Guess that answers where the Free World Radio bloggers have been...

It's always a shock to me when folks start treating one another with respect.

Especially when it pertains to religious and/or sexual distinctions.

It's always a shock to me when folks start treating one another with respect.

Especially when it pertains to religious and/or sexual distinctions.

With increased storms, earthquakes, famine and pestilance California takes another step in the wrong direction and such a wrong time. No time could be more important for doing whats right and good...but it has been a long time since the U.S. has understood that.

Guess that answers where the Free World Radio bloggers have been...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-06-17 07:09 PM

sorry Woobie they are allowing you to marry your dog yet but you can still french kiss it as far as I know..

aren't

Guess that answers where the Free World Radio bloggers have been...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-06-17 07:09 PM

Yes and thanks for the invite! You're wedding was FABULOUS!

sorry Woobie they are allowing you to marry your dog yet but you can still french kiss it as far as I know..

Posted by donnerboy

Did you learn that from one of your three "sons?"

Just out of curiosity, are they gonna be the brides?

aren't

Posted by donnerboy


Whew... solid save there donner... now the original post is funny.

Yes and thanks for the invite! You're wedding was FABULOUS!

Posted by briwo


Well did you expect anything less?

Not with that sweet chocolate coco dream boy you landed yourself.

Righties please note:

The world has not ended. Your marriage, such as it is, continues on whatever path it did before. Your children got through another day without being molested.

If that's not cheering you up, think of it this way: Osama Bin Laden can now legally marry Dubya in California, and isn't that the First Family of you folks' dreams?

Not with that sweet chocolate coco dream boy you landed yourself.

Posted by briwo


If you're gonna piss off your dad, you've got to go the whole 9 yards...

I tell you, the gays are going to cost this election and swing it over to the Republican side because many people who would not have come out to vote for McCain will come out to vote against gay marriage and while in the voting booth also put a check mark next to McCain's name.

The people of California voted "yes" that "marriage is between a man and a woman." Now our liberal court judges overturned the citizens of California's votes on the issue and have enabled those who do not want gay marriage to get another proposition on the 2008 ballot. That alone will bring out many people to vote on that issue alone and they will be conservative and could very well swing California's 55 electoral votes over to McCain.

I intend to vote against gay marriage on the ballot. I am okay with civil unions but not with gay marriage and I don't intend to debate that issue on here. However, I am politically saavy enough to know that voting for McCain is voting for four more years of the Bush policies so I will not vote for McCain. I cannot say the same thing about the millions more who will come out to vote just because of the gay marriage issue. That is THE point I'm trying to get across.

I am angry that the gays are always pushing this and now it may cost the Dems the election by giving McCain all of California's 55 electoral votes.

Another new thing which popped up with this gay marriage issue -- and has made many people in California angry -- is that because of this California will now no longer be putting the word "Father" on birth certificates or "Husband" on marriage certificates. Hearing that pissed me off. I can tell you it will anger a lot of other people in my state too. Now we have to change birth certificates and marriage certificates to accomodate gay marriages. What's next?

Sorry -- but shoving gay marriage down our throats after more than 60% in this state voted against it, plus all this other crap (deleting "Father" from birth certificates, and Husband" from marriage certicates) will bring millions more out to the polls in November to vote on the gay marriage issue than probably would have showed up to vote if this proposition was not on the ballot.

I hope the Dems are not going to lose this election because of it. WHY were the gays so stupid to push their marriage agenda now -- this important year of the presidential election -- and allowing this issue to possibly help swing this state's electoral votes for McCain? The Dems will not win the election if they lose California.

I'm just mad that the gays made their own personal gay marriage agenda more important than making sure we (all the people of this country) don't get stuck with four more years of Bush's policies. If the Dems lose California with this election -- as close as it is now running in the polls between Obama and McCain -- you're going to be looking at President McCain. God help us all.

And NO I have nothing against gay people just because I don't believe in gay marriage.
End of discussion.

