Okay, I'm going to be honest here, I hate just stating how I feel about this and why, because many don't view my reasons as credible (and they're not if you're not on the same moral page as myself), so I like to debate other people's points. Please note that I heavily refer to U.S. laws when debating this subject.

But please post how you feel and why, and I'll debate your points. I've actually gotten a lot of support (meaning evidence) on my side from the last month or so, and feel I have a good arguement.

Discuss.

I remember posting my view and some of my reasons for that view in another thread... I'll try and dig that up and repost some of the stuff I had there. Maybe you should post your arguement so we have a clear idea of what it is and the support you have for it. In regards to US laws, I'm somewhat at a disadvantage...

I'm against Gay Marriage, because I believe it to be immoral.

"But morals are subjective! Don't impose YOUR morals on THEM."

Well... morals are going to be imposed either way... and this will quite clearly affect me in a direct manner... shouldn't I have a say? It would be very uneducated to say that this doesn't affect me, because EVERYTHING affect's me. Which is one reason, I'm such a big fan of the Butterfly Effect.

So would I make being gay altogether illegal? No, because they deserve their freedom to choose that kind of a lifestyle. It would like be making the consumption of sweets illegal. Yes, it costs us lots of taxpayer dolars for those who abuse it, but people have that freedom to choose.

I'm not a homophobe and neither are most conservatives, because the fact of the matter is: most people don't care what others do in their own bedrooms. But marriage is something that affects us SO, undoubtedly directly that everyone deserves a say in the matter.

How so?

1. It takes rights away from those who want to have a traditional marriage, or are already married in a traditional sense.

I can illustrate this point with a little story:

There was once a woman who got married to this guy, who probably wasn't the best guy, or after the right things in her. Unfortunately, she didn't realise this until the night of her wedding (after she was married). She refused to sleep even in the same room as him, but she didn't believe in divorce!

5 years later...

She's talking to a friend who turns out to be a lawyer and she's talking about this big problem, but she doesn't know what to do, because she doesn't believe in divorce.

The lawyer tells her that one is not legally married, until after they've had sexual intercourse, so all she had to do was anull the ceremony.

This right wouldn't be her's if gay marraige was legal, because consumating the marriage, which is a major part of marriage, would be void if we had gay marriage, and that would abolish the anulment of ceremonies, so straight people who don't believe in getting a divorce, would be forced to either live with someone that they don't want to for the rest of their lives, or live by a set of morals imposed on them: divorce.

Now note that the part talking about the Roman Catholic Church is just an example. Annulments are recognized similarly in most religions.

The Definition of Marriage in the U.S.A.:

Then there's the biggest reason that gay people want marriage in the first place (well... most of the educated ones anyway): the tax benefit.

At least in the U.S. (and I'd assume in most other places), there's a tax benefit that you get for being married. But I think it's important to keep in mind exactly the purpose of the tax benefit. If you look at the law, there's no mistaking the intention of this tax benefit. It's to help couples out, so they can start a family and have kids. The reason a law like this would be made is simple: a stable family is beneficial for society. That's not to say that gay's can't adopt and have a stable family, but most of them won't, and establishing a stable family, is MUCH, MUCH harder... this can be proven by statistics, and I'll do my best to find some if you'd like (and don't worry, if you want, I'll make sure it's valid, and that the lurking variables have already been identified... and that it's a truely random sample that they took).

Federal Tax Benefit

Which leads me to my next point: a stable family is beneficial for society.

Another thing that would be clearly affected:

Children's Rights

Don't get me wrong here, I believe that gay people should be able to adopt... after all, it's just like two brothers raising a younger sibling, but the legal rights involved if you dragged marriage into this would practically have to be rewritten.

The structure of the family needs to be preserved for the benefit of society. Statistics not only say that the traditionally structured family is more likely to produce beneficial outcomes for society, but it's statistically significant.

Again, I can get you some studies if you like.

Gay marriage, would completely destroy the structure of the family. If the definition of marriage is brought down to the level of "two conscenting adults", then why not "multiple conscenting adults"? Then what about paedophilia? Hmm? That can be fought, because it's basically just passing the gaurdianship of a child... but it can only be fought when we allow gay marriage.

