriage anyway.
This should already happen due to Separation of Church and State.
This goes for Man and Woman, Man and Man, &amp; Woman and Woman.
The government should have no right to determine what the guidelines for civil union are anyway.
To the government we are just tax paying numbers, anyway.The main point for most homosexual civil unions are to retrieve the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive.
Most are not looking to recognized by the church, only the state, and the government should not be able to deny those rights based on religious/bigotted beliefs.IMHO that is one of the biggest problem with our government is that so many religious beliefs are used in making these kind of decisions.
Look at Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice.
Basic human rights should allow for Pro-Choice (with certain guidelines, but things like the morning after pill, and early term abortion should be allowed).My views may be tinted by beliefs, or lack thereof, but logically it seems that because of Separation of Church and State that this should not be an issue.Just my two cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29817679</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, then, if you're a Christian, don't do it. But the law should allow non-Christians (Or Christians who interpret things differently than you do) to marry the person they love, whether you approve or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , then , if you 're a Christian , do n't do it .
But the law should allow non-Christians ( Or Christians who interpret things differently than you do ) to marry the person they love , whether you approve or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, then, if you're a Christian, don't do it.
But the law should allow non-Christians (Or Christians who interpret things differently than you do) to marry the person they love, whether you approve or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806477</id>
	<title>Ultimately it's about religion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256046900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get most people talking long enough and it'll come back to "well the Bible says". If this is a religious issue than the laws themselves against gay marriage are illegal. If they insist on being able to push religious agendas in government and law then they need to loose their protections. Tax church property and take away any government protection for religion then you can push your agendas until then shut up and go back to hating people in private the way God intended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get most people talking long enough and it 'll come back to " well the Bible says " .
If this is a religious issue than the laws themselves against gay marriage are illegal .
If they insist on being able to push religious agendas in government and law then they need to loose their protections .
Tax church property and take away any government protection for religion then you can push your agendas until then shut up and go back to hating people in private the way God intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get most people talking long enough and it'll come back to "well the Bible says".
If this is a religious issue than the laws themselves against gay marriage are illegal.
If they insist on being able to push religious agendas in government and law then they need to loose their protections.
Tax church property and take away any government protection for religion then you can push your agendas until then shut up and go back to hating people in private the way God intended.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810259</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about one rooted in love? What if someone believes that you can't get into heaven if you have been involved in a gay-marriage. Therefore that person would see gay-marriage as hurting other people. Since that person loves other people, and doesn't want to see them hurt, they do everything they can to prevent the person from entering into a gay-marriage.</p><p>Of course you would say that that person shouldn't force their beliefs on other people. But the person would say that they to not act in that manner would be hurtful to the other person and not kind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about one rooted in love ?
What if someone believes that you ca n't get into heaven if you have been involved in a gay-marriage .
Therefore that person would see gay-marriage as hurting other people .
Since that person loves other people , and does n't want to see them hurt , they do everything they can to prevent the person from entering into a gay-marriage.Of course you would say that that person should n't force their beliefs on other people .
But the person would say that they to not act in that manner would be hurtful to the other person and not kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about one rooted in love?
What if someone believes that you can't get into heaven if you have been involved in a gay-marriage.
Therefore that person would see gay-marriage as hurting other people.
Since that person loves other people, and doesn't want to see them hurt, they do everything they can to prevent the person from entering into a gay-marriage.Of course you would say that that person shouldn't force their beliefs on other people.
But the person would say that they to not act in that manner would be hurtful to the other person and not kind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818413</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>glitch23</author>
	<datestamp>1256052660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>False equivalence. One is a conscious, sentient adult, the other is an animal. Or an inanimate object. You're an idiot.</p></div><p>It isn't false equivalence. If any given state law doesn't specify a human then there is no reason why both wouldn't be allowed and therefore be rendered equivalent.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So if skin colour was a choice you'd be happy to discriminate? Gotcha. You're a hateful, dumb, bigot.</p></div><p>So you are going to hire someone who has been convicted of money laundering to work in your bank? Would you marry someone convicted of mass murder? People make decisions about someone based on their knowledge of that person's decisions all the time. I guess we are all hateful, dumb bigots. Quit being so quick to call someone who opposes homosexuality a bigot.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Totally irrelevant. If it's a choice it's their choice, not yours, and doesn't affect you in any way.</p></div><p>No, it doesn't affect me personally but that doesn't mean there are no repercussions at all. You are too short-sighted.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody's asking for special treatment, they're asking for equal treatment, and you're clutching at straws to try and deny it.</p></div><p>Marriage isn't a right. Period.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Liberal used as an invective (sure sign of an underdeveloped brain), non-sequiturs galore and yet more crap.</p></div><p>Not quite. It was used as a proper noun, and yes without capitalization. Just like a conservative can be a person. Those two nouns have specific connotations. I believe you have no room to talk after calling me a hateful, dumb bigot for no reason. I suppose because I'm *opposed* to *illegal immigration*, not immigrants themselves, then I must be a racist or a bigot. For those who, like yourself, are quick to do the name calling for lack of a counter-argument I can understand why you do so inaccurately. You choose to attack the grammar rather than actual content, and yes there was content, no matter how opposed you are to what it said.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is sexual preference linked to responsibility? What is irresponsible about homosexuality? And I'm not inviting you to spew more stereotypical nonsense about promiscuity here, what is irresponsible about the fact of homosexuality itself?</p></div><p>Let me spell it out for your underdeveloped brain. It has nothing to do with their behavior so shut up and listen. Liberals largely believe there is no personal responsibility. Let someone else take care of it. It isn't your fault. You were born that way. Let the government take care of you. You can vegetate on the couch while we send you money every month. If you are deemed born as a homosexual then it isn't your fault (i.e. no responsibility) so then the laws must be updated to account for that human deficiency.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, you're wrong and pretty dumb. Or a troll, I'm not sure which.</p></div><p>Don't end a sentence with a preposition. It is a sure sign of an underdeveloped brain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>False equivalence .
One is a conscious , sentient adult , the other is an animal .
Or an inanimate object .
You 're an idiot.It is n't false equivalence .
If any given state law does n't specify a human then there is no reason why both would n't be allowed and therefore be rendered equivalent.So if skin colour was a choice you 'd be happy to discriminate ?
Gotcha. You 're a hateful , dumb , bigot.So you are going to hire someone who has been convicted of money laundering to work in your bank ?
Would you marry someone convicted of mass murder ?
People make decisions about someone based on their knowledge of that person 's decisions all the time .
I guess we are all hateful , dumb bigots .
Quit being so quick to call someone who opposes homosexuality a bigot.Totally irrelevant .
If it 's a choice it 's their choice , not yours , and does n't affect you in any way.No , it does n't affect me personally but that does n't mean there are no repercussions at all .
You are too short-sighted.Nobody 's asking for special treatment , they 're asking for equal treatment , and you 're clutching at straws to try and deny it.Marriage is n't a right .
Period.Liberal used as an invective ( sure sign of an underdeveloped brain ) , non-sequiturs galore and yet more crap.Not quite .
It was used as a proper noun , and yes without capitalization .
Just like a conservative can be a person .
Those two nouns have specific connotations .
I believe you have no room to talk after calling me a hateful , dumb bigot for no reason .
I suppose because I 'm * opposed * to * illegal immigration * , not immigrants themselves , then I must be a racist or a bigot .
For those who , like yourself , are quick to do the name calling for lack of a counter-argument I can understand why you do so inaccurately .
You choose to attack the grammar rather than actual content , and yes there was content , no matter how opposed you are to what it said.Why is sexual preference linked to responsibility ?
What is irresponsible about homosexuality ?
And I 'm not inviting you to spew more stereotypical nonsense about promiscuity here , what is irresponsible about the fact of homosexuality itself ? Let me spell it out for your underdeveloped brain .
It has nothing to do with their behavior so shut up and listen .
Liberals largely believe there is no personal responsibility .
Let someone else take care of it .
It is n't your fault .
You were born that way .
Let the government take care of you .
You can vegetate on the couch while we send you money every month .
If you are deemed born as a homosexual then it is n't your fault ( i.e .
no responsibility ) so then the laws must be updated to account for that human deficiency.Basically , you 're wrong and pretty dumb .
Or a troll , I 'm not sure which.Do n't end a sentence with a preposition .
It is a sure sign of an underdeveloped brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>False equivalence.
One is a conscious, sentient adult, the other is an animal.
Or an inanimate object.
You're an idiot.It isn't false equivalence.
If any given state law doesn't specify a human then there is no reason why both wouldn't be allowed and therefore be rendered equivalent.So if skin colour was a choice you'd be happy to discriminate?
Gotcha. You're a hateful, dumb, bigot.So you are going to hire someone who has been convicted of money laundering to work in your bank?
Would you marry someone convicted of mass murder?
People make decisions about someone based on their knowledge of that person's decisions all the time.
I guess we are all hateful, dumb bigots.
Quit being so quick to call someone who opposes homosexuality a bigot.Totally irrelevant.
If it's a choice it's their choice, not yours, and doesn't affect you in any way.No, it doesn't affect me personally but that doesn't mean there are no repercussions at all.
You are too short-sighted.Nobody's asking for special treatment, they're asking for equal treatment, and you're clutching at straws to try and deny it.Marriage isn't a right.
Period.Liberal used as an invective (sure sign of an underdeveloped brain), non-sequiturs galore and yet more crap.Not quite.
It was used as a proper noun, and yes without capitalization.
Just like a conservative can be a person.
Those two nouns have specific connotations.
I believe you have no room to talk after calling me a hateful, dumb bigot for no reason.
I suppose because I'm *opposed* to *illegal immigration*, not immigrants themselves, then I must be a racist or a bigot.
For those who, like yourself, are quick to do the name calling for lack of a counter-argument I can understand why you do so inaccurately.
You choose to attack the grammar rather than actual content, and yes there was content, no matter how opposed you are to what it said.Why is sexual preference linked to responsibility?
What is irresponsible about homosexuality?
And I'm not inviting you to spew more stereotypical nonsense about promiscuity here, what is irresponsible about the fact of homosexuality itself?Let me spell it out for your underdeveloped brain.
It has nothing to do with their behavior so shut up and listen.
Liberals largely believe there is no personal responsibility.
Let someone else take care of it.
It isn't your fault.
You were born that way.
Let the government take care of you.
You can vegetate on the couch while we send you money every month.
If you are deemed born as a homosexual then it isn't your fault (i.e.
no responsibility) so then the laws must be updated to account for that human deficiency.Basically, you're wrong and pretty dumb.
Or a troll, I'm not sure which.Don't end a sentence with a preposition.
It is a sure sign of an underdeveloped brain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195</id>
	<title>Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1256045040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website.</p></div><p>So you're telling me that you can sue someone for publicly telling everyone (via a website) something you publicly told everyone?</p><p>Look, mate, when you sign a petition, what you're doing is saying to anyone who cares to listen in the world that you endorse the views of the petition. If you aren't willing to attach your name to what the petition says, <i>don't sign it</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public , SEO-optimized website.So you 're telling me that you can sue someone for publicly telling everyone ( via a website ) something you publicly told everyone ? Look , mate , when you sign a petition , what you 're doing is saying to anyone who cares to listen in the world that you endorse the views of the petition .
If you are n't willing to attach your name to what the petition says , do n't sign it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website.So you're telling me that you can sue someone for publicly telling everyone (via a website) something you publicly told everyone?Look, mate, when you sign a petition, what you're doing is saying to anyone who cares to listen in the world that you endorse the views of the petition.
If you aren't willing to attach your name to what the petition says, don't sign it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807457</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1256051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage? Blacks and Latinos</i></p><p>So, what... blacks and latinos can't hate gays?  Interesting, given both communities are known for being deeply intolerant toward homosexuals (which is sadly ironic):</p><blockquote><div><p>Latinos do not differ from Whites and are more tolerant thati Blacks on the morality dimension of attitudes toward homosexuality but are less tolerant than either of the other groups on the dimension measuring approval of civil liberties for homosexuals.</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://hjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/437" title="sagepub.com">Citation</a> [sagepub.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>In fact, even after homosexuals emerged, like Blacks a generation earlier, as an offi-<br>cial "minority" (Barron 1975), research has shown that African Americans possess<br>disproportionately negative attitudes toward homosexuals (Lorde 1978; Staples 1981).</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/prba/perspectives/springsummer2000/jbattle2.pdf" title="umich.edu">Citation</a> [umich.edu]:</p><p>So all you've illustrated is that those who hate gays aren't "no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals"... rather, they're "no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals", and/or black/latino.  They, nevertheless, still hate gays, and their opposition to same-sex marriage is simply a symptom of that fact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage ?
Blacks and LatinosSo , what... blacks and latinos ca n't hate gays ?
Interesting , given both communities are known for being deeply intolerant toward homosexuals ( which is sadly ironic ) : Latinos do not differ from Whites and are more tolerant thati Blacks on the morality dimension of attitudes toward homosexuality but are less tolerant than either of the other groups on the dimension measuring approval of civil liberties for homosexuals.Citation [ sagepub.com ] : In fact , even after homosexuals emerged , like Blacks a generation earlier , as an offi-cial " minority " ( Barron 1975 ) , research has shown that African Americans possessdisproportionately negative attitudes toward homosexuals ( Lorde 1978 ; Staples 1981 ) .Citation [ umich.edu ] : So all you 've illustrated is that those who hate gays are n't " no-necked , knuckle-dragging , fag-bashing , Republican-voting , Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals " ... rather , they 're " no-necked , knuckle-dragging , fag-bashing , Republican-voting , Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals " , and/or black/latino .
They , nevertheless , still hate gays , and their opposition to same-sex marriage is simply a symptom of that fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage?
Blacks and LatinosSo, what... blacks and latinos can't hate gays?