God Damn I hate Bigotted Homophobes. God I am sorry for what I am about to do but CalifChris You being a Woman should appreciate when a Minority gets their due process and equal rights. It hasn't been too many Years that Women were second class citizens. True their pay ain't equal to that of the Man's yet but they are making strides. You say You don't like the Gay Marriage being shoved down Your throat. It's not. I abhor people like You who want to forbid people from having their equal rights. That is what You are doing when You vote against Gay Marriage. By rights it should NOT be on the ballot at all. It is not upto the people to decide if they want Gay Marriage recognized. It should be upto the Participants of these Gay and Lesbian Marriages. They are a pair of consenting adults. The rest is BULLSHIT.

Larry Mohr

Oh and BTW it used to be against the Law for Black Heterosexuals to get married. Then it was interracial Couples. Now it's the Gays and Lesbians turn at EQUALITY. How can an American declare they are for equal rights when they try and quash the rights of their fellow Man/Woman?? You can not do so with any Intellectual Honesty.

Larry Mohr

And all null and void in November--

God I am sorry for what I am about to do but CalifChris You being a Woman

Huh? CC is a chick?

califchris:

I am beginning to think that you suffer from EVS, and that's what makes you so opposed to gay anything.

EVS: Empty Vagina Syndrome.

EChemistry.com just had a commercial on TV with two fruits doing the "I vow..." lines that they've been using as an ad campaign...

Times certainly are changing... but I think that may get some angry clucks...

There is no way the DNC should lose in November... but that isn't stopping them from trying.

Yes Rob CalifChris is a Chick. Surprised and Perplexed Me too when I heard it.

Larry Mohr

PS Don't bet on it Murphy.

The point I was trying to make went right over your head, Larry -- by at least a mile.

Sorry -- but shoving gay marriage down our throats after more than 60% in this state voted against it,

Just how the hell is it being "shoved down your throat"? Are you being forced into a homosexual marriage against your will? I thought not.

Constitutional rights are not for the masses to vote on. Mob mentality being what it is, how many people in the state of South Carolina or Georgia would vote to maintain the status quo of African Americans being "property" in 1865?

Consitutional rights are granted by the creator, not popular vote.

No I know what point You are trying to make califChris. You are so God Damned worried that Gays getting equal rights is going to screw up the election which is so much bullshit poppycock.

Larry Mohr

One would be happy they can't have children, growing up confused and all. But the liberal courts will see to it they can fuck up the mentality of our children. Fuck the calif. court , they are still queer and an abomination to all the is good and wholesome. It's about time for God to sink that stinking shithole with a major quake.

Larry,

I don't intend to answer any more of your comments because the actual point I was trying to make -- the explanation about the detrimental political ramifications to the Democrats of this particular issue (gay marriage) being on the ballot in November of '08 -- went right over your head. Later.

Rob

My post at 12:21 a.m. on this thread explains it all.

Posted by CalifChris


Doesn't bother me in the slightest... for some reason I just always assumed you were a dude... but now that I'm thinking about it you've never brought up gender before...

Doesn't matter in the slightest...

I'm still in shock about the gay guy e-chemistry commericial I just saw... I'm sorry, but gay sex is gross.

Well if Democrats lose because of Gay Marriage just goes to show Me this Country ain't so mature after all CalifChris.

Larry Mohr

Well if Democrats lose because of Gay Marriage just goes to show Me this Country ain't so mature after all CalifChris.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr


Why do you think you lost in 2004?

This may give the GOP Ohio... thanks!

Calif Chris , I did'nt know you were female , I apologize if I offended you in any way. I do believe in your stance against illegals , no matter where they come from , and I don't believe in gay marriage , it is an abomination. If they want a gay union fine, but not matrimony, especially not Holy Matrimony, that is a poke in the eye of everything good.
The only reason they want a marriage is to belittle the ceremony for heterosexuals.

Diebold Rob. THAT is why.

Larry Mohr

Rightnut

Calif Chris , I did'nt know you were female , I apologize if I offended you in any way....