Then what about incest? Hmm? Why can't a brother and sister get married? (eww...) Surely that's discrimination because "they can't marry who they want to".

The answer is found in the most likely outcome to society. Incest is more likely to result badly, than if they were to have a kid with someone who's not related (so to speak). So it IS about probability.

Then pretty soon, we'll just have groups of 40 of people all getting married to each other at the same time, and then the structure of the family will be completely lost. And the tax benefit will have lost all it's purpose because of how much it's being abused. Naturally it has and will be abused by straight people, but we can't stop it altogether, because it's just not plausable. We CAN stop it from being abused in such a massive form.

The next thing: is it really discrimination not to let them have different marriage rights from us?

I mean, it almost sounds like reverse discrimination in the sense that legalizing gay marriage would set them apart from everyone else.

Gay people are just like you and me. I refuse to treat them differently, and I don't see why gay marriage is a neccessaty.

Equal rights? Well, they already have equal rights to us. They CAN get married to someone of the opposite gender, and we (straight people) CAN'T get married to someone of the same gender. The arguement then goes "but straight people can get married to who they want". Not neccessarily. What if a straight person wanted to be a room-mate with another man, and he wanted the tax benefit? Or say he just wanted attention? Well... he's straight, but he still can't get married to someone of the same gender.

You see, equal doesn't mean fair, but the same. A man could work for hours and recieve an equal amount of money to that of a man who's living off welfare. Is it fair? Well... it could be, but it's certainly equal.

Personally I believe it to be fair: banning gay marriage. Because quite simply: marriage isn't neccessary to protect their rights.

People always use the "blacks on the bus" analogy when talking about gay marriage. They say:

It's quite obviously very different, and get's tedious to explain, however I'm willing. First of all, they can ride on exactly the same bus. Second of all, if you want to hop on the bus you have to sit by a woman. Sure straight people might be more content with this, but if you're not: ride a different bus. You still CAN ride the bus, but only if you're willing to follow the conditions that everyone else has to. So sorry for treating gay people, as equals.

That leads me to another point: the different bus - civil unions.

This will/should suprise most of you, because of the extreme conservative I am, but-- I'm pro civil unions. The arguement that most right-winged people have is that civil unions are a cleverly disguised attempt at an attack on marriage, as they're fighting for more and more rights to be included with civil unions. I agree that this is the intent, but all I'm going to try and do about it is redefine the benefits of civil unions on a national level. Meaning still allow them to have their neccessary rights, such as hospital visiting rights, adoption, etc. while still with-holding from them the rights that marriage protects.

Civil unions in the U.S.A. vary from state to state. Meaning it could be 100% identical to marriage except in the manner of that tax benefit on a federal level, and you can't call it "marriage". It should be noted that I'm against this kind of a civil union, because there are tax benefits for the same purpose on a state-wide level, and there are also other benefits that aren't neccessary for a gay. And that's why I'd want to redefine it on a national level.

The conservative arguement here is that they can get hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, etc. by simply getting the legal papers, so a civil union isn't required to protect their rights. I don't have anything to counter this arguement (as it's a true statement), but I believe that if gay people want to legally be recognized as somehow legally "together" for moral reasons or just for the sake of it, I believe that they should be able to.

The next arguement is that "gay people aren't like us, they're different". I would first like to say that, that is discrimination, but here's the arguement:

The problem here, is that people can "become gay" several different ways. One way that I believe people can be "born gay" is a disorder with a chemical release (I'd liken it to something like depression that's (in special cases) considered a chemical imbalance).

When someone "falls in love" a chemical is released from the brain (form of dopamine(sp?)). What this chemical does, nobody quite knows (although certain effects are likened to cocaine and certain other street drugs), but an addiction can be built up. This is why people get really sad after breaking up, and why it's so easy to get emotionally attatched to someone.

The theory is a disorder that causes this to be released at an inopportune time, causing them to feel emotions toward the same gender, that they might not otherwise (keep in mind that this is a theory).

But like chemical depression, wouldn't you want it cured? It's a disorder, an abnormality (which is the reason for calling it a disorder, because it's not normal. Like braces, you do it to "fix your teeth", even though it might be the way teeth were meant to be, crooked teeth are abnormal).

So, I believe this to be the most common way. Other ways include what I like to call "the Elton John method", etc.