Interesting, given both communities are known for being deeply intolerant toward homosexuals (which is sadly ironic):Latinos do not differ from Whites and are more tolerant thati Blacks on the morality dimension of attitudes toward homosexuality but are less tolerant than either of the other groups on the dimension measuring approval of civil liberties for homosexuals.Citation [sagepub.com]:In fact, even after homosexuals emerged, like Blacks a generation earlier, as an offi-cial "minority" (Barron 1975), research has shown that African Americans possessdisproportionately negative attitudes toward homosexuals (Lorde 1978; Staples 1981).Citation [umich.edu]:So all you've illustrated is that those who hate gays aren't "no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals"... rather, they're "no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals", and/or black/latino.
They, nevertheless, still hate gays, and their opposition to same-sex marriage is simply a symptom of that fact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807077</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1256049660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read my sig, that's a (partial) quote from a Supreme Court judge. I couldn't quote it fully because Slashdot doesn't allow long sigs but either way, our lifestyle (whether that is race, religion or sexual preference) is not up for vote, not up for lawmakers to regulate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read my sig , that 's a ( partial ) quote from a Supreme Court judge .
I could n't quote it fully because Slashdot does n't allow long sigs but either way , our lifestyle ( whether that is race , religion or sexual preference ) is not up for vote , not up for lawmakers to regulate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read my sig, that's a (partial) quote from a Supreme Court judge.
I couldn't quote it fully because Slashdot doesn't allow long sigs but either way, our lifestyle (whether that is race, religion or sexual preference) is not up for vote, not up for lawmakers to regulate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806453</id>
	<title>The real issue is that it's public!</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1256046780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a well known fact that making votes public and not anonymous well influence the votes.</p><p>It's a miracle that it didn't influence it too much but you can bet that next time any topic will come up for voting, people will think more of "what the neighbors / friends will think about it" than about their own opinion.</p><p>Saddam Hussein also checked who didn't vote for him. That's how democratic this system is. Equal to Iraqi democracy before the invasion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a well known fact that making votes public and not anonymous well influence the votes.It 's a miracle that it did n't influence it too much but you can bet that next time any topic will come up for voting , people will think more of " what the neighbors / friends will think about it " than about their own opinion.Saddam Hussein also checked who did n't vote for him .
That 's how democratic this system is .
Equal to Iraqi democracy before the invasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a well known fact that making votes public and not anonymous well influence the votes.It's a miracle that it didn't influence it too much but you can bet that next time any topic will come up for voting, people will think more of "what the neighbors / friends will think about it" than about their own opinion.Saddam Hussein also checked who didn't vote for him.
That's how democratic this system is.
Equal to Iraqi democracy before the invasion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29825473</id>
	<title>Sunshine Law vs SuperNova Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is having your name on something public and then there is splashing it on the web for all to see.</p><p>I guess you could say there is sunshine laws and then supernova laws.</p><p>Sunshine is that someone could call the state and ask about petitions i have signed, supernova is that someone takes the mass of 170k names, pumps them up on the web along with my name and address along with how i hate people.</p><p>I might not even have signed the petition out of any other motive then to ensure voters get their say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is having your name on something public and then there is splashing it on the web for all to see.I guess you could say there is sunshine laws and then supernova laws.Sunshine is that someone could call the state and ask about petitions i have signed , supernova is that someone takes the mass of 170k names , pumps them up on the web along with my name and address along with how i hate people.I might not even have signed the petition out of any other motive then to ensure voters get their say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is having your name on something public and then there is splashing it on the web for all to see.I guess you could say there is sunshine laws and then supernova laws.Sunshine is that someone could call the state and ask about petitions i have signed, supernova is that someone takes the mass of 170k names, pumps them up on the web along with my name and address along with how i hate people.I might not even have signed the petition out of any other motive then to ensure voters get their say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808737</id>
	<title>Re:troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256056080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way to pluck a phrase out-of-context for your own fame. Brilliance in action!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to pluck a phrase out-of-context for your own fame .
Brilliance in action !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to pluck a phrase out-of-context for your own fame.
Brilliance in action!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807651</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1256052060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lesbians as a group have a far, far lower risk for AIDs than straight couples. Look it up.<br> <br>No doubt your 'concern' for the children is motivated by some half baked theory that sexual orientation is absorbed by some unexplained kind of osmosis, which of course fails to account not only for the simple fact that most gay people come from straight families, but the genetic science of that matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lesbians as a group have a far , far lower risk for AIDs than straight couples .
Look it up .
No doubt your 'concern ' for the children is motivated by some half baked theory that sexual orientation is absorbed by some unexplained kind of osmosis , which of course fails to account not only for the simple fact that most gay people come from straight families , but the genetic science of that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lesbians as a group have a far, far lower risk for AIDs than straight couples.
Look it up.
No doubt your 'concern' for the children is motivated by some half baked theory that sexual orientation is absorbed by some unexplained kind of osmosis, which of course fails to account not only for the simple fact that most gay people come from straight families, but the genetic science of that matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807737</id>
	<title>Re:My vote, my business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256052420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is an appalling attempt at intimidation and coercion</p></div></blockquote><p>Take a good look at the word "this" above.  <em>What</em> is an attempt at intimidation?  Perhaps you are referring to the fact that this legislative process relies on petitions which have always been publicly, though inconveniently, available.   If you think that petitions being a public record leads to intimidation, then maybe your next step should be to pass a constitutional amendment to make petitions secret, and that'll be the last one you ever have to sign<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. unless it's a bad idea and the people decide to vote against that proposal because you're really just a vocal minority.</p><blockquote><div><p>Your vote should be yours alone and not subject to public intimidation. It's your right, it shouldn't cost you to exercise it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nobody has suggested doing anything to change that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an appalling attempt at intimidation and coercionTake a good look at the word " this " above .
What is an attempt at intimidation ?
Perhaps you are referring to the fact that this legislative process relies on petitions which have always been publicly , though inconveniently , available .
If you think that petitions being a public record leads to intimidation , then maybe your next step should be to pass a constitutional amendment to make petitions secret , and that 'll be the last one you ever have to sign .. unless it 's a bad idea and the people decide to vote against that proposal because you 're really just a vocal minority.Your vote should be yours alone and not subject to public intimidation .
It 's your right , it should n't cost you to exercise it.Nobody has suggested doing anything to change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an appalling attempt at intimidation and coercionTake a good look at the word "this" above.
What is an attempt at intimidation?
Perhaps you are referring to the fact that this legislative process relies on petitions which have always been publicly, though inconveniently, available.
If you think that petitions being a public record leads to intimidation, then maybe your next step should be to pass a constitutional amendment to make petitions secret, and that'll be the last one you ever have to sign .. unless it's a bad idea and the people decide to vote against that proposal because you're really just a vocal minority.Your vote should be yours alone and not subject to public intimidation.
It's your right, it shouldn't cost you to exercise it.Nobody has suggested doing anything to change that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808713</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256055960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't rooted in hate.</p></div><p>I don't believe the government should license marriage.  Opposing "gay marriage" is a strategy to force government to abandon this practice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that is n't rooted in hate.I do n't believe the government should license marriage .
Opposing " gay marriage " is a strategy to force government to abandon this practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't rooted in hate.I don't believe the government should license marriage.
Opposing "gay marriage" is a strategy to force government to abandon this practice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807535</id>
	<title>Legal Issues as Speed-Bumps for the Cause.</title>
	<author>Mr.Danza</author>
	<datestamp>1256051640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the problem with the current state of play for Gay Rights in the United States.

Their rights and their struggle for equality too often get folded into broader, basically and wholly unrelated legal issues. This is now a discussion about freedom of information, privacy rights, defamation, etc.

The struggle for Gay Rights too often gets shuffled under the rug because of the stress it puts on our federalist, states vs. centralized government republican democracy. During the African-American Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, the high court did the same thing, because the U.S. Supreme Court avoids addressing constitutional questions if they can, and instead defer to the states to determine what is best.

Its happening again. I hope the Gay Community takes a lesson from the African American community. They need a leader. They need to rise up, begin a campaign of civil disobedience. Demand equal rights and protection under the laws of the United States. Make it so that the high court can no longer ignore the obstruction of their rights in favor of religious law.

Otherwise, these petty and distracting legal issues will continue to burden their cause.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the problem with the current state of play for Gay Rights in the United States .
Their rights and their struggle for equality too often get folded into broader , basically and wholly unrelated legal issues .
This is now a discussion about freedom of information , privacy rights , defamation , etc .
The struggle for Gay Rights too often gets shuffled under the rug because of the stress it puts on our federalist , states vs. centralized government republican democracy .
During the African-American Civil Rights movement of the 1960 's , the high court did the same thing , because the U.S. Supreme Court avoids addressing constitutional questions if they can , and instead defer to the states to determine what is best .
Its happening again .
I hope the Gay Community takes a lesson from the African American community .
They need a leader .
They need to rise up , begin a campaign of civil disobedience .
Demand equal rights and protection under the laws of the United States .
Make it so that the high court can no longer ignore the obstruction of their rights in favor of religious law .
Otherwise , these petty and distracting legal issues will continue to burden their cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the problem with the current state of play for Gay Rights in the United States.
Their rights and their struggle for equality too often get folded into broader, basically and wholly unrelated legal issues.
This is now a discussion about freedom of information, privacy rights, defamation, etc.
The struggle for Gay Rights too often gets shuffled under the rug because of the stress it puts on our federalist, states vs. centralized government republican democracy.
During the African-American Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, the high court did the same thing, because the U.S. Supreme Court avoids addressing constitutional questions if they can, and instead defer to the states to determine what is best.
Its happening again.
I hope the Gay Community takes a lesson from the African American community.
They need a leader.
They need to rise up, begin a campaign of civil disobedience.
Demand equal rights and protection under the laws of the United States.
Make it so that the high court can no longer ignore the obstruction of their rights in favor of religious law.
Otherwise, these petty and distracting legal issues will continue to burden their cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807183</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256050140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't remember choosing to be straight, do you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember choosing to be straight , do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember choosing to be straight, do you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1256048520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People who are opposed to same-sex marriage don't necessarily "hate on gays." They're just... opposed to same-sex marriage.</p></div><p>Oh really?  Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't rooted in hate.  I've read lots and lots of the PR by the anti crowd and its either obviously hate-based, or completely dishonest (citing the bible with the hypocrisy of picking and choosing which passages are OK to ignore).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are opposed to same-sex marriage do n't necessarily " hate on gays .
" They 're just... opposed to same-sex marriage.Oh really ?
Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that is n't rooted in hate .
I 've read lots and lots of the PR by the anti crowd and its either obviously hate-based , or completely dishonest ( citing the bible with the hypocrisy of picking and choosing which passages are OK to ignore ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are opposed to same-sex marriage don't necessarily "hate on gays.
" They're just... opposed to same-sex marriage.Oh really?
Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't rooted in hate.
I've read lots and lots of the PR by the anti crowd and its either obviously hate-based, or completely dishonest (citing the bible with the hypocrisy of picking and choosing which passages are OK to ignore).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809727</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1256059140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most laws take away the rights of people. Road laws take away your right to drive high speed through the center of a town, for example. Drug laws take away your right to sell heroin on the street corner, etc..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most laws take away the rights of people .
Road laws take away your right to drive high speed through the center of a town , for example .
Drug laws take away your right to sell heroin on the street corner , etc. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most laws take away the rights of people.
Road laws take away your right to drive high speed through the center of a town, for example.
Drug laws take away your right to sell heroin on the street corner, etc..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a load of utter bullshit. I'm sorry but rarely have I ever heard such a fountain of total nonsense spew forth, here or elsewhere on the internet (with the possible exception of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/).</p><blockquote><div><p>For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects?</p></div></blockquote><p>False equivalence. One is a conscious, sentient adult, the other is an animal. Or an inanimate object. You're an idiot.</p><blockquote><div><p>agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their race</p></div></blockquote><p>So if skin colour was a choice you'd be happy to discriminate? Gotcha. You're a hateful, dumb, bigot.</p><blockquote><div><p>I'm also someone who believes a person *does* have control over their sexual preferences</p></div></blockquote><p>Totally irrelevant. If it's a choice it's their choice, not yours, and doesn't affect you in any way.</p><blockquote><div><p>and therefore should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standards.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nobody's asking for special treatment, they're asking for equal treatment, and you're clutching at straws to try and deny it.</p><blockquote><div><p>Of course, if you are a liberal who believes there is no personal responsibility and by extension you have no control over your sexual preferences then you believes that you are being treated unfairly in the eyes of the law when you are told you cannot marry someone of the same sex.</p></div></blockquote><p>Where to begin?</p><p>Liberal used as an invective (sure sign of an underdeveloped brain), non-sequiturs galore and yet more crap.</p><p>Why is sexual preference linked to responsibility? What is irresponsible about homosexuality? And I'm not inviting you to spew more stereotypical nonsense about promiscuity here, what is irresponsible about the <i>fact</i> of homosexuality itself?</p><p>Basically, you're wrong and pretty dumb. Or a troll, I'm not sure which.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of utter bullshit .
I 'm sorry but rarely have I ever heard such a fountain of total nonsense spew forth , here or elsewhere on the internet ( with the possible exception of /b/ ) .For laws that are even less specific , would you prefer to have the ability ( or let others have the ability ) to marry animals or inanimate objects ? False equivalence .
One is a conscious , sentient adult , the other is an animal .
Or an inanimate object .
You 're an idiot.agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their raceSo if skin colour was a choice you 'd be happy to discriminate ?
Gotcha. You 're a hateful , dumb , bigot.I 'm also someone who believes a person * does * have control over their sexual preferencesTotally irrelevant .