Go upthread to my 9:04 p.m .post. That post gives you the link to the post where I explained things. It will also let you read in my post where I wrote the very last thing I want on DR is to now be treated "too nice" and/or be ignored on here.

And, no, you have never offended me in the past and but please feel more than free to do so in the future. (grin)

Why do you think you lost in 2004?

This may give the GOP Ohio

Because Diebold promised Dubya Ohio?

Nah.....


but not matrimony, especially not Holy Matrimony, that is a poke in the eye of everything good.

Reverend Haggard got poked in the eye? Wow. Must have been with a cross-eyed Catholic Priest...

that is a poke in the eye of everything good.
The only reason they want a marriage is to belittle the ceremony for heterosexuals.

That's just a silly generalization. Of course there are some that feel that way, but to suggest that all gays want "to belittle the ceremony for heterosexuals", is stupid.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, them being human and all, many gays will marry for love and half will divorce for money?

HOw about the conflict of religious freedom and gay marriage?

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-06-17 09:43 PM

How does two gay people who get married interfere with your religious freedom, Goofy?

Gay marriage is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman.

This is all an attempt to normalize abnormal behavior.

Null--did you read the phucking links cupcake?

Likely not--so go back to the sand box.

When you read the links--come on back and I'll be glad to discuss the issue.

Are you one of these dipshit Christians who think they have a god-given right not to have gay people in their presence, Goofy?

"HOw about the conflict of religious freedom and gay marriage?"

What conflict? You are not required to condone same-sex marriage if your religious beliefs run contrary. Your church is not required to perform same-sex marriages if it chooses not to. If you want to carry a sign saying "God didn't create Adam & Steve" then you have the right to do so.

"Null--did you read the phucking links cupcake?"

I don't need to read your fucking links, dumbass. I've heard your idiotic rightist arguments far too many times. It gives me a headache to read that reactionary trash.

"This is all an attempt to normalize abnormal behavior."

That is your opinion, not a scientific or medical fact. Your religious beliefs should NOT be a factor in determining my rights as an American citizen.

The legal (civil) aspect of marriage is nothing more than a contract between 2 people who are competent and otherwise qualified to enter into a contract.

The religious ceremony is optional and no church is, or should be required to perform that sacrament if they do not wish to do so.

Ok let's say Coke represents the HeteroSexual Female Pepsi the Heterosexual Male and Dr Pepper represents the Gays and Lesbians. What harm does having Coke Pepsi and Dr Pepper on the same shelf?? Can't a person pick up a 6 pack of Coke just as easily as a 6 Pack of Pepsi?? I mean really all it is is a Union between two Dr Peppers. The Coke and Pepsi can get married no problems either. It's a bunch of shit to deny a person their equal rights simply over sexual orientation.

Larry Mohr

OMG--you two are some dumb rocks--

Nucklehead Null--strain your brain


San--they are already suing the churches and the caterers and photographers for not performing gay marriages based on the business religious beliefs.

That is your opinion, not a scientific or medical fact.

Well, if you look at it from those angles, isn't it abnormal? Being that its such a small percentage of the whole population, and the act in nature would lead to the animal not being able to procreate, wouldn't you have to label it abnormal? Not that its wrong, just that it isn't the normal behavior for animals.

Neal and Bob Freely were the first gay male couple married in California yesterday.

"San--they are already suing the churches and the caterers and photographers for not performing gay marriages based on the business religious beliefs."

So what? Everyone sues everyone else for stupid shit these days.

I don't agree that any church should be required to perform marriages for anyone they don't want to. Ultimately the legal system will say they don't have to. For example, the Catholic Church won't marry divorced people. I don't see the government stepping in to force them to, do you?

Businesses may be a different story. Think lunch counters and buses.

"go up and read the friggin links--"

Fuck that. I know what they say without even reading them. Been there, done that.

OK--so let's compare the free will of folks to ANIMALS!!!!! Who only go by whatever the instinct takes them!!!

Neal and Bob Freely were the first gay male couple married in California yesterday.