So there's no single definitive way. Although I believe a chemical release (such as stated above) could somehow be related to genetics, you can't say that genetics are the cause of being gay. Yes, there are some genes that they have found some homosexual people share, but that really doesn't say anything. Not yet anyway.

Someone once said, "if you were a cripple, wouldn't you want that fixed?" Being gay is quite undeniably a social cripple...

And there have been people who have turned straight after being "gay", so it's definitely plausable. There have been straight people who have turned "gay". So that's plausable too.

Wait, how does gay marriage redifine the 'sexual intercourse needed to confirm marriage' angle? Wouldn't it still be applicable? Gay people would have sex as well - why would it suddently be thrown out? Or is it based on what is defined as acceptable sexual intercourse? So if that woman and that mad had been having anal sex, but not vaginal sex, then the marriage would still be able to be annulled on the basis of 'no sex, no marriage'? I don't get why you're equating gay marriage with the removal of this particular wrinkle in the marriage system.

Can you back this up with legal/binding information which defines what sort of sexual intercourse is defined as sexual intercourse and why gay marriage automatically destroys the concept of anulment ceremonies?

Like I've said before with the 'what about incest and multiple partners and beastiality oh my' arguement, what about the countries which do reognise and allow gay marriages? Have you got evidence to suggest that such things are happening in these countries? Can you provide evidence to support these claims beyond just 'worst case scenario' situational assumptions?

What about the benefits dolled out to straight people who also have such sham relationships? It's not just something that can be done by people pretending to be gay, after all.

Also, would you be okay with a gay man marrying a woman, as is his right, and recieving tax benifits, but having a relationship that allows him to carry on in a homosexual lifestyle? That's abusing the system just as badly as a couple of straights shacking up for tax reasons.

It's the definition of sexual intercourse under the law. I'll find you a link... give me until tomorrow.

Um... most countries haven't been allowing gay marriage until quite recently. Of course it's not going to all happen with the snap of the fingers, but it's clearly going to happen slowly, and carefully. Like murder, it always starts with something small, but as time goes on, grows and grows, until it's happened. When usually it starts off as something as small as a lie.

I've already said that there was going to be abuse no matter what. But it would be abused an a whole other level if we allowed gay marriage.

It always has to be about you uh? j/k ;)

You have to forgive me for this, but I can't help myself here:
ono is teh end of world!!1 quick slide to next dimension.for great justice!!!


Seriously though, I agree with Coinilius on the point above (as well as the annulment).
As for what you said about the tax benefit being meant for families that may raise children... maybe the tax benefit should only be given to families that do get children? That could solve the issue.

Everything affects everyone.

Excuse me?

Well... if you bothered to read my entire post you'll note how absurd it would be to give a tax benefit in the purpose of starting a family to people who already have.

You get additional tax benefits for every kid you have (even if it's a gay couple who adopted), so anyone can get that one. But the marriage tax benefit is for the purpose of the government helping you out in STARTING a family.

Although it would make sense to take it away if they haven't had any kids after say... 7 years.

That part of your post sounded kind of apocalyptic, and I couldn't help but do one of those "Ohno, let's get out of here" jokes. Hope you don't mind B)


Well then, if the tax benefit is for any sort of family and then there is an added bonus for those that get kids, it shouldn't make a difference what the family is like, right?

But on a general standpoint, you know what my take on the whole marriage thing is, right? (insert Sinfest strip here)

Although I didn't think I'd say this out of common courtesy (forgive me), I thought you previously had said that if you had the choice you would vote against gay marriage.

Well, it would quite obviously ruin marriage. Completely destroy it. I mean, it wouldn't be the end of the world, but the end of society's importance in marriage (albeit, my religion would still feel marriage is very important for us).

I'm talking about how the marriage tax benefit would be abused on a large scale, making it meaningless. Basically if gay marriage ever got passed nationally (which it won't, because we're too conservative), I'd fight for taking the tax cut completely away from everyone.

There IS a tax penalty for divorce too. Besides, I haven't heard anyone say why we should give people gay marriage anyway.

If I had a voice in it, I'd get rid of the marriage institution entirely! ^_^

Are there really that many gay couples over there that would be advanteged by the tax benefit? I haven't read any statistics so this is a honest question, not a retort.