If it 's a choice it 's their choice , not yours , and does n't affect you in any way.and therefore should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standards.Nobody 's asking for special treatment , they 're asking for equal treatment , and you 're clutching at straws to try and deny it.Of course , if you are a liberal who believes there is no personal responsibility and by extension you have no control over your sexual preferences then you believes that you are being treated unfairly in the eyes of the law when you are told you can not marry someone of the same sex.Where to begin ? Liberal used as an invective ( sure sign of an underdeveloped brain ) , non-sequiturs galore and yet more crap.Why is sexual preference linked to responsibility ?
What is irresponsible about homosexuality ?
And I 'm not inviting you to spew more stereotypical nonsense about promiscuity here , what is irresponsible about the fact of homosexuality itself ? Basically , you 're wrong and pretty dumb .
Or a troll , I 'm not sure which .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of utter bullshit.
I'm sorry but rarely have I ever heard such a fountain of total nonsense spew forth, here or elsewhere on the internet (with the possible exception of /b/).For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects?False equivalence.
One is a conscious, sentient adult, the other is an animal.
Or an inanimate object.
You're an idiot.agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their raceSo if skin colour was a choice you'd be happy to discriminate?
Gotcha. You're a hateful, dumb, bigot.I'm also someone who believes a person *does* have control over their sexual preferencesTotally irrelevant.
If it's a choice it's their choice, not yours, and doesn't affect you in any way.and therefore should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standards.Nobody's asking for special treatment, they're asking for equal treatment, and you're clutching at straws to try and deny it.Of course, if you are a liberal who believes there is no personal responsibility and by extension you have no control over your sexual preferences then you believes that you are being treated unfairly in the eyes of the law when you are told you cannot marry someone of the same sex.Where to begin?Liberal used as an invective (sure sign of an underdeveloped brain), non-sequiturs galore and yet more crap.Why is sexual preference linked to responsibility?
What is irresponsible about homosexuality?
And I'm not inviting you to spew more stereotypical nonsense about promiscuity here, what is irresponsible about the fact of homosexuality itself?Basically, you're wrong and pretty dumb.
Or a troll, I'm not sure which.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806573</id>
	<title>troll</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1256047380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>, an assault on marriage</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not often that the posted story qualifies a a troll/flamebate all by itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>, an assault on marriageIt 's not often that the posted story qualifies a a troll/flamebate all by itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>, an assault on marriageIt's not often that the posted story qualifies a a troll/flamebate all by itself.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806159</id>
	<title>Political correctness assaulting opposers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you asked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you asked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you asked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808807</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1256056260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not a "fear."  If you are a Christian, it is explicitly forbidden.  Read verse 22 <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18&amp;version=NIV" title="biblegateway.com">here</a> [biblegateway.com].</p></div><p>Most Jews have decided to just ignore the existence of that verse. The Conservative movement passed an opinion a few years ago that allowed homosexuals to be ordained as rabbis and allowed individual rabbis to decide for themselves whether or not to perform homosexual marriages. I haven't read the entire opinion, but I believe the reasoning was that the laws about preserving human dignity should be given greater importance than a single, rather unspecific Biblical verse. The Reform movement, which is by far the largest in the United States, made these decisions several years ago (a quick search gave me 1990 for ordaining homosexuals, and 2000 for accepting homosexual marriages).
<br> <br>
In other words, shut up and give us back our book.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a " fear .
" If you are a Christian , it is explicitly forbidden .
Read verse 22 here [ biblegateway.com ] .Most Jews have decided to just ignore the existence of that verse .
The Conservative movement passed an opinion a few years ago that allowed homosexuals to be ordained as rabbis and allowed individual rabbis to decide for themselves whether or not to perform homosexual marriages .
I have n't read the entire opinion , but I believe the reasoning was that the laws about preserving human dignity should be given greater importance than a single , rather unspecific Biblical verse .
The Reform movement , which is by far the largest in the United States , made these decisions several years ago ( a quick search gave me 1990 for ordaining homosexuals , and 2000 for accepting homosexual marriages ) .
In other words , shut up and give us back our book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a "fear.
"  If you are a Christian, it is explicitly forbidden.
Read verse 22 here [biblegateway.com].Most Jews have decided to just ignore the existence of that verse.
The Conservative movement passed an opinion a few years ago that allowed homosexuals to be ordained as rabbis and allowed individual rabbis to decide for themselves whether or not to perform homosexual marriages.
I haven't read the entire opinion, but I believe the reasoning was that the laws about preserving human dignity should be given greater importance than a single, rather unspecific Biblical verse.
The Reform movement, which is by far the largest in the United States, made these decisions several years ago (a quick search gave me 1990 for ordaining homosexuals, and 2000 for accepting homosexual marriages).
In other words, shut up and give us back our book.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29821587</id>
	<title>The answer to the question is the sunshine law</title>
	<author>ebvwfbw</author>
	<datestamp>1256129100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes people forge signatures.  I know, hard for some of you to believe (if your that nieve).  I want to be able to find out if my signature was attached to something I didn't sign.  There is no reason why we can't do that now.  Cut down on fraud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes people forge signatures .
I know , hard for some of you to believe ( if your that nieve ) .
I want to be able to find out if my signature was attached to something I did n't sign .
There is no reason why we ca n't do that now .
Cut down on fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes people forge signatures.
I know, hard for some of you to believe (if your that nieve).
I want to be able to find out if my signature was attached to something I didn't sign.
There is no reason why we can't do that now.
Cut down on fraud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810725</id>
	<title>Comfirmation of a petition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256062440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of a local petition that went around to stop some construction project.  A small group managed to get the required signatures to delay the privately funded project (but approved by city counsel) and indirectly raised the costs.
Once the petition list was made public it was found the first 10 people on the list where dead and well over 100 where people in senior homes who had significantly reduce mental capacity.  Some 15\% of the people on this list where disqualified when they stopped looking into the petition.  Sadly it delayed the project by a month to work it out.  In the mean time the same group started to circulate a second petition that was vague and very poorly written.  Once again it was thrown out after another month delay.  After their third interruption the group was barred by the city.  The &lsquo;leader&rsquo; of the group tried unsuccessfully again to create another group and circulate another petition.  BTW the group consisted of 7 people and delayed a privately funded and city counsel approved project by 6+ months.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of a local petition that went around to stop some construction project .
A small group managed to get the required signatures to delay the privately funded project ( but approved by city counsel ) and indirectly raised the costs .
Once the petition list was made public it was found the first 10 people on the list where dead and well over 100 where people in senior homes who had significantly reduce mental capacity .
Some 15 \ % of the people on this list where disqualified when they stopped looking into the petition .
Sadly it delayed the project by a month to work it out .
In the mean time the same group started to circulate a second petition that was vague and very poorly written .
Once again it was thrown out after another month delay .
After their third interruption the group was barred by the city .
The    leader    of the group tried unsuccessfully again to create another group and circulate another petition .
BTW the group consisted of 7 people and delayed a privately funded and city counsel approved project by 6 + months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of a local petition that went around to stop some construction project.
A small group managed to get the required signatures to delay the privately funded project (but approved by city counsel) and indirectly raised the costs.
Once the petition list was made public it was found the first 10 people on the list where dead and well over 100 where people in senior homes who had significantly reduce mental capacity.
Some 15\% of the people on this list where disqualified when they stopped looking into the petition.
Sadly it delayed the project by a month to work it out.
In the mean time the same group started to circulate a second petition that was vague and very poorly written.
Once again it was thrown out after another month delay.
After their third interruption the group was barred by the city.
The ‘leader’ of the group tried unsuccessfully again to create another group and circulate another petition.
BTW the group consisted of 7 people and delayed a privately funded and city counsel approved project by 6+ months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806171</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1256044800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did anyone really expect their participation to be secret? It's a public vote; they should be tracked for verification. Anyone who signed should have understood that as well-informed adults. Anyone who didn't has no excuse for being upset over this. If they didn't want people to know they support gay rights they shouldn't have signed it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone really expect their participation to be secret ?
It 's a public vote ; they should be tracked for verification .
Anyone who signed should have understood that as well-informed adults .
Anyone who did n't has no excuse for being upset over this .
If they did n't want people to know they support gay rights they should n't have signed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone really expect their participation to be secret?
It's a public vote; they should be tracked for verification.
Anyone who signed should have understood that as well-informed adults.
Anyone who didn't has no excuse for being upset over this.
If they didn't want people to know they support gay rights they shouldn't have signed it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806939</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>SirGarlon</author>
	<datestamp>1256049120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In September, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle temporarily barred state officials from releasing the identities of those who signed the referendum petitions. Settle held that releasing the names could chill the First Amendment rights of petition signers.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>So what Judge Settle is saying here is that First Amendment rights mean that not only can you say whatever the hell you want, but no one is allowed to dislike you for saying it.</p><p>Linux sucks.  Software patents are vital to innovation.  Comcast provides great service.  Long live the RIAA!  SCO was right!  Don't chill my First Amendment rights!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In September , U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle temporarily barred state officials from releasing the identities of those who signed the referendum petitions .
Settle held that releasing the names could chill the First Amendment rights of petition signers .
So what Judge Settle is saying here is that First Amendment rights mean that not only can you say whatever the hell you want , but no one is allowed to dislike you for saying it.Linux sucks .
Software patents are vital to innovation .
Comcast provides great service .
Long live the RIAA !
SCO was right !
Do n't chill my First Amendment rights !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In September, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle temporarily barred state officials from releasing the identities of those who signed the referendum petitions.
Settle held that releasing the names could chill the First Amendment rights of petition signers.
So what Judge Settle is saying here is that First Amendment rights mean that not only can you say whatever the hell you want, but no one is allowed to dislike you for saying it.Linux sucks.
Software patents are vital to innovation.
Comcast provides great service.
Long live the RIAA!
SCO was right!
Don't chill my First Amendment rights!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808769</id>
	<title>The thing about this is...</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1256056140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing about this that really makes it so sad is that a lot of the time the politicians and well known religious spokesmen who are the MOST outspoken against ga rights, and the most fervent in their anti-gay votes and speeches are, more often than not, actually gay themselves, but are in the closet and can't deal with it.</p><p>I don't think that making public records available is a threat. If the people are that concerned about it being known that they support discrimination, then maybe they shouldn;t have signed it.</p><p>It's not like people are making threats. Now if this was private information that was NOT public and it was being released, I would have a problem with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing about this that really makes it so sad is that a lot of the time the politicians and well known religious spokesmen who are the MOST outspoken against ga rights , and the most fervent in their anti-gay votes and speeches are , more often than not , actually gay themselves , but are in the closet and ca n't deal with it.I do n't think that making public records available is a threat .
If the people are that concerned about it being known that they support discrimination , then maybe they shouldn ; t have signed it.It 's not like people are making threats .
Now if this was private information that was NOT public and it was being released , I would have a problem with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing about this that really makes it so sad is that a lot of the time the politicians and well known religious spokesmen who are the MOST outspoken against ga rights, and the most fervent in their anti-gay votes and speeches are, more often than not, actually gay themselves, but are in the closet and can't deal with it.I don't think that making public records available is a threat.
If the people are that concerned about it being known that they support discrimination, then maybe they shouldn;t have signed it.It's not like people are making threats.
Now if this was private information that was NOT public and it was being released, I would have a problem with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806901</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no direct or indirect effect on the state by allowing same-sex couples to marry.</p></div><p>This statement is either disingenuous or stupid. How about these <i>effects</i>: 1.) forcing health insurance companies to provide coverage for your spouse due to marital status (the potential cost of AIDS treatment being the point), and 2.) forcing the State to consign foster children into gay families because of the marital status of the partners.
</p><p>
You say you're sick of anti-gay groups. I'm sick of gays trying to shove their lifestyle in my face claiming there is no direct of indirect effect on society. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no direct or indirect effect on the state by allowing same-sex couples to marry.This statement is either disingenuous or stupid .
How about these effects : 1 .
) forcing health insurance companies to provide coverage for your spouse due to marital status ( the potential cost of AIDS treatment being the point ) , and 2 .
) forcing the State to consign foster children into gay families because of the marital status of the partners .
You say you 're sick of anti-gay groups .
I 'm sick of gays trying to shove their lifestyle in my face claiming there is no direct of indirect effect on society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no direct or indirect effect on the state by allowing same-sex couples to marry.This statement is either disingenuous or stupid.
How about these effects: 1.
) forcing health insurance companies to provide coverage for your spouse due to marital status (the potential cost of AIDS treatment being the point), and 2.
) forcing the State to consign foster children into gay families because of the marital status of the partners.
You say you're sick of anti-gay groups.
I'm sick of gays trying to shove their lifestyle in my face claiming there is no direct of indirect effect on society. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807001</id>
	<title>Same issue, other direction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256049360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Map mashup of those who donated money to California's Proposition 8 (banning same sex marriage): <a href="http://www.eightmaps.com/" title="eightmaps.com" rel="nofollow">Eight Maps</a> [eightmaps.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Map mashup of those who donated money to California 's Proposition 8 ( banning same sex marriage ) : Eight Maps [ eightmaps.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Map mashup of those who donated money to California's Proposition 8 (banning same sex marriage): Eight Maps [eightmaps.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806547</id>
	<title>Sunshine laws are often used for intimidation</title>
	<author>bumfuckedegypt</author>
	<datestamp>1256047260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Missouri, federal funding was issued to the ADAP program (AIDS Drug Assistance Program) to provide life giving medicine to people who could otherwise not afford the $4000 a month in medicine bills.  Various groups opposed to gays and people with AIDS (including the goobers who think it all a fake disease) would often times use sunshine laws to intimidate such people who received the benefits.  Meetings were held to help determine the best way to help people with the meds money and often times, the recipients of the funds were invited to attend since the decisions made impacted their benefits, health, life etc...  People with these groups would find out where the meetings were with sunshine law request and then come and photograph everyone there, write down their license plates, etc...  They would then publish the information on the internet and in some cases local newspapers.  This led to people losing their jobs (unfortunately, in Missouri, it's legal to fire someone based on pretty much anything.)