"Well, if you look at it from those angles, isn't it abnormal? Being that its such a small percentage of the whole population, and the act in nature would lead to the animal not being able to procreate, wouldn't you have to label it abnormal? Not that its wrong, just that it isn't the normal behavior for animals."

Well first of all, your comment is based on the premise that homosexuality is a "behavior" and there is no scientific evidence of that. So by your argument people who are left handed, or red-headed, or have 2 different colored eyes could be relegated to a different legal status than "normal" people.

Rob if You want to get down to Brass Tacks. ANYTHING other than the Missionary Position is considered diviant behavior. No Oral No Heterosexual Anal. NOTHING but the Missionary Position.

Larry Mohr

Rob if You want to get down to Brass Tacks. ANYTHING other than the Missionary Position is considered diviant behavior. No Oral No Heterosexual Anal. NOTHING but the Missionary Position.


Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr


Where did this come from? I never said gays wsere diviant... I just said its not normal... and it isn't.

ROB

Being an asshole and all, you must attract a lot of unwanted attention....

What the fuck do You think Deviant Behavior is?? It is behavior that isn't normal DUH.

Larry Mohr

And I thought my hetro marriage sucked so bad because my wife was a lying, stealing crackhead. Now I know it was all the gays fault.

So by your argument people who are left handed, or red-headed, or have 2 different colored eyes could be relegated to a different legal status than "normal" people.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Redheads and left handed people, though a minority are still really common, 2 different colored eyes would be abnormal.

"Would you take a look at least--??"

Ok. I gave each link about 10 seconds, which is 10 seconds more than they deserve. Bla bla bla. Nothing we haven't heard here hundreds of times.

Murphy - I have stated that I don't believe churches should be forced to perform same-sex marriages if they choose not to. I don't control who sues who over what.

Could you please direct us to the part about where a church was fined and lost their tax exempt status, because I couldn't find it.

OK Rob. Fine.

So it's OK with you that freedom of religion is persecuted because of gay marriage?

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-6% of the population is gay. 7-10% are left handed. Is that really where you want to draw the line for "normal", Rob. As long as you meet the 7% threshold you get to be "normal".

"So it's OK with you that freedom of religion is persecuted because of gay marriage?"

We need to end this tax-exempt status for religious institutions. I'm sick of subsidizing these assclowns.

I don't see an "ACLU site". Is there a reason you can't link it directly, instead of a whole laundry list of articles, or that you can't excerpt the part you are talking about?

And you said some church was fined $20,000 and lost their tax exempt status. Where? Who?

I don't care if the ACLU is "bragging" about lawsuits. Let the legal system run its course. I have told you I don't support forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages.

"Would you take a look at least--??"

Ok. I gave each link about 10 seconds, which is 10 seconds more than they deserve. Bla bla bla. Nothing we haven't heard here hundreds of times.

Wish I'd read that before I looked at those links. Nada. Not anything that says this happened (past tense) only fear mongering bullshit. What a waste.

So it's OK with you that freedom of religion is persecuted because of gay marriage?

How the hell have you been persecuted?

BTW, that aclu link - you'll need to copy and paste something, anything even remotely relevant to your claim - because I sure can't find it.

Posted by MURPHY

Hahaha. You're a hoot, Goofy.

Null--you are a nucklehead

Goofy, don't look now, but there's a lesbian under your bed! Boo!

Murphy - you show yourself to be a rather mean and petty person. Is there a particular reason you feel compelled to call me names when I am attempting reasonable discussion, or is it justified simply because I hold a different opinion than you do?

I am neither a Marxist, nor a knucklehead, thank you, but your Christian charity is very refreshing.

By the way, you still haven't shown us any link to this church that was fined $20,000 and lost their tax exempt status. Put up or shut up babe.

And the link to the ACLU appeared to be cases involving public institutions, not churches.

"You cannot lead the blind to see.

Posted by MURPHY "

See, that's the problem, people like you who think they have a copyright on "truth."

if you can't think for yourself and find that the future is going to consist of churches being sued over freedom of religion and not performing gay marriage--it is all there.
Posted by MURPHY

So there is no proof to the claim you made, only your own opinion about what might happen.