But again, do you have any evidence that this is happening? Or that it is going to happen? It's all well and good saying it's a possibility, but how long is the world going to have to wait until the effects start showing? Has anyone been monitoring these countries to see the consequences?

Denmark has had a form of gay marriage since 1989, with the rest of Scandenavia following suit shortly afterwards. That's more than twenty-five yeards worth of gay marriages... there's a place to start looking to see if the 'slippery slope' has started to be felt.

EDIT: According to Darren R. Spedale(April 19, 2004), gay marriage has had positive effects in Denmark since it's introduction.

Darren Spedale and William Eskridge have written a book called Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned from the Evidence which is (according to the Oxford University Press website) the first book to present empirical evidence about the effects of same-sex marriage, based on almost two decades worth of data and experience from the Nordic countries. Darren R. Spedale and William N. Eskridge, Jr. look at how same-sex marriage (in the form of registered partnerships) came to be in Scandinavia; who is getting married and why they are tying the knot; the Church's reception to same-sex unions; and how same-sex marriage has affected the couples, their families, their children, and their greater communities, both nationally and internationally.

Some Author info as well:

End Edit.

What about the fact that in Kansas, a man can already marry a 12 year old if he has parental consent? Or the fact that marrying cousins is already allowed in some places but not in others?

Kansas and Nebraska have differing laws governing when two people can get married. According to Kansas law, children 12 or older can get married with parental consent. Nebraska law, however, prohibits marriage between juveniles 16 and younger — even with parental consent. Yet the state is still required to recognize valid marriages from other states. Nebraska law also forbids sexual relationships between a person 19 or older and a person younger than 16.

That's a pretty slippery slope, and it already exists in America, and I don't think Kansas allows same sex marriages, either.

This is another area which is interesting to look at - what are the statistics on gay married couples who choose to start families? Is it actually as low as you think? Is there statistical evidence to support the idea that 'most of them' after they get married won't be interested in starting a family? I'm surious to know...

Well, is that actually the biggest reason, or just wahat you think is the biggest reason? What about finicial security reasons as well?

If legally married, gay, lesbian and bisexual couples would have a greater ability to care for and protect their families, including the option to:

* file joint tax returns
* have access to joint insurance policies for home, auto and health
* inherit automatically in the absence of a will, including jointly owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship
* secure workplace and other benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, Medicare
* obtain veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans
* enter jointly into leases and other contracts, such as apartment and car rental agreements, and maintain renewal rights
* raise children together including: joint adoption, joint foster care, custody, and visitation including non-biological parents
* secure wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children
* take bereavement leave when a partner or child dies
* handle post-mortum decisions involving deceased partners, including where to be buried and how
* receive crime victims' recovery benefits
* secure domestic violence protection orders in states where this is currently prohibited
* obtain divorce protections such as community property and child support
* establish status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent

(from "To Have and to Hold," (Washington, D.C.: The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1995), p. 6)

You just invented a way to say "surely curious" with one word! ;)
(I don't mean to troll, Possum, I actually thought this may be potentially cool)

I'm sure some guy could spend months in court arguing that he had a "virgin anus". Complete with photographic evidence no doubt! :lol:

Technically though it would be possible to test muscle retention in order to prove that, and, er, yeah... as you can see I've learned some things I don't like to think about... :-x

Well, you all know what I think. At least I think you do. Anyway I'll maybe wade a bit deeper into this tomorrow when I'm a bit more, er, something. See? I've forgotten what it is I'm missing. I think it's eyesight by the looks of things... >_<

:lol: Well, that was just a typo, but I suppose it could also mean 'seriously curious', which I was - I was genuinely asking that as a question.

Actually, I can't say that I have any idea, so I'm looking forward to finding out tomorrow :)

Sanity? (Possum is going to murdalize me...)

You're avoiding my point... hint: I'm trying to get you to say *why*.

Is it just not cool to agree with me? Is that it? :unsure:

I don't think I understand... advanteged? Well... I don't think that it's really needed for them... if that's what you mean :huh:

Nah, I can be easy going... but if you were trying to cause trouble, then I'd be upset ;)

:lol:

I think that might have been what he meant. :) I also think someone's patronizing me >_> :P (but I can't say that it's not funny, because... well... it is!)