The sunshine law was used for the harassment and intimidation of people.  It eventually meant that people stopped coming to meetings.  Some of them had families harassed and lost everything due to this harassment.  The state now just unilaterally decides for people what they can and cant have. Often turning people away that are in dire need of this medicine to stay healthy.

I do believe that sunshine laws have their place but there should be limits.  Using them to harass people is wrong and it should be illegal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Missouri , federal funding was issued to the ADAP program ( AIDS Drug Assistance Program ) to provide life giving medicine to people who could otherwise not afford the $ 4000 a month in medicine bills .
Various groups opposed to gays and people with AIDS ( including the goobers who think it all a fake disease ) would often times use sunshine laws to intimidate such people who received the benefits .
Meetings were held to help determine the best way to help people with the meds money and often times , the recipients of the funds were invited to attend since the decisions made impacted their benefits , health , life etc... People with these groups would find out where the meetings were with sunshine law request and then come and photograph everyone there , write down their license plates , etc... They would then publish the information on the internet and in some cases local newspapers .
This led to people losing their jobs ( unfortunately , in Missouri , it 's legal to fire someone based on pretty much anything .
) The sunshine law was used for the harassment and intimidation of people .
It eventually meant that people stopped coming to meetings .
Some of them had families harassed and lost everything due to this harassment .
The state now just unilaterally decides for people what they can and cant have .
Often turning people away that are in dire need of this medicine to stay healthy .
I do believe that sunshine laws have their place but there should be limits .
Using them to harass people is wrong and it should be illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Missouri, federal funding was issued to the ADAP program (AIDS Drug Assistance Program) to provide life giving medicine to people who could otherwise not afford the $4000 a month in medicine bills.
Various groups opposed to gays and people with AIDS (including the goobers who think it all a fake disease) would often times use sunshine laws to intimidate such people who received the benefits.
Meetings were held to help determine the best way to help people with the meds money and often times, the recipients of the funds were invited to attend since the decisions made impacted their benefits, health, life etc...  People with these groups would find out where the meetings were with sunshine law request and then come and photograph everyone there, write down their license plates, etc...  They would then publish the information on the internet and in some cases local newspapers.
This led to people losing their jobs (unfortunately, in Missouri, it's legal to fire someone based on pretty much anything.
)

The sunshine law was used for the harassment and intimidation of people.
It eventually meant that people stopped coming to meetings.
Some of them had families harassed and lost everything due to this harassment.
The state now just unilaterally decides for people what they can and cant have.
Often turning people away that are in dire need of this medicine to stay healthy.
I do believe that sunshine laws have their place but there should be limits.
Using them to harass people is wrong and it should be illegal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29814541</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256033100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>She wanted to be "free to be bisexual."</p></div><p>That's terrible, and it must have been painful (perhaps still is).  I'm sympathetic to your situation.  But...<br>
<br>
She could just as easily have said "free to be heterosexual with a bunch of guys who aren't you", and she wouldn't have been the first.  I imagine that would have been no less gut-wrenching for you and the children.  The tragic end of your relationship has precisely nothing to do with same-sex marriage.  Preventing same-sex marriage would not eliminate lust, not even the homosexual (or bisexual) variety.<br>
<br>
I genuinely hope things work out for you and the kids.  Peace.<br>
<br>
- T</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>She wanted to be " free to be bisexual .
" That 's terrible , and it must have been painful ( perhaps still is ) .
I 'm sympathetic to your situation .
But.. . She could just as easily have said " free to be heterosexual with a bunch of guys who are n't you " , and she would n't have been the first .
I imagine that would have been no less gut-wrenching for you and the children .
The tragic end of your relationship has precisely nothing to do with same-sex marriage .
Preventing same-sex marriage would not eliminate lust , not even the homosexual ( or bisexual ) variety .
I genuinely hope things work out for you and the kids .
Peace . - T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She wanted to be "free to be bisexual.
"That's terrible, and it must have been painful (perhaps still is).
I'm sympathetic to your situation.
But...

She could just as easily have said "free to be heterosexual with a bunch of guys who aren't you", and she wouldn't have been the first.
I imagine that would have been no less gut-wrenching for you and the children.
The tragic end of your relationship has precisely nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
Preventing same-sex marriage would not eliminate lust, not even the homosexual (or bisexual) variety.
I genuinely hope things work out for you and the kids.
Peace.

- T
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807697</id>
	<title>Point Proved...</title>
	<author>Anyd</author>
	<datestamp>1256052240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Voting against another human being's civil rights earns you a spot in the neanderthal group, IMHO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Voting against another human being 's civil rights earns you a spot in the neanderthal group , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Voting against another human being's civil rights earns you a spot in the neanderthal group, IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808937</id>
	<title>Re:I will NEVER sign a petition again</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1256056680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're stupid enough to think that petitioners deserve the same privacy rights as voters, I'm glad you won't be participating in that process anymore.  No good cause needs support from idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're stupid enough to think that petitioners deserve the same privacy rights as voters , I 'm glad you wo n't be participating in that process anymore .
No good cause needs support from idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're stupid enough to think that petitioners deserve the same privacy rights as voters, I'm glad you won't be participating in that process anymore.
No good cause needs support from idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806219</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1256045160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Measuring from the years marked in the Bible, it is the year 2009.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Measuring from the years marked in the Bible , it is the year 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Measuring from the years marked in the Bible, it is the year 2009.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29816453</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256042100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironically, in Latino cultures only the catcher is considered gay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , in Latino cultures only the catcher is considered gay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, in Latino cultures only the catcher is considered gay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807051</id>
	<title>Oh the irony</title>
	<author>Taylor123456789</author>
	<datestamp>1256049600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it ironic that the pro-gay-rights faction preaching tolerance is intolerant of those who vote against their position.  They are so intolerant that they select those who don't hold their views and ridicule and excoriate them.  Isn't that what they are fighting against?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it ironic that the pro-gay-rights faction preaching tolerance is intolerant of those who vote against their position .
They are so intolerant that they select those who do n't hold their views and ridicule and excoriate them .
Is n't that what they are fighting against ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it ironic that the pro-gay-rights faction preaching tolerance is intolerant of those who vote against their position.
They are so intolerant that they select those who don't hold their views and ridicule and excoriate them.
Isn't that what they are fighting against?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809045</id>
	<title>Re:I will NEVER sign a petition again</title>
	<author>NiteShaed</author>
	<datestamp>1256056980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're looking to keep your views private, you shouldn't have been signing a petition in the first place.  The purpose of a petition is to publicly declare your support for whatever is being petitioned for.</p><p>Your post makes about as much sense as Bono saying, "I'll never sing on a stage in front of a crowd again.  I had no idea those people were listening to me!  I am outraged!".</p><p>If you don't want your views known publicly, don't take a public stand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're looking to keep your views private , you should n't have been signing a petition in the first place .
The purpose of a petition is to publicly declare your support for whatever is being petitioned for.Your post makes about as much sense as Bono saying , " I 'll never sing on a stage in front of a crowd again .
I had no idea those people were listening to me !
I am outraged !
" .If you do n't want your views known publicly , do n't take a public stand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're looking to keep your views private, you shouldn't have been signing a petition in the first place.
The purpose of a petition is to publicly declare your support for whatever is being petitioned for.Your post makes about as much sense as Bono saying, "I'll never sing on a stage in front of a crowd again.
I had no idea those people were listening to me!
I am outraged!
".If you don't want your views known publicly, don't take a public stand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806719</id>
	<title>Re:My vote, my business</title>
	<author>pregister</author>
	<datestamp>1256048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except this wasn't a vote.   Thanks for playing, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except this was n't a vote .
Thanks for playing , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except this wasn't a vote.
Thanks for playing, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807169</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1256050080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage? Blacks and Latinos</p></div><p>Right.  Those groups have particularly negative views of homosexuality and gay people.  This significantly weakens your earlier point about opposition to same-sex marriage not necessarily being opposition to gay people...</p><p>That said, there is no justification for opposition to same-sex civil marriage that doesn't (a) reduce to homophobia or (b) apply equally strongly to anti-miscegenation laws (which are much more widely recognized as undue limitations on freedom).  That's where the stereotype comes from.  Maybe people who want laws to take away the rights of others would like to think of themselves as perfectly reasonable, nice, principled people; but sadly, that refuge isn't available to you once you're taking away other people's rights, whatever your self-justification.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage ?
Blacks and LatinosRight .
Those groups have particularly negative views of homosexuality and gay people .
This significantly weakens your earlier point about opposition to same-sex marriage not necessarily being opposition to gay people...That said , there is no justification for opposition to same-sex civil marriage that does n't ( a ) reduce to homophobia or ( b ) apply equally strongly to anti-miscegenation laws ( which are much more widely recognized as undue limitations on freedom ) .
That 's where the stereotype comes from .
Maybe people who want laws to take away the rights of others would like to think of themselves as perfectly reasonable , nice , principled people ; but sadly , that refuge is n't available to you once you 're taking away other people 's rights , whatever your self-justification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage?
Blacks and LatinosRight.
Those groups have particularly negative views of homosexuality and gay people.
This significantly weakens your earlier point about opposition to same-sex marriage not necessarily being opposition to gay people...That said, there is no justification for opposition to same-sex civil marriage that doesn't (a) reduce to homophobia or (b) apply equally strongly to anti-miscegenation laws (which are much more widely recognized as undue limitations on freedom).
That's where the stereotype comes from.
Maybe people who want laws to take away the rights of others would like to think of themselves as perfectly reasonable, nice, principled people; but sadly, that refuge isn't available to you once you're taking away other people's rights, whatever your self-justification.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29825251</id>
	<title>Privacy for Tea-Baggers</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1256148480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Edit out all those Tea-Baggers out of the reports on the TEA Parties, lest they feel the wrath of those damn gay Communists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Edit out all those Tea-Baggers out of the reports on the TEA Parties , lest they feel the wrath of those damn gay Communists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Edit out all those Tea-Baggers out of the reports on the TEA Parties, lest they feel the wrath of those damn gay Communists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818251</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256051700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you asked, I'll give you several intellectually honest reasons to oppose same-sex marriage:</p><ol><li>Being dishonest about the nature of one's relationship is no way to garner support for your cause, regardless of any underlying merits.  Calling it marriage only reinforces the notion that a heterosexual relationship is the ideal, and only delays or denies entirely the public's acceptance of homosexuality.  Instead of asking us to accept their relationship as it is, they are asking us to think of it as something it is not.  And then wonder why they feel misunderstood.</li><li>Moreover it's not really marriage.  Marriage in western society has meant the union of one woman and one man for the overwhelming majority of history.  Saying two men can marry is like saying pi is exactly 3.  While using 3 instead of pi might be accurate enough for putting in a backyard swimming pool, it's not going to work for building something like a 747.  Likewise, gays can (and do, I suppose) have close personal relationships, but marriage is much more than merely a close personal relationship.  Sadly, most gays (and a few heterosexuals too) think marriage nothing more than a fairy tale ending with lots of sex.</li><li>As many have observed, there is a divorce crisis in America.  Watering down the definition of marriage will only make this worse, as couples will begin to think of marriage not as a life-long vocation of self-sacrifice and joy, but rather, as  merely a formal announcement that they intend to sleep with each other for some as-yet undetermined time.</li><li>It makes logical sense for the state to distinguish between relationships arranged for the sake of bringing new life into the world, and those arranged merely for personal pleasure and fulfillment.  Even without the moral question of homosexuality, the truth is that these relationships will not increase the population.  Because families increase the population, they deserve special benefits and recognition because the procreating couple builds our future society.</li><li>Homosexual "marriage" is a matter of public morality.  In the same way we would not honor racists and racism (which is morally wrong), we should not, as a society, honor something morally wrong.</li><li>Even if one believes homosexuality to be the zenith of enlightenment, there are no rights the state confers on married couples which cannot also be conferred on civil unions.  There is no need to call it marriage, unless, of course, the real reasons for doing so are to spite *certain* people.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you asked , I 'll give you several intellectually honest reasons to oppose same-sex marriage : Being dishonest about the nature of one 's relationship is no way to garner support for your cause , regardless of any underlying merits .
Calling it marriage only reinforces the notion that a heterosexual relationship is the ideal , and only delays or denies entirely the public 's acceptance of homosexuality .
Instead of asking us to accept their relationship as it is , they are asking us to think of it as something it is not .
And then wonder why they feel misunderstood.Moreover it 's not really marriage .
Marriage in western society has meant the union of one woman and one man for the overwhelming majority of history .
Saying two men can marry is like saying pi is exactly 3 .
While using 3 instead of pi might be accurate enough for putting in a backyard swimming pool , it 's not going to work for building something like a 747 .
Likewise , gays can ( and do , I suppose ) have close personal relationships , but marriage is much more than merely a close personal relationship .
Sadly , most gays ( and a few heterosexuals too ) think marriage nothing more than a fairy tale ending with lots of sex.As many have observed , there is a divorce crisis in America .
Watering down the definition of marriage will only make this worse , as couples will begin to think of marriage not as a life-long vocation of self-sacrifice and joy , but rather , as merely a formal announcement that they intend to sleep with each other for some as-yet undetermined time.It makes logical sense for the state to distinguish between relationships arranged for the sake of bringing new life into the world , and those arranged merely for personal pleasure and fulfillment .
Even without the moral question of homosexuality , the truth is that these relationships will not increase the population .
Because families increase the population , they deserve special benefits and recognition because the procreating couple builds our future society.Homosexual " marriage " is a matter of public morality .
