Being opposed to government sanctioned same sex marriage is not gay bashing. Tom and Bob's relationship will never have as much value to society's as Tom and Jenny's. Why? Tom and Bob can NEVER produce offspring. Tom and Jenny's can. No offspring. No society. Before you get all spun up about, "Oh, now you need to have a kid to be a productive member of society, blah, blah, blah." No, that's not what I said. Tom and Jenny's relationship at least has the potential for offspring. That makes it different than Tom and Bob's. And it's potential value to society (furthering it) is clear. So one could make the argument that it's in governments interest to promote marriage between a man and a woman as a "better thing" than not. And if Tom and Bob want to get married. I couldn't care less. Good for them. May they live long and be happy. I just don't think that government should bestow it with the same benefits of marriage between a man and a woman. If you consider that position "gay bashing" that's fine. We have no common ground on the issue at that point I would imagine. Finally, yeah, I'm fine with government getting out of the marriage business.
Immigrant bashing. Damn, you're not a careful reader (I know, I know, it's slashdot.) I took great pains to point out that people here illegally are not immigrants. I'd like more immigrants to come. I'd like it to be easier for people to immigrate. Hell, I'd love for Mexico and Canada to perhaps become part of the union. Illegal aliens are just that. Don't call them immigrants because they've done nothing to immigrate. If people don't want to come here legally, I'm 100% for building a big fence and sending people back home. I'm also fine with naturalizing them and having them pay fines. I'd just like illegal migration to stop (note, once again, I didn't call it illegal immigration.) Finally, I'm sympathetic. If I was dirt poor in Mexico, I'd want to come here any way I could. That doesn't make it any less illegal. And if that still makes me an "immigrant basher" in your eyes, apply the lack of common ground point above to this as well.
As for anti-science, thanks for pointing out the Texas deal. I'll ammend my above quote "I think the creationism in schools is dumb but that's not a national issue." I don't know the specifics of the Texas case (don't live there, don't really care) so I'm not going to condemn nor defend it. My knee-jerk reaction is to be in opposition but that's as far as I'll go at this point. If you feel like producing some actual links, I'd be happy to take a look. As for the ice cores, they may not be the holy grail you think they are. It seems to me that you have your own (religious) dogmas that you denigrate in others. Personally, I'm agnostic on both God and anthropogenic global warming.
Aren't we supposed to all get along now in this new era of b-ipartisanship and national unity? Hell no, debate like this is good IMHO. Keep it up.
I'll leave you with this:
A woman once came to Gandhi and asked him to please tell her son to give up eating sugar. Gandhi asked the woman to bring the boy back in a week. Exactly one week later the woman returned, and Gandhi said to the boy, "Please give up eating sugar." The woman thanked the Mahatma, and, as she turned to go, asked him why he had not said those words a week ago."
Gandhi replied, "Because a week ago, I had not given up eating sugar.
Take from it what you will.