No, because there hasn't been a country who's had it legalized for long enough. The point is that if gay marriage is amended to be legal, then it will be just as "constitutional" to allow polygamy, etc. So if it doesn't happen to some of the countries soon (within the next 30 years), I'll be suprised, because they could only too easily.

1989? That's only 16 years. I think they still have another 20 or so, before we'll start to see suites about all of this. So sure it might not, but it will definitely be possible, which leads me to believe..

Well... that's a nice little statement, but I don't see any support for it (from him).

And what were the results?

Anyway, church's who believe in the Bible are hypocritical by allowing same-sex marriage, although there are some radical Christians who don't believe in the Bible... wait... I guess it never said they were Christians anyhow...

And I'd need to know the background behind this study. Because it HAS been going on for so long, I have serious doubts about it. Such a long study would probably have some heavy biases... if I could get a link, that would be enough.

Listen buddy, I'm studying statistics. It's part of my job to know these kind of things ;)

Now keep in mind that these aren't households with gay people residing in, but established gay "family" numbers. And from those there's only

I believe this is from a census.

Now, I'm going to give you a link with a lot more statistics. NOTE: this is a propaganda paper, but DOES include important facts/statistics.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html

You can take what you like out of that.

Well, it's a part of that, but the tax benefit is the biggest reason and here's why: civil unions.

Depending on the state they live in they can 99% of the same benefits:

Most of these benefits are normally included for most civil unions. In fact (apart from the first one), these are normally included. The ones that tend to vary most are the insurance and social security factors, but if it were to be redefined on a national level, there'd be no problem there.

So you see? I'm not as much of a bigot as you think, I AM pro-civil unions ;)

As for that link on Sexual Intercourse... I can't find one, but from the phrase "sexual intercourse" I think they mean "sexual intercourse" not "anal and oral sex" (eck)

But I guess my point's officially been challenged ;)

But that really isn't the dictionary, traditionalistic definiton of sexual intercourse... could that *really* hold up?

I'm assuming you're too conservative to be pro-gay marriage, but I couldn't say...

Eh, but I don't agree with your reasons for being against it. I don't believe it would lead to all kinds of weird marriages (besides I'm in favor of non-contractual polygamy) or that the tax benefit is really the main controversy point.

Like I said, I'm against marriage in itself, so why would I want for it to grow even more consolidated? I do not believe "true love" (assuming such a thing exists) to necessarily last forever, as implied by the marriage oaths, nor that any love's longevity can be evaluated by anyone with sufficient accuracy. At most, I'd understand marriage as a binding which automatically kicks in when there's children to raise (and that is no longer binding when they are old enough)
Anything else is just a way to jeopardize a romantic relationship and possibly mess up a number of lives.

Well, a couple's gonna need money for a house and other things, regardless of what people it is composed of. But what I meant to ask is, are there that many gay couples waiting to get married, enough that this would make a really significant difference concerning the overall tax situation? (Unless you think that allowing them to marry will make the total number of homosexuals skyrocket)


Well then, new siggy!

That wasn't my only point...

Well... if civil union benefits aren't good enough for them, this is usually the major difference. Well, that and you can't call a civil union "marriage".

That's a good question that I actually didn't think about...

Time to google!

Maybe there could be straight marriage and gay marriage, with different benefits?

There are those of us who care for the sanctity of marriage. Us religious and/or traditionalistic nuts, which is the biggest reason for opposition against it.

Besides, civil unions legally bind them... well, "together". So I'm just for giving them similar benefits via civil unions... but they're always SO unhappy when I say that.

Was that directed at me, BTW? Because pretty much, yes, I am just argueing certain points because it's cool not to agree with someone (at least in terms of debating an issue, and so long as no one gets personal or offended) :P Ask Duke, I argue points all the time because they zig where someone else is zagging ;)

Yes, the 25 year was a typo - I ment 15 :P As for Spendale and what's his name, they had concluded that it was having positive effects. The comment from him that I provided earlier was a comment about the book, which is where the findings are - he was going for a sale, I would imagine.

I'll try and find a link with some more information on the issue, if you're interested.