In the same way we would not honor racists and racism ( which is morally wrong ) , we should not , as a society , honor something morally wrong.Even if one believes homosexuality to be the zenith of enlightenment , there are no rights the state confers on married couples which can not also be conferred on civil unions .
There is no need to call it marriage , unless , of course , the real reasons for doing so are to spite * certain * people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you asked, I'll give you several intellectually honest reasons to oppose same-sex marriage:Being dishonest about the nature of one's relationship is no way to garner support for your cause, regardless of any underlying merits.
Calling it marriage only reinforces the notion that a heterosexual relationship is the ideal, and only delays or denies entirely the public's acceptance of homosexuality.
Instead of asking us to accept their relationship as it is, they are asking us to think of it as something it is not.
And then wonder why they feel misunderstood.Moreover it's not really marriage.
Marriage in western society has meant the union of one woman and one man for the overwhelming majority of history.
Saying two men can marry is like saying pi is exactly 3.
While using 3 instead of pi might be accurate enough for putting in a backyard swimming pool, it's not going to work for building something like a 747.
Likewise, gays can (and do, I suppose) have close personal relationships, but marriage is much more than merely a close personal relationship.
Sadly, most gays (and a few heterosexuals too) think marriage nothing more than a fairy tale ending with lots of sex.As many have observed, there is a divorce crisis in America.
Watering down the definition of marriage will only make this worse, as couples will begin to think of marriage not as a life-long vocation of self-sacrifice and joy, but rather, as  merely a formal announcement that they intend to sleep with each other for some as-yet undetermined time.It makes logical sense for the state to distinguish between relationships arranged for the sake of bringing new life into the world, and those arranged merely for personal pleasure and fulfillment.
Even without the moral question of homosexuality, the truth is that these relationships will not increase the population.
Because families increase the population, they deserve special benefits and recognition because the procreating couple builds our future society.Homosexual "marriage" is a matter of public morality.
In the same way we would not honor racists and racism (which is morally wrong), we should not, as a society, honor something morally wrong.Even if one believes homosexuality to be the zenith of enlightenment, there are no rights the state confers on married couples which cannot also be conferred on civil unions.
There is no need to call it marriage, unless, of course, the real reasons for doing so are to spite *certain* people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806209</id>
	<title>No one should have expected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256045160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice.  Seeing the pubic exercise their opinion has so offended certain elements out there.  As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.</p><p>In other words, the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them.  We cannot have the democratic process circumvented by threats and intimidation.  I am all for treating these signatures like votes, off the public record.  keep them private.  If only to stop the new tactics.</p><p>This is similar to why Unions want Card Check, to intimidate their way into power.  Freedom of expression is freedom from fear</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that their signature remained secret , however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice .
Seeing the pubic exercise their opinion has so offended certain elements out there .
As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.In other words , the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them .
We can not have the democratic process circumvented by threats and intimidation .
I am all for treating these signatures like votes , off the public record .
keep them private .
If only to stop the new tactics.This is similar to why Unions want Card Check , to intimidate their way into power .
Freedom of expression is freedom from fear</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice.
Seeing the pubic exercise their opinion has so offended certain elements out there.
As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.In other words, the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them.
We cannot have the democratic process circumvented by threats and intimidation.
I am all for treating these signatures like votes, off the public record.
keep them private.
If only to stop the new tactics.This is similar to why Unions want Card Check, to intimidate their way into power.
Freedom of expression is freedom from fear</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29812873</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>S7urm</author>
	<datestamp>1256070000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YA know, the only thing that scares me, and I in no way mean this as being anti-gay, or anti-black/white/blue/purple, BUT, your comments make me somewhat worry about what WILL be socially acceptable down the road. I understand that Marriage should be defined as Two Consenting adults, however that definition opens the door for Incestous Marriage, and yes I know that has been used as a stop gap to allay the whole hearted bigotry of the whole Anti-Gay marriage crowd, however, 50 years ago, a SIGNIFICANT percent of America's population thought that homosexuality was "morally wrong, and disgusting" (I do NOT agree with that, merely using it as a stepping stone to my next point). So here we are now, 50 years later, saying, not only is being a homosexual not a personal PREFERENCE but actually a Genetic predisposition, but also, that even if it wasn't who am I to tell YOU who you can't marry. Well that's all well and good, but you are giving rise to the "Slippery Slope" effect. I whole heartedly beleive that homosexuals should have every right that anyone else has, and I'd be the first person in line to stand up with them as a straight man and fight for that right, HOWEVER it's a scary thought to have when you see just how far we've slid the Societal norms and Values, and while I do agree with how things are TODAY, I fear that 50 years from now, people will feel that as long as they are consenting and in LOVE, then who am I to tell YOU that you can't marry your blood-sister, or who am I to tell NAMBLA they are wrong.</p><p>Please don't misunderstand my opinion and my concerns. I understand I'll still be pianted with the hatred and bigotry brush, but I merely am trying to point out that at some point, we have things much worse to fear than simple Homosexual marriage, and we are laying the framework today, for tomorrow's freak shows. Marriage should be completely out of the realm of politics, but we do need to (as someone above said) draw a line in the sand that will make this issue JUST about THIS issue, and not lay a foundation for people who are truly Morally wrong (and yes I mean you NAMBLA! I hope one of you sick f$#\% is reading this and I hope you DO hate me for what I say) to build their evil intent on.</p><p>I think any legislation passed to allow same sex marriage should have language put in that truly defines marriage as an institution, and makes absolutely NO allowance for any further (mis)interpretation of it's definition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YA know , the only thing that scares me , and I in no way mean this as being anti-gay , or anti-black/white/blue/purple , BUT , your comments make me somewhat worry about what WILL be socially acceptable down the road .
I understand that Marriage should be defined as Two Consenting adults , however that definition opens the door for Incestous Marriage , and yes I know that has been used as a stop gap to allay the whole hearted bigotry of the whole Anti-Gay marriage crowd , however , 50 years ago , a SIGNIFICANT percent of America 's population thought that homosexuality was " morally wrong , and disgusting " ( I do NOT agree with that , merely using it as a stepping stone to my next point ) .
So here we are now , 50 years later , saying , not only is being a homosexual not a personal PREFERENCE but actually a Genetic predisposition , but also , that even if it was n't who am I to tell YOU who you ca n't marry .
Well that 's all well and good , but you are giving rise to the " Slippery Slope " effect .
I whole heartedly beleive that homosexuals should have every right that anyone else has , and I 'd be the first person in line to stand up with them as a straight man and fight for that right , HOWEVER it 's a scary thought to have when you see just how far we 've slid the Societal norms and Values , and while I do agree with how things are TODAY , I fear that 50 years from now , people will feel that as long as they are consenting and in LOVE , then who am I to tell YOU that you ca n't marry your blood-sister , or who am I to tell NAMBLA they are wrong.Please do n't misunderstand my opinion and my concerns .
I understand I 'll still be pianted with the hatred and bigotry brush , but I merely am trying to point out that at some point , we have things much worse to fear than simple Homosexual marriage , and we are laying the framework today , for tomorrow 's freak shows .
Marriage should be completely out of the realm of politics , but we do need to ( as someone above said ) draw a line in the sand that will make this issue JUST about THIS issue , and not lay a foundation for people who are truly Morally wrong ( and yes I mean you NAMBLA !
I hope one of you sick f $ # \ % is reading this and I hope you DO hate me for what I say ) to build their evil intent on.I think any legislation passed to allow same sex marriage should have language put in that truly defines marriage as an institution , and makes absolutely NO allowance for any further ( mis ) interpretation of it 's definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YA know, the only thing that scares me, and I in no way mean this as being anti-gay, or anti-black/white/blue/purple, BUT, your comments make me somewhat worry about what WILL be socially acceptable down the road.
I understand that Marriage should be defined as Two Consenting adults, however that definition opens the door for Incestous Marriage, and yes I know that has been used as a stop gap to allay the whole hearted bigotry of the whole Anti-Gay marriage crowd, however, 50 years ago, a SIGNIFICANT percent of America's population thought that homosexuality was "morally wrong, and disgusting" (I do NOT agree with that, merely using it as a stepping stone to my next point).
So here we are now, 50 years later, saying, not only is being a homosexual not a personal PREFERENCE but actually a Genetic predisposition, but also, that even if it wasn't who am I to tell YOU who you can't marry.
Well that's all well and good, but you are giving rise to the "Slippery Slope" effect.
I whole heartedly beleive that homosexuals should have every right that anyone else has, and I'd be the first person in line to stand up with them as a straight man and fight for that right, HOWEVER it's a scary thought to have when you see just how far we've slid the Societal norms and Values, and while I do agree with how things are TODAY, I fear that 50 years from now, people will feel that as long as they are consenting and in LOVE, then who am I to tell YOU that you can't marry your blood-sister, or who am I to tell NAMBLA they are wrong.Please don't misunderstand my opinion and my concerns.
I understand I'll still be pianted with the hatred and bigotry brush, but I merely am trying to point out that at some point, we have things much worse to fear than simple Homosexual marriage, and we are laying the framework today, for tomorrow's freak shows.
Marriage should be completely out of the realm of politics, but we do need to (as someone above said) draw a line in the sand that will make this issue JUST about THIS issue, and not lay a foundation for people who are truly Morally wrong (and yes I mean you NAMBLA!
I hope one of you sick f$#\% is reading this and I hope you DO hate me for what I say) to build their evil intent on.I think any legislation passed to allow same sex marriage should have language put in that truly defines marriage as an institution, and makes absolutely NO allowance for any further (mis)interpretation of it's definition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806559</id>
	<title>Re:My vote, my business</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1256047320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population, regardless of cause or locality.</p></div><p>Exactly, which is why the names should be made public.</p><p>Placing an initiative on a ballot is a legislative process, just like passing a new speed limit or making it illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket.</p><p>I would also be remiss not to mention that those responsible for the referendum are deliberately gaming the election process.</p><p>They know damn well mid-terms have much lower turn-out. The lower the office elected the less people show up.</p><p>The "vocal minority" responsible for the referendum will be disproportionately represented, and the silent majority who are OK with gay marriage but don't care enough to interrupt their day will not be represented at all, allowing an even SMALLER minority to be oppressed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population , regardless of cause or locality.Exactly , which is why the names should be made public.Placing an initiative on a ballot is a legislative process , just like passing a new speed limit or making it illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket.I would also be remiss not to mention that those responsible for the referendum are deliberately gaming the election process.They know damn well mid-terms have much lower turn-out .
The lower the office elected the less people show up.The " vocal minority " responsible for the referendum will be disproportionately represented , and the silent majority who are OK with gay marriage but do n't care enough to interrupt their day will not be represented at all , allowing an even SMALLER minority to be oppressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population, regardless of cause or locality.Exactly, which is why the names should be made public.Placing an initiative on a ballot is a legislative process, just like passing a new speed limit or making it illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket.I would also be remiss not to mention that those responsible for the referendum are deliberately gaming the election process.They know damn well mid-terms have much lower turn-out.
The lower the office elected the less people show up.The "vocal minority" responsible for the referendum will be disproportionately represented, and the silent majority who are OK with gay marriage but don't care enough to interrupt their day will not be represented at all, allowing an even SMALLER minority to be oppressed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807721</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1256052300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't rooted in hate.</i> <br> <br>Someone who is against state involvement in people's relationships might well oppose <b>all</b> marriage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that is n't rooted in hate .
Someone who is against state involvement in people 's relationships might well oppose all marriage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't rooted in hate.
Someone who is against state involvement in people's relationships might well oppose all marriage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809173</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>ljgshkg</author>
	<datestamp>1256057340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am one who don't hate gay and oppose to same-sex marriage.
And I put the simplist reason is... why it ever existed in the first place.
And it's because of the celebration/symbol of the birth of new life.
Human wouldn't have male or female if not because of reproduction.
And marriage wouldn't exist without that.
Same sex can't reproduce naturally, which already break the basic of marrage.

I'm fine if you say it's same-sex union or whatever term you want to say. It is something "new" and it's your private life. But it simply doesn't have the ground of "marriage", hence shouldn't be related to "marriage". Different is different.

In Chinese history, there're gays all along and some emperors or high officals don't even try to hide it  (well, so as the normal gays, but they're not recorded in history clearly, so I wouldn't use those as example). Unlike in the west, Chinese people talk about it for fun but they don't really care about it. Now, if you try to change what "marriage" is, that's totally differnt thing. You need to seperate "private event" and "offical cerimonies" clearly. They may be related, but they are totally different things and have different importance. Offical cerimonies has its place in stablization of society (and its structure). While private things, nobody care except your family and friends.
They are not the same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am one who do n't hate gay and oppose to same-sex marriage .
And I put the simplist reason is... why it ever existed in the first place .
And it 's because of the celebration/symbol of the birth of new life .
Human would n't have male or female if not because of reproduction .
And marriage would n't exist without that .
Same sex ca n't reproduce naturally , which already break the basic of marrage .
I 'm fine if you say it 's same-sex union or whatever term you want to say .
It is something " new " and it 's your private life .
But it simply does n't have the ground of " marriage " , hence should n't be related to " marriage " .
Different is different .
In Chinese history , there 're gays all along and some emperors or high officals do n't even try to hide it ( well , so as the normal gays , but they 're not recorded in history clearly , so I would n't use those as example ) .
Unlike in the west , Chinese people talk about it for fun but they do n't really care about it .
Now , if you try to change what " marriage " is , that 's totally differnt thing .
You need to seperate " private event " and " offical cerimonies " clearly .
They may be related , but they are totally different things and have different importance .
Offical cerimonies has its place in stablization of society ( and its structure ) .
While private things , nobody care except your family and friends .
They are not the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am one who don't hate gay and oppose to same-sex marriage.
And I put the simplist reason is... why it ever existed in the first place.