"You cannot lead the blind to see."

As you so aptly illustrate.

I'm afraid you're making yourself out to be a bit dishonest Murphy.

So far I have seen you claim several times that churches and religious institutions are being sued and "persecuted", and that one church has already been fined $20,000 and lost their tax exempt status.

But the articles are about suits against public institutions. Yes, there is some discussion about what might lie ahead for religious institutions.

And it wasn't a church that lost its tax exemption, but a church-affiliated organization that operated a public facility. And they weren't fined anything.

"That is where MM said that a church lost the tax expempt status--"

It was not a church. From your own NPR link...

"The pavilion in question is an open-air building with long benches looking out to the Atlantic Ocean. It is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association."

The church did not lose its tax exempt status, the Association did.

Murphy, you're not looking too good here on the honesty front.

Murph, I still don't see where someone was fined or lost their tax-exempt status. Just post an excerpt, not a link to a page with a hundred different articles.
And if churches don't want to be at the whim of the Government, then they should stop accepting favors from it.

TFD - see my post above. Nobody was fined at all. An association, not a church, affiliated with the Methodist Church did lose their exemption over a public facility they owned.

Murphy needs a bit of help with that whole pesky linking thing.

The constitution was meant for the majority to vote on the laws not just a couple of people in the supreme court.
Having a supreme court goes against the constitution, Californians haven't even had the chance to vote.

"With increased storms, earthquakes, famine and pestilance California takes another step in the wrong direction and such a wrong time."

Never seems to occur to you righties that those things could just as easily be God's judgment on a nation arrogant and stupid enough to elect Dubya twice.

"Having a supreme court goes against the constitution"

Huh?

U.S. -

"Article III, 1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial
Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior
Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Supreme Court
of the United States was created in accordance with this provision and by authority of the
Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73). It was organized on February 2, 1790."

CA -

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 6 JUDICIAL

SEC. 1. The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme
Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts
of record.

SEC. 2. The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of
California and 6 associate justices. The Chief Justice may convene
the court at any time. Concurrence of 4 judges present at the
argument is necessary for a judgment.

All this pestilence stuff is deflection--God is NOT causing thing to happen--

So the association who lost the tax exempt status is just nothing --right?

Nothing at all?

They ran a public facility that was open for use by everyone else. They discriminated under the law. They are NOT a church.

So you need to either stop making stuff up, or read your own links more carefully for comprehension.

I go to the first premise--

It will all be overturned in November with the voters.

Perhaps, but it is a matter of time before all such discriminatory laws and amendments will be struck down permanently by the federal government, just as the others were in the 50's and 60's.

Maybe not in 1 or 2 years, but within 5-7, max.

The constitution is supposed to protect us from the mob rule.

Righties on the DR only agree with that when the protection they want fits their fanatical ideology. Otherwise judges(even republican ones like the majority of the SCOTUS) are "activists".

Churches who talk politics from the pulpit instead of religion should lose their tax exempt status. They are stealing money from taxpayers, and should be imprisoned for fraud.

M.T. Whore

am beginning to think that you suffer from EVS, and that's what makes you so opposed to gay anything.

Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2008-06-17 08:53 PM

I just don't believe in gay marriage -- neither does 65% of California voters. I'm not going to apologize for it. I will vote against gay marriage again when it's on the ballot in November. I did say I had no problem with gay people having civil unions. I also said I had no problem with a responsible gay couple adopting a child who would otherwise be in a foster home.

You obviously didn't even read my post above about my concerns re the political ramifications of putting a hot button issue like gay marrage on the ballot here in California with 55 electral votes at stake in November's election, did you? Nope, 'cause you're an idiot. So, Ms. Mary, sorry you got your boxer/panties in a bunch but if you can't see the potential problem for the Democrats with having a gay marriage issue on the ballot here in CA -- an issue that will bring out a tremdous amount of religious and conservative voters who could swing the election to McCain -- then you're even dumber than the stupid post you wrote.