Still, the slippery slope arguement is a very nay-sayer doomsday arguement that has a nebulous 'maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow' clause which makes it impossible to accurately judge. When will we have the necesary results? What if they never come in to play? Also, Denmark does not operate under the same legal constitution as the US, so it would be interesting to see how they worded the whole gay marriage thing and how there laws are worded in general to see if the same 'constitutional rights' to multiple wives and child sex even apply.

Also, what about things like being able to marry a 13 year old in the US? You didn't comment on that.

But anal intercourse is recognised as a form of sexual intercourse, so it would be interesting to see exactly how sexual intercourse is defined in this instance.

But what is the sanctity of marrige, in the final analysis? It's a fairly nebulous and culturally specific idea anyway that has changed constantly throughout history. Mary, mother of Jesus, was probably about 13 when she was bethrothed - that was the usual age when a girl was married off in those days. Many cultures have practised polygamy, for many different reasons over the years. Arranged marriages are practised quite frequently in other cultures, and used to be practised in western ones. Many early Western socities tolerated, even celebrated, same-sex unions. It was only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S. It was only after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1967 that mixed race couples could marry anywhere in the U.S. Marriage has been a very dynamic concept since it was first created.

I'm not trying to bag you or marriage, I'm just interested in exactly what you believe constitutes the sanctity of marriage and why those particular aspects of marriage are the ones that need to be protected?

Actually, this was what my view boiled down to - remember the last time we were discussing this? Civil unions with similar benefits. And who exactly are 'they'? No offence, but it sounds like you're lumping all homosexuals into the generalisation basket there (unless you just mean people who support gay marriage in general).

And it's all well and good to say that 'civil unions give them most of these rights already', but what about the recognition of gay civil unions? How many states in the US recognise same-sex civil unions?

I know you ment that as a joke (at least I think you did), but I don't think anyone here actually thinks of you as a bigot.

Woops... sorry, I forgot to quote Duke. It wasn't directed at you. Although I agree with your responce. I mean, if someone enters a debate on my side, but makes a faulty point, I'll debate that point.

Please :)

Then all I'd be able to say is: "I was wrong."

It's not my biggest point, but it's an obvious possibility.

I thought that the youngest was 14 and ONLY with parental conscent... 16 I believe is the youngest you can get married without parental conscent in a couple of states, but usually it's 18 or older to get married.

I disagree with it, but I believe in keeping the right to allow a 14-year old to get married, because: what if she gets pregnant? I believe that a family structure should be avaliable to her for support.

Is it?

Right. Even my church practiced polygamy at one point. But it was for very specific reasoning, because there were *SO* many women in our church with so little men. We no longer have that problem today.

Mary, being married at 13 would have been normal for the time because they lived for a much shorter period of time.

So marriage should change from time to time depending on society, but BECAUSE of how society is today, it's more beneficial to society as an adult mother, father and kids.

500 years from now, that may or may not apply.

Simple: it's been proven to be beneficial for society. I have a book on it... maybe I'll type some of it up a little later for you (if you'd like).

Yes, actually I do mean people who support gay marriage in general. They talk about how it's "sexist" and "discriminatory".

I don't know about you, but as far as I know, gay people don't have different genders than you and me.

But then there's the arguement of "you're specifying the gender of the people involved in this 'contract'" (which is a crude form of reffering to marriage). If we'd signed the U.N.'s latest crap on "human rights", then they'd have a point. But so would Angelina Jolie when she didn't get the part of Frodo.

I think Utah banned it :lol:, because quite simply: there's maybe 3 gay people in the entire state :lol: (j/k).

But seriously, I think everywhere but Utah, and even Utah may. I'll look it up for you.

You see: gay marriage was banned in Oregon. Oregon=most liberal state in the U.S., well how did it pass then? It didn't discriminate against homosexuals, still kept civil unions, etc.

Yet conservative Texas didn't ban it... why? The amendment was written to discriminate against gays.

You get the idea.

I wouldn't count on it. ;)

Finally the truth is exposed: Possum is a Gerudo (or one of their descendants).


Anyway, what's this about Jolie and Frodo??

...she's a whore.

Anyway, in context... it was just an analogy. I chose Frodo because he's a well known character, and Jolie because she's a well known whore.

Ah, but I take it she didn't actually ask for that part. That seemed way too absurd.