And it's because of the celebration/symbol of the birth of new life.
Human wouldn't have male or female if not because of reproduction.
And marriage wouldn't exist without that.
Same sex can't reproduce naturally, which already break the basic of marrage.
I'm fine if you say it's same-sex union or whatever term you want to say.
It is something "new" and it's your private life.
But it simply doesn't have the ground of "marriage", hence shouldn't be related to "marriage".
Different is different.
In Chinese history, there're gays all along and some emperors or high officals don't even try to hide it  (well, so as the normal gays, but they're not recorded in history clearly, so I wouldn't use those as example).
Unlike in the west, Chinese people talk about it for fun but they don't really care about it.
Now, if you try to change what "marriage" is, that's totally differnt thing.
You need to seperate "private event" and "offical cerimonies" clearly.
They may be related, but they are totally different things and have different importance.
Offical cerimonies has its place in stablization of society (and its structure).
While private things, nobody care except your family and friends.
They are not the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29820461</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Tacticus.v1</author>
	<datestamp>1256115840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as you watch the adjustments along the way</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as you watch the adjustments along the way</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as you watch the adjustments along the way</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818443</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256052840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>but there comes a point where we need to draw a line in the sand as to what we will and will not consider to be acceptable behavior in a free society.<br></i> </p><p>Which is exactly what the opponents of homosexuality believe themselves to be doing. The issue of what is acceptable in free society is very much a moral issue.</p><p>If you don't believe you should force your version of morality on anyone, alas, you might have someone else attempt force their version on you. Ultimately, society works on a common, shared morality, which is why the moral issue of homosexual marriage is relevant. Without morality, politics is merely a contest of power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but there comes a point where we need to draw a line in the sand as to what we will and will not consider to be acceptable behavior in a free society .
Which is exactly what the opponents of homosexuality believe themselves to be doing .
The issue of what is acceptable in free society is very much a moral issue.If you do n't believe you should force your version of morality on anyone , alas , you might have someone else attempt force their version on you .
Ultimately , society works on a common , shared morality , which is why the moral issue of homosexual marriage is relevant .
Without morality , politics is merely a contest of power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but there comes a point where we need to draw a line in the sand as to what we will and will not consider to be acceptable behavior in a free society.
Which is exactly what the opponents of homosexuality believe themselves to be doing.
The issue of what is acceptable in free society is very much a moral issue.If you don't believe you should force your version of morality on anyone, alas, you might have someone else attempt force their version on you.
Ultimately, society works on a common, shared morality, which is why the moral issue of homosexual marriage is relevant.
Without morality, politics is merely a contest of power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807351</id>
	<title>I will NEVER sign a petition again</title>
	<author>pgmrdlm</author>
	<datestamp>1256050860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>EVER.

I side with the gay community on civil mariage, but I do nto agree with them releasing names of people that signed the peition.  Next, they will want the names of people that voted AGAINST what they want in the referendum.

Never again will I sign a petition. Thank you gay activits for taking away what I considered a right to privacy for what you consider your right.
And yes, I did read the story. I know that these names were public before. Like I said, never again will I sign a peition.

Those names should be private, unless needed for verification in the case of fraud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>EVER .
I side with the gay community on civil mariage , but I do nto agree with them releasing names of people that signed the peition .
Next , they will want the names of people that voted AGAINST what they want in the referendum .
Never again will I sign a petition .
Thank you gay activits for taking away what I considered a right to privacy for what you consider your right .
And yes , I did read the story .
I know that these names were public before .
Like I said , never again will I sign a peition .
Those names should be private , unless needed for verification in the case of fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EVER.
I side with the gay community on civil mariage, but I do nto agree with them releasing names of people that signed the peition.
Next, they will want the names of people that voted AGAINST what they want in the referendum.
Never again will I sign a petition.
Thank you gay activits for taking away what I considered a right to privacy for what you consider your right.
And yes, I did read the story.
I know that these names were public before.
Like I said, never again will I sign a peition.
Those names should be private, unless needed for verification in the case of fraud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808987</id>
	<title>SEO optimized</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256056800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like the department of redundancy department!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like the department of redundancy department !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like the department of redundancy department!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806571</id>
	<title>International Audience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256047380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm probably the only one who read the title as beeing about Western Australia's debat about daylight savings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm probably the only one who read the title as beeing about Western Australia 's debat about daylight savings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm probably the only one who read the title as beeing about Western Australia's debat about daylight savings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806415</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256046480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now they can't go around pretending to be all cool and tolerant. I'd love to see their hipocrit faces when they are judged by the rest of their hipocrit friends who were smart enough not to sign the petition...<br>Eat shit motherfuckers!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now they ca n't go around pretending to be all cool and tolerant .
I 'd love to see their hipocrit faces when they are judged by the rest of their hipocrit friends who were smart enough not to sign the petition...Eat shit motherfuckers !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now they can't go around pretending to be all cool and tolerant.
I'd love to see their hipocrit faces when they are judged by the rest of their hipocrit friends who were smart enough not to sign the petition...Eat shit motherfuckers!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810723</id>
	<title>Let's change the context</title>
	<author>MushingBits</author>
	<datestamp>1256062440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if this was a petition for a law that would, say, close a legal loophole that allowed corporations to pollute/abuse workers/skate out of large quantities of taxes? We could easily be looking at signers being permanently blacklisted from employment if they sign such a petition.</p><p>Overall I'm a fan of transparency in government processes, but there are very real risks in other contexts that should be considered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if this was a petition for a law that would , say , close a legal loophole that allowed corporations to pollute/abuse workers/skate out of large quantities of taxes ?
We could easily be looking at signers being permanently blacklisted from employment if they sign such a petition.Overall I 'm a fan of transparency in government processes , but there are very real risks in other contexts that should be considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if this was a petition for a law that would, say, close a legal loophole that allowed corporations to pollute/abuse workers/skate out of large quantities of taxes?
We could easily be looking at signers being permanently blacklisted from employment if they sign such a petition.Overall I'm a fan of transparency in government processes, but there are very real risks in other contexts that should be considered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29817899</id>
	<title>Re:I will NEVER sign a petition again</title>
	<author>ProfessionalCookie</author>
	<datestamp>1256049480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So why do voters need privacy?  Yeah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why do voters need privacy ?
Yeah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why do voters need privacy?
Yeah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807023</id>
	<title>Re:My vote, my business</title>
	<author>Urban Garlic</author>
	<datestamp>1256049480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; People need to learn that a vocal minority is just that regardless of the issue</p><p>Indeed.  And unless a majority of Washington citizens signed the petition to get R-71 on the ballot, then the signers of the R-71 petitions are also a vocal (or at least public) minority.</p><p>The actual vote takes place later on, and there's no reason to think that won't be a secret ballot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; People need to learn that a vocal minority is just that regardless of the issueIndeed .
And unless a majority of Washington citizens signed the petition to get R-71 on the ballot , then the signers of the R-71 petitions are also a vocal ( or at least public ) minority.The actual vote takes place later on , and there 's no reason to think that wo n't be a secret ballot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; People need to learn that a vocal minority is just that regardless of the issueIndeed.
And unless a majority of Washington citizens signed the petition to get R-71 on the ballot, then the signers of the R-71 petitions are also a vocal (or at least public) minority.The actual vote takes place later on, and there's no reason to think that won't be a secret ballot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806859</id>
	<title>When open records and privacy collide</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1256048820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And here in Europe, we have <a href="http://farmsubsidy.org/" title="farmsubsidy.org">farmer's EU subsidies online</a> [farmsubsidy.org]. So now each farmer can browse and see how much his neighbor gets! Groovy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here in Europe , we have farmer 's EU subsidies online [ farmsubsidy.org ] .
So now each farmer can browse and see how much his neighbor gets !
Groovy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here in Europe, we have farmer's EU subsidies online [farmsubsidy.org].
So now each farmer can browse and see how much his neighbor gets!
Groovy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>ZekoMal</author>
	<datestamp>1256045760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>People who hate on gays don't want to be seen as horrible people; they're nice to gays in front of them but try to get them shut down. You know, like that psycho ex-girlfriend who meets up with your current girlfriend and convinces her you're a terrible person even though she hates the girlfriend's guts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who hate on gays do n't want to be seen as horrible people ; they 're nice to gays in front of them but try to get them shut down .
You know , like that psycho ex-girlfriend who meets up with your current girlfriend and convinces her you 're a terrible person even though she hates the girlfriend 's guts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who hate on gays don't want to be seen as horrible people; they're nice to gays in front of them but try to get them shut down.
You know, like that psycho ex-girlfriend who meets up with your current girlfriend and convinces her you're a terrible person even though she hates the girlfriend's guts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807891</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256053020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we can take the ancient religious and cultural tradition of marriage, which dates back...indefinitely, and pervert its definition, then why can't I decide that marriage can now be between 10 people, not just 2? Or why not between father and adult daughter? Who are you to trample on my incestuous rights to marriage?</p><p>Slippery slopes aren't always fallacies you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we can take the ancient religious and cultural tradition of marriage , which dates back...indefinitely , and pervert its definition , then why ca n't I decide that marriage can now be between 10 people , not just 2 ?
Or why not between father and adult daughter ?
Who are you to trample on my incestuous rights to marriage ? Slippery slopes are n't always fallacies you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we can take the ancient religious and cultural tradition of marriage, which dates back...indefinitely, and pervert its definition, then why can't I decide that marriage can now be between 10 people, not just 2?
Or why not between father and adult daughter?
Who are you to trample on my incestuous rights to marriage?Slippery slopes aren't always fallacies you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806881</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>tarsiermiller</author>
	<datestamp>1256048880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are absolutely right.  If marriage is redefined as no longer being between a man and a woman, there is no boundary to what should be accepted.  Animals, inanimate objects, children, etc... and unfortunately I think the goal of many supporters is to legalize sex with children.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are absolutely right .
If marriage is redefined as no longer being between a man and a woman , there is no boundary to what should be accepted .
Animals , inanimate objects , children , etc... and unfortunately I think the goal of many supporters is to legalize sex with children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are absolutely right.
If marriage is redefined as no longer being between a man and a woman, there is no boundary to what should be accepted.
Animals, inanimate objects, children, etc... and unfortunately I think the goal of many supporters is to legalize sex with children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806269</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256045520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a shame that you can't marry anyone you want. Like for instance, children and barnyard animals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a shame that you ca n't marry anyone you want .
Like for instance , children and barnyard animals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a shame that you can't marry anyone you want.
Like for instance, children and barnyard animals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29831337</id>
	<title>You're missing the point...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256139180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is that by claiming "orientation" as a motivation, my ex-wife is able to find a community that excuses her heinous actions.  And this is not rare--there are many, many cases where men and women have walked out on their spouses and children into the arms of the GLBT community, where they found AFFIRMATION for doing heinous emotional and economic damage to those left behind.  </p><p>When did sexual satisfaction become more important than caring for your kids and keeping your promises?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is that by claiming " orientation " as a motivation , my ex-wife is able to find a community that excuses her heinous actions .
And this is not rare--there are many , many cases where men and women have walked out on their spouses and children into the arms of the GLBT community , where they found AFFIRMATION for doing heinous emotional and economic damage to those left behind .
When did sexual satisfaction become more important than caring for your kids and keeping your promises ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is that by claiming "orientation" as a motivation, my ex-wife is able to find a community that excuses her heinous actions.
And this is not rare--there are many, many cases where men and women have walked out on their spouses and children into the arms of the GLBT community, where they found AFFIRMATION for doing heinous emotional and economic damage to those left behind.
When did sexual satisfaction become more important than caring for your kids and keeping your promises?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256046900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>People who hate on gays don't want to be seen as horrible people</i></p><p>Careful, there's a baby in that bathwater.</p><p>People who are opposed to same-sex marriage don't necessarily "hate on gays."  They're just... opposed to same-sex marriage.  In fact, it's this broad-stroke-painted stereotype of everyone who opposes gay marriage as no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals that the peeps who voted for this in Washington state are trying to avoid getting tarred with.  Their opposition has done a real good job of perpetuating that stereotype, and it's no more valid than the one of gays as all being lisping, limp-wristed nancy boys.</p><p>You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage?  Blacks and Latinos, particularly Mexican immigrants.  And you wonder why Obama has back-burnered GLBT issues now that he's been elected...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who hate on gays do n't want to be seen as horrible peopleCareful , there 's a baby in that bathwater.People who are opposed to same-sex marriage do n't necessarily " hate on gays .
" They 're just... opposed to same-sex marriage .
In fact , it 's this broad-stroke-painted stereotype of everyone who opposes gay marriage as no-necked , knuckle-dragging , fag-bashing , Republican-voting , Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals that the peeps who voted for this in Washington state are trying to avoid getting tarred with .
Their opposition has done a real good job of perpetuating that stereotype , and it 's no more valid than the one of gays as all being lisping , limp-wristed nancy boys.You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage ?
Blacks and Latinos , particularly Mexican immigrants .
And you wonder why Obama has back-burnered GLBT issues now that he 's been elected.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who hate on gays don't want to be seen as horrible peopleCareful, there's a baby in that bathwater.People who are opposed to same-sex marriage don't necessarily "hate on gays.
"  They're just... opposed to same-sex marriage.
In fact, it's this broad-stroke-painted stereotype of everyone who opposes gay marriage as no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals that the peeps who voted for this in Washington state are trying to avoid getting tarred with.
Their opposition has done a real good job of perpetuating that stereotype, and it's no more valid than the one of gays as all being lisping, limp-wristed nancy boys.You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage?
Blacks and Latinos, particularly Mexican immigrants.
And you wonder why Obama has back-burnered GLBT issues now that he's been elected...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807621</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1256052000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you are a Christian, it is explicitly forbidden. Read verse 22</p></div><p>I wonder how many of those "christians" support women's lib and emancipation?  After all, allowing women a place of authority is explicitly forbidden in 1 Timothy 2:11-12</p><p>Or how many of them shave?   That's explicitly forbidden too (Leviticus 19:27)</p><p>Or how many are bankers or moneylenders in general, as charging interest for a loan is explicitly forbidden too (Psalm 15:5)</p><p>Or how many wear shirts made of poly-cotton blends - any fabric made of two materials is explicitly forbidden too (Leviticus 19:19, and Deuteronomy 22:11, although Deuteronomy only specifically mentions wool and linen.)</p><p>Why aren't they out lobbying for laws against these things too?  Emancipation is *way* older than gay rights - seems like they should be focusing their efforts there, shouldn't they?  Where is the petition to repeal the right for women to hold public office or hold a job?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a Christian , it is explicitly forbidden .
Read verse 22I wonder how many of those " christians " support women 's lib and emancipation ?
After all , allowing women a place of authority is explicitly forbidden in 1 Timothy 2 : 11-12Or how many of them shave ?
That 's explicitly forbidden too ( Leviticus 19 : 27 ) Or how many are bankers or moneylenders in general , as charging interest for a loan is explicitly forbidden too ( Psalm 15 : 5 ) Or how many wear shirts made of poly-cotton blends - any fabric made of two materials is explicitly forbidden too ( Leviticus 19 : 19 , and Deuteronomy 22 : 11 , although Deuteronomy only specifically mentions wool and linen .
) Why are n't they out lobbying for laws against these things too ?
Emancipation is * way * older than gay rights - seems like they should be focusing their efforts there , should n't they ?
Where is the petition to repeal the right for women to hold public office or hold a job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a Christian, it is explicitly forbidden.
Read verse 22I wonder how many of those "christians" support women's lib and emancipation?
After all, allowing women a place of authority is explicitly forbidden in 1 Timothy 2:11-12Or how many of them shave?
That's explicitly forbidden too (Leviticus 19:27)Or how many are bankers or moneylenders in general, as charging interest for a loan is explicitly forbidden too (Psalm 15:5)Or how many wear shirts made of poly-cotton blends - any fabric made of two materials is explicitly forbidden too (Leviticus 19:19, and Deuteronomy 22:11, although Deuteronomy only specifically mentions wool and linen.
)Why aren't they out lobbying for laws against these things too?
Emancipation is *way* older than gay rights - seems like they should be focusing their efforts there, shouldn't they?
Where is the petition to repeal the right for women to hold public office or hold a job?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806545</id>
	<title>Streisand effect</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1256047200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... my only real religious belief is in the Streisand effect, so someone please provide a torrent and a wikileaks link to the list of names.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand\_effect</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Note, that some people on the list did not sign the petition, if you know what I mean.  Someone could have sat down with the parish directory, or my kids elementary school family book, or my employers phone directory, or my ham radio club mailing list, etc, and "helpfully" signed me up, to "save me the time of signing myself up".  I think that is the real reason they are fighting the publicity, heck, I'd file suit if I learned someone put my name on that list of ignorant hillbillys, as that would obviously defame my reputation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... my only real religious belief is in the Streisand effect , so someone please provide a torrent and a wikileaks link to the list of names.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand \ _effect [ wikipedia.org ] Note , that some people on the list did not sign the petition , if you know what I mean .
Someone could have sat down with the parish directory , or my kids elementary school family book , or my employers phone directory , or my ham radio club mailing list , etc , and " helpfully " signed me up , to " save me the time of signing myself up " .
I think that is the real reason they are fighting the publicity , heck , I 'd file suit if I learned someone put my name on that list of ignorant hillbillys , as that would obviously defame my reputation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... my only real religious belief is in the Streisand effect, so someone please provide a torrent and a wikileaks link to the list of names.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand\_effect [wikipedia.org]Note, that some people on the list did not sign the petition, if you know what I mean.
Someone could have sat down with the parish directory, or my kids elementary school family book, or my employers phone directory, or my ham radio club mailing list, etc, and "helpfully" signed me up, to "save me the time of signing myself up".
I think that is the real reason they are fighting the publicity, heck, I'd file suit if I learned someone put my name on that list of ignorant hillbillys, as that would obviously defame my reputation...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427</id>
	<title>My vote, my business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256046540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an appalling attempt at intimidation and coercion of those who would vote a given way. The public has a right to vote any damn way they want, and it has long been precedent that it was no one's business. I'm married, should I somehow be able to demand to know how my wife voted? Of course not, it's not my business, it's hers and hers alone. Similar stunts in the past have cost people vandalism to their home, their jobs, and their businesses. Your vote should be yours alone and not subject to public intimidation. It's your right, it shouldn't cost you to exercise it.</p><p>This is not about how your public representatives voted - public representatives who represent the public should have their votes known. This is a thinly veiled attempt at public coercion of those who don't want to vote a certain way on a certain public issue. The fact that you may happen to agree with the view of those who are pulling this stunt should be put aside. What if it was a conservative state and such a stunt was pulled? All of a sudden your in an area that doesn't approve of your vote and you get to be the one who is harassed by nutcases in the public.</p><p>A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population, regardless of cause or locality. That's the entire point of putting something like this on a ballot, to show if a certain issue is getting coverage simply because of a vocal minority or media bias, or if that's the way the public really feels. The ballot allows the vocal minority to be exposed and for the public to speak it's will. For example look at approvals for medical marijuana in places like California.</p><p>People need to learn that a vocal minority is just that regardless of the issue and not let such people unduly intimidate the public at large. The issue the vocal minority supports shouldn't matter, it might be one you agree with this time but could just as easily be one you disagree with next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an appalling attempt at intimidation and coercion of those who would vote a given way .
The public has a right to vote any damn way they want , and it has long been precedent that it was no one 's business .
I 'm married , should I somehow be able to demand to know how my wife voted ?
Of course not , it 's not my business , it 's hers and hers alone .
Similar stunts in the past have cost people vandalism to their home , their jobs , and their businesses .
Your vote should be yours alone and not subject to public intimidation .
It 's your right , it should n't cost you to exercise it.This is not about how your public representatives voted - public representatives who represent the public should have their votes known .
This is a thinly veiled attempt at public coercion of those who do n't want to vote a certain way on a certain public issue .
The fact that you may happen to agree with the view of those who are pulling this stunt should be put aside .
What if it was a conservative state and such a stunt was pulled ?
All of a sudden your in an area that does n't approve of your vote and you get to be the one who is harassed by nutcases in the public.A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population , regardless of cause or locality .
That 's the entire point of putting something like this on a ballot , to show if a certain issue is getting coverage simply because of a vocal minority or media bias , or if that 's the way the public really feels .
The ballot allows the vocal minority to be exposed and for the public to speak it 's will .
For example look at approvals for medical marijuana in places like California.People need to learn that a vocal minority is just that regardless of the issue and not let such people unduly intimidate the public at large .
The issue the vocal minority supports should n't matter , it might be one you agree with this time but could just as easily be one you disagree with next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an appalling attempt at intimidation and coercion of those who would vote a given way.
The public has a right to vote any damn way they want, and it has long been precedent that it was no one's business.
I'm married, should I somehow be able to demand to know how my wife voted?
Of course not, it's not my business, it's hers and hers alone.
Similar stunts in the past have cost people vandalism to their home, their jobs, and their businesses.
Your vote should be yours alone and not subject to public intimidation.
It's your right, it shouldn't cost you to exercise it.This is not about how your public representatives voted - public representatives who represent the public should have their votes known.
This is a thinly veiled attempt at public coercion of those who don't want to vote a certain way on a certain public issue.
The fact that you may happen to agree with the view of those who are pulling this stunt should be put aside.
What if it was a conservative state and such a stunt was pulled?
All of a sudden your in an area that doesn't approve of your vote and you get to be the one who is harassed by nutcases in the public.A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population, regardless of cause or locality.
That's the entire point of putting something like this on a ballot, to show if a certain issue is getting coverage simply because of a vocal minority or media bias, or if that's the way the public really feels.
The ballot allows the vocal minority to be exposed and for the public to speak it's will.
For example look at approvals for medical marijuana in places like California.People need to learn that a vocal minority is just that regardless of the issue and not let such people unduly intimidate the public at large.
The issue the vocal minority supports shouldn't matter, it might be one you agree with this time but could just as easily be one you disagree with next time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807967</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>samjam</author>
	<datestamp>1256053320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the real arguments are about is the word "marriage".</p><p>I don't mind same-sex unions having all the rights the marriages have, in fact I think the nominal "marriage rights" (as opposed to marriage rites) should be available to any pair, even to a mother and her carer-daughter when they enjoy a regular non-sexual mother-daughter relationship. (In the UK a few years ago,. gay rights activists opposed an amendment which would extend rights to other pair relationships like mother-daughter).</p><p>I just don't think the word "marriage" applies, I think it is redefining the word marriage and that is what I am against.</p><p>Anyone can disagree with me who will, but we're arguing about the legal meaning of a word, not the equal rights or entitlements that would through any registered arrangement or union.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the real arguments are about is the word " marriage " .I do n't mind same-sex unions having all the rights the marriages have , in fact I think the nominal " marriage rights " ( as opposed to marriage rites ) should be available to any pair , even to a mother and her carer-daughter when they enjoy a regular non-sexual mother-daughter relationship .
( In the UK a few years ago, .
gay rights activists opposed an amendment which would extend rights to other pair relationships like mother-daughter ) .I just do n't think the word " marriage " applies , I think it is redefining the word marriage and that is what I am against.Anyone can disagree with me who will , but we 're arguing about the legal meaning of a word , not the equal rights or entitlements that would through any registered arrangement or union .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the real arguments are about is the word "marriage".I don't mind same-sex unions having all the rights the marriages have, in fact I think the nominal "marriage rights" (as opposed to marriage rites) should be available to any pair, even to a mother and her carer-daughter when they enjoy a regular non-sexual mother-daughter relationship.
(In the UK a few years ago,.
gay rights activists opposed an amendment which would extend rights to other pair relationships like mother-daughter).I just don't think the word "marriage" applies, I think it is redefining the word marriage and that is what I am against.Anyone can disagree with me who will, but we're arguing about the legal meaning of a word, not the equal rights or entitlements that would through any registered arrangement or union.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29815345</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>dreamer.redeemer</author>
	<datestamp>1256036160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects?</p></div></blockquote><p>False equivalence. One is a conscious, sentient adult, the other is an animal. Or an inanimate object.</p></div><p>Not that I want to be associated with the anti gay marriage crowd in the slightest.... but humans are animals, conscious/sentient (in the way I presume you intend) are extremely poorly defined, and all mammals I know of have a period of adulthood, many plants do too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For laws that are even less specific , would you prefer to have the ability ( or let others have the ability ) to marry animals or inanimate objects ? False equivalence .
One is a conscious , sentient adult , the other is an animal .
Or an inanimate object.Not that I want to be associated with the anti gay marriage crowd in the slightest.... but humans are animals , conscious/sentient ( in the way I presume you intend ) are extremely poorly defined , and all mammals I know of have a period of adulthood , many plants do too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects?False equivalence.
One is a conscious, sentient adult, the other is an animal.
Or an inanimate object.Not that I want to be associated with the anti gay marriage crowd in the slightest.... but humans are animals, conscious/sentient (in the way I presume you intend) are extremely poorly defined, and all mammals I know of have a period of adulthood, many plants do too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806741</id>
	<title>Re:My vote, my business</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1256048340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a very well written and intelligent post, however there's one small problem with it.  There never has been any expectation of privacy on these kinds of petitions.  Actually back in the day when petitions like these could carry grave consequences all the name would be publicly listed, the only "privacy" was they wouldn't identify the ring leaders.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-robin" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-robin</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a very well written and intelligent post , however there 's one small problem with it .
There never has been any expectation of privacy on these kinds of petitions .
Actually back in the day when petitions like these could carry grave consequences all the name would be publicly listed , the only " privacy " was they would n't identify the ring leaders .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-robin [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a very well written and intelligent post, however there's one small problem with it.
There never has been any expectation of privacy on these kinds of petitions.
Actually back in the day when petitions like these could carry grave consequences all the name would be publicly listed, the only "privacy" was they wouldn't identify the ring leaders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-robin [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806141</id>
	<title>The Law of Unintended Consequences</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is passed in every legislative session.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is passed in every legislative session .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is passed in every legislative session.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29811827</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1256066160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about this: the purpose of marriage as a social contract is to provide for the care, feeding, and raising of children.</p></div><p>So you are opposed to a sterile couple getting married too? Or a couple that doesn't plan on having kids? Or maybe your definition is just plain wrong.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Does that mean that she went for a stable, committed, bisexual relationship? Is there even such a thing? Hardly.</p></div><p>How the hell would you know? It seems you don't even know what a stable, committed <i>hetero</i> relationship is like either.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Marriage is supposed to be about more than sex, it's supposed to be about children, and gay marriage isn't about that.</p></div><p>What about love? Or what about gay couples that adopt?</p><p>You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're just blinded by homophobia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this : the purpose of marriage as a social contract is to provide for the care , feeding , and raising of children.So you are opposed to a sterile couple getting married too ?
Or a couple that does n't plan on having kids ?
Or maybe your definition is just plain wrong.Does that mean that she went for a stable , committed , bisexual relationship ?
Is there even such a thing ?
Hardly.How the hell would you know ?
It seems you do n't even know what a stable , committed hetero relationship is like either.Marriage is supposed to be about more than sex , it 's supposed to be about children , and gay marriage is n't about that.What about love ?
Or what about gay couples that adopt ? You really have no idea what you 're talking about .
You 're just blinded by homophobia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this: the purpose of marriage as a social contract is to provide for the care, feeding, and raising of children.So you are opposed to a sterile couple getting married too?
Or a couple that doesn't plan on having kids?
Or maybe your definition is just plain wrong.Does that mean that she went for a stable, committed, bisexual relationship?
Is there even such a thing?
Hardly.How the hell would you know?
It seems you don't even know what a stable, committed hetero relationship is like either.Marriage is supposed to be about more than sex, it's supposed to be about children, and gay marriage isn't about that.What about love?
Or what about gay couples that adopt?You really have no idea what you're talking about.
You're just blinded by homophobia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806791</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>novakreo</author>
	<datestamp>1256048520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you really so dense as to be unable to distinguish between a person marrying another person, and a person marrying an animal or object?<br>
Tell me, though, how is personal responsibility encouraged if a government takes away someone's ability to choose to marry a same-sex partner?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you really so dense as to be unable to distinguish between a person marrying another person , and a person marrying an animal or object ?
Tell me , though , how is personal responsibility encouraged if a government takes away someone 's ability to choose to marry a same-sex partner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you really so dense as to be unable to distinguish between a person marrying another person, and a person marrying an animal or object?
Tell me, though, how is personal responsibility encouraged if a government takes away someone's ability to choose to marry a same-sex partner?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807327</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256050680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's partly why petition lists are frequently made public, so those who are documented as having signed a petition have the ability to say "um, no, I didn't sign that".  It's a sad side effect that such information can (and sometimes is) misused by people from "the other side of the issue" to harass or pillory signers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's partly why petition lists are frequently made public , so those who are documented as having signed a petition have the ability to say " um , no , I did n't sign that " .
It 's a sad side effect that such information can ( and sometimes is ) misused by people from " the other side of the issue " to harass or pillory signers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's partly why petition lists are frequently made public, so those who are documented as having signed a petition have the ability to say "um, no, I didn't sign that".
It's a sad side effect that such information can (and sometimes is) misused by people from "the other side of the issue" to harass or pillory signers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807809</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1256052600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love the implied premise of social constructivist bigotry. Blacks and Latinos? How could <i>they</i> possibly be as uninformed and ignorant as the ol' standby scapegoat, white males? You know, never mind the gay Mexicans who have sought asylum in the US because they are afraid that in their home country they would be murdered in the street for their sexuality. And everybody knows how gay friendly the black community is, so this is totally about marriage and marriage alone for these saintly, flawless, and open-minded liberal minority demographics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the implied premise of social constructivist bigotry .
Blacks and Latinos ?
How could they possibly be as uninformed and ignorant as the ol ' standby scapegoat , white males ?
You know , never mind the gay Mexicans who have sought asylum in the US because they are afraid that in their home country they would be murdered in the street for their sexuality .
And everybody knows how gay friendly the black community is , so this is totally about marriage and marriage alone for these saintly , flawless , and open-minded liberal minority demographics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the implied premise of social constructivist bigotry.
Blacks and Latinos?
How could they possibly be as uninformed and ignorant as the ol' standby scapegoat, white males?
You know, never mind the gay Mexicans who have sought asylum in the US because they are afraid that in their home country they would be murdered in the street for their sexuality.
And everybody knows how gay friendly the black community is, so this is totally about marriage and marriage alone for these saintly, flawless, and open-minded liberal minority demographics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806515</id>
	<title>Assault on Rationality</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1256047080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is everybody acting within their rights given by law an assault? Has WA legalized assault? Be careful what you wish for and twice for what you accuse.</p><p>From the very first codification of law, that of Hammurabi, marriage has been specified as a contract between two people. Nobody can block that on moral grounds and they'd be hard pressed to nullify a contract of partnership onany grounds without having the business community up in arms. The ceremonies are only that; next time, I'm jumping a broom.</p><p>The license is not a license to get married/contracted/etc., it's a tax stamp. It is the Fuck Tax. Nothing prevents you from fucking, but they want to tax it, same as nothing prevents you from parking your car in your driveway in Virginia, but you have to have your parking sticker up to date or you can get a parking ticket. They'll tax anything that lots of people want or what to do. Fuck the Fuck Tax. Paying a tax doesn't make a marriage "legal", it makes it paid up. A legal marriage is a binding contract of partnership between two people with possessions.</p><p>I am not a lawyer. But I can and have "legally"  performed that ceremony for people, "legal" or not, "Fuck Tax" or none, and had to examine the relevant laws. By the way, you want to know how to qualify to "legally" marry people? Say so. The government has no right (they've specifically divorced themselevs from the ability) to dictate, determine or oversee who is and is not "qualified".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is everybody acting within their rights given by law an assault ?
Has WA legalized assault ?
Be careful what you wish for and twice for what you accuse.From the very first codification of law , that of Hammurabi , marriage has been specified as a contract between two people .
Nobody can block that on moral grounds and they 'd be hard pressed to nullify a contract of partnership onany grounds without having the business community up in arms .
The ceremonies are only that ; next time , I 'm jumping a broom.The license is not a license to get married/contracted/etc. , it 's a tax stamp .
It is the Fuck Tax .
Nothing prevents you from fucking , but they want to tax it , same as nothing prevents you from parking your car in your driveway in Virginia , but you have to have your parking sticker up to date or you can get a parking ticket .
They 'll tax anything that lots of people want or what to do .
Fuck the Fuck Tax .
Paying a tax does n't make a marriage " legal " , it makes it paid up .
A legal marriage is a binding contract of partnership between two people with possessions.I am not a lawyer .
But I can and have " legally " performed that ceremony for people , " legal " or not , " Fuck Tax " or none , and had to examine the relevant laws .
By the way , you want to know how to qualify to " legally " marry people ?
Say so .
The government has no right ( they 've specifically divorced themselevs from the ability ) to dictate , determine or oversee who is and is not " qualified " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is everybody acting within their rights given by law an assault?
Has WA legalized assault?
Be careful what you wish for and twice for what you accuse.From the very first codification of law, that of Hammurabi, marriage has been specified as a contract between two people.
Nobody can block that on moral grounds and they'd be hard pressed to nullify a contract of partnership onany grounds without having the business community up in arms.
The ceremonies are only that; next time, I'm jumping a broom.The license is not a license to get married/contracted/etc., it's a tax stamp.
It is the Fuck Tax.
Nothing prevents you from fucking, but they want to tax it, same as nothing prevents you from parking your car in your driveway in Virginia, but you have to have your parking sticker up to date or you can get a parking ticket.
They'll tax anything that lots of people want or what to do.
Fuck the Fuck Tax.
Paying a tax doesn't make a marriage "legal", it makes it paid up.
A legal marriage is a binding contract of partnership between two people with possessions.I am not a lawyer.
But I can and have "legally"  performed that ceremony for people, "legal" or not, "Fuck Tax" or none, and had to examine the relevant laws.
By the way, you want to know how to qualify to "legally" marry people?
Say so.
The government has no right (they've specifically divorced themselevs from the ability) to dictate, determine or oversee who is and is not "qualified".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807485</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>CensorshipDonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1256051400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though...</p></div></blockquote><p>Because only if it's a landlocked state it counts?  Or, you know, super liberal Iowa!  Damn those Iowans, flagrantly trampling on traditional Midwestern values!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though...Because only if it 's a landlocked state it counts ?
Or , you know , super liberal Iowa !
Damn those Iowans , flagrantly trampling on traditional Midwestern values !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though...Because only if it's a landlocked state it counts?
Or, you know, super liberal Iowa!
Damn those Iowans, flagrantly trampling on traditional Midwestern values!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806945</id>
	<title>Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256049180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then you are a person who <i>doesn't</i> believe in all of the scientific studies that show that a person doesn't have control over their sexual orientation.<br> <br>Huh, it's funny how conjecture isn't fact, innit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you are a person who does n't believe in all of the scientific studies that show that a person does n't have control over their sexual orientation .
Huh , it 's funny how conjecture is n't fact , innit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you are a person who doesn't believe in all of the scientific studies that show that a person doesn't have control over their sexual orientation.
Huh, it's funny how conjecture isn't fact, innit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806731</id>
	<title>Uhm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm still having a hard time finding any mention of GAY MARRIAGE in R-71.  Just a lot about DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS.  Can't help but feel quite lied-to when I hear the anti-gay crowd saying R-71 is threatening "the sanctity of marriage" somehow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still having a hard time finding any mention of GAY MARRIAGE in R-71 .
Just a lot about DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS .
Ca n't help but feel quite lied-to when I hear the anti-gay crowd saying R-71 is threatening " the sanctity of marriage " somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still having a hard time finding any mention of GAY MARRIAGE in R-71.
Just a lot about DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS.
Can't help but feel quite lied-to when I hear the anti-gay crowd saying R-71 is threatening "the sanctity of marriage" somehow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808163</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256054040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hate" is a very strong word. Unless you want to claim that everyone opposed to same-sex marriage is in favour of capital punishment for homosexual intercourse it's too strong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hate " is a very strong word .
Unless you want to claim that everyone opposed to same-sex marriage is in favour of capital punishment for homosexual intercourse it 's too strong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hate" is a very strong word.
Unless you want to claim that everyone opposed to same-sex marriage is in favour of capital punishment for homosexual intercourse it's too strong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806959</id>
	<title>it's not about your vote</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1256049240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is an appalling attempt at intimidation and coercion of those who would vote a given way. The public has a right to vote any damn way they want</i></p><p>You have a right to a secret vote in an election, and you have a right to anonymous speech.</p><p>You do not have a right to put a referendum on the ballot anonymously, and I see no reason why you should have that right.</p><p><i>A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population, regardless of cause or locality.</i></p><p>So, if the majority votes to enslave blacks or exterminate the Jews, that's OK with you?   Can the majority vote Mormons or Catholics out of their community?  Maybe those things are OK with you, but they are not OK with me or the US Constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an appalling attempt at intimidation and coercion of those who would vote a given way .
The public has a right to vote any damn way they wantYou have a right to a secret vote in an election , and you have a right to anonymous speech.You do not have a right to put a referendum on the ballot anonymously , and I see no reason why you should have that right.A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population , regardless of cause or locality.So , if the majority votes to enslave blacks or exterminate the Jews , that 's OK with you ?
Can the majority vote Mormons or Catholics out of their community ?
Maybe those things are OK with you , but they are not OK with me or the US Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an appalling attempt at intimidation and coercion of those who would vote a given way.
The public has a right to vote any damn way they wantYou have a right to a secret vote in an election, and you have a right to anonymous speech.You do not have a right to put a referendum on the ballot anonymously, and I see no reason why you should have that right.A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population, regardless of cause or locality.So, if the majority votes to enslave blacks or exterminate the Jews, that's OK with you?
Can the majority vote Mormons or Catholics out of their community?
Maybe those things are OK with you, but they are not OK with me or the US Constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808143</id>
	<title>Don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>42Penguins</author>
	<datestamp>1256053980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The state has a sunshine law. They used the sunshine law. They shared the results.
<br> <br>
I don't see what is potentially damaging about people knowing you signed it anyway. It doesn't make you a gay-bashing red-necked evil conservative. In fact, it could simply mean that you prefer a direct vote to a vote of representatives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The state has a sunshine law .
They used the sunshine law .
They shared the results .
I do n't see what is potentially damaging about people knowing you signed it anyway .
It does n't make you a gay-bashing red-necked evil conservative .
In fact , it could simply mean that you prefer a direct vote to a vote of representatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The state has a sunshine law.
They used the sunshine law.
They shared the results.
I don't see what is potentially damaging about people knowing you signed it anyway.
It doesn't make you a gay-bashing red-necked evil conservative.
In fact, it could simply mean that you prefer a direct vote to a vote of representatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810253</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In fact, it's this broad-stroke-painted stereotype of everyone who opposes gay marriage as no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals that the peeps who voted for this in Washington state are trying to avoid getting tarred with. Their opposition has done a real good job of perpetuating that stereotype, and it's no more valid than the one of gays as all being lisping, limp-wristed nancy boys.
</p><p>
You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage? Blacks and Latinos, particularly Mexican immigrants.</p></div></blockquote><p>
OK, I'll agree with you that they don't vote Republican... but what's with all the racist talk?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , it 's this broad-stroke-painted stereotype of everyone who opposes gay marriage as no-necked , knuckle-dragging , fag-bashing , Republican-voting , Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals that the peeps who voted for this in Washington state are trying to avoid getting tarred with .
Their opposition has done a real good job of perpetuating that stereotype , and it 's no more valid than the one of gays as all being lisping , limp-wristed nancy boys .
You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage ?
Blacks and Latinos , particularly Mexican immigrants .
OK , I 'll agree with you that they do n't vote Republican... but what 's with all the racist talk ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, it's this broad-stroke-painted stereotype of everyone who opposes gay marriage as no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals that the peeps who voted for this in Washington state are trying to avoid getting tarred with.
Their opposition has done a real good job of perpetuating that stereotype, and it's no more valid than the one of gays as all being lisping, limp-wristed nancy boys.
You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage?
Blacks and Latinos, particularly Mexican immigrants.
OK, I'll agree with you that they don't vote Republican... but what's with all the racist talk?
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29817899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29831337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29815285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29816453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29819189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29817679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29812873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29815345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29814541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29813439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29813843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29816387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29812879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29820465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29820461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29811827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0012203_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806415
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29817899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806487
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807875
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807169
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809727
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809907
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807139
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818443
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807809
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807697
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807457
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29816453
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810253
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806781
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808971
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810733
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29831337
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29811827
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29814541
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810617
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807721
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808163
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29810259
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29812879
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808713
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818251
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806859
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29817679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29820465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29815285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806945
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29819189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806795
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807787
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29816387
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807937
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29815345
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29812873
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818639
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29809947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29813439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806881
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806785
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29818163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29820461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807891
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806901
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807651
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29807967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29813843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29808287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0012203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0012203.29806731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