Talk radio out here in CA is talking about this gay marriage issue every day. Most Californians outside of the San Francisco lefties are fairly conservative. Why did you and your "boyfriend" insist on putting it on the ballot this November? Couldn't you have waited until after the election was over to have the issue brought up? Now because Steve and Bill want to walk down the aisle together I and the rest of America may be looking at McCain serving Bush's third term because he'll have won CA's electoral votes. Thanks for nothing. Think of your country's best interests first for a change rather than your own private agenda and stop putting words in my mouth.

neither does = neither do

I fully expect that Pat Robertson will blame the next earthquake or wildfire in CA on the fact that they now allow gay marriage. Forgetting that fact that these were fairly common occurances before this happened.

What is Pat Robertson blaming the Midwest floods on?

Why do I think that he won't be speaking ill of that disaster.....Doesn't want to upset his constituency?

May 2008 Field Poll:

By 51-42 percent, registered voters said they believed same-sex marriage should be legal in California.

i was alone for many, many years. i wasn't single, just shitty relationships. now that i have been in a good relationship for awhile, i look back on how being alone not only sucked, but caused self destructive behavor. the right person in my life changed it dramatically. i could not imagine what it would be like if society was against our relationship. FUCK OFF to all you homophobic majority. i also think it's funny that most republicans are against "the gays", but there (almost) all closet gays (or sex fiends) them selves. fucking hypocrites.

Ah, how the those who claim to value "the people," instead embrace the tyranny of the judiciary, when it suits their purpose. When the tumult and the shouting die, it reverts to "I want my way," and I am indifferent to how I get it.

So we revert to the "Star Chamber," and proceedings compatible with tyranny as the preferred modus vivendi.

Ah well. More sham and pretense from the left. Hark. The emperor wears no clothes. I hear what you say. but I see what you do.

"The 'gays' want to pretend that their psychological deviation..."

You know, if that were true, one would think that psychologists and psychiatrists would classify it as such.

"Ah, how the those who claim to value "the people," instead embrace the tyranny of the judiciary..."

Tyranny like Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Powell v. Alabama, Hernandez v. Texas?

I celebrate the California weddings of gay folks today and it makes it even more joyous to know how unhappy it makes the forces of ignorance. Yes you can try to pass a constitutional amendment but you can't make your arguments intelligent or really anything except expressions of hatred. Today I laugh in your face and will drink champagne tonight in celebration of the fact that the days are numbered for darkness that the bigots bring to America.

Hmmm, If being gay is genetic (brains are different, etc) and gay people marry each other. Doesn't this sooner or later eliminate the "gay" gene from the gene pool?

When people were "forced" to live straight lives, they had kids, etc. Now if they adopt or whatever, what happens?

I always wondered bout this when people say that you see gayness in nature. How does that perpetuate it self? Wouldn't it soon be eliminated from the gene pool?

The ACLU takes stances involving the blatant constitutional abuses for which the Bush regime has become famous, but another wonderful organization, Americans United For Separation of Church and State, deals specifically with religious issues.

Neither AU or ACLU would dream of trying to "force" any church to perform any marriages contrary to its own peculiar moral code.

An aside on CChris's patent bigotry: It does not matter whether YOU approve or not. Some basic rights, like non-motherhood, are not subject to YOUR veto. If you disapprove of same gender marriages, don't have one. Your veto power stops there. herm

You're only fooling yourselves. Prancing fools.

Posted by Johnson at 2008-06-18 08:40 AM

So sayeth the Wordy Fool.

Please, Please, Please, do NOT come to California. We wouldn't want to put your homophobic marriage in any danger.

About Johnson's "tyranny of the judiciary": I presume he (?) speaks of the marriage-rights-for-all decision in California and not the suspension of essential human rights at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Luckily not even Bush's Fascist Four could stop prison torture. Wonder how THEY would rule on marriage as a human right. herm

The emperor wears no clothes. I hear what you say. but I see what you do.

Posted by Johnson at 2008-06-18 08:46 AM

KINKY!

Larry, you are the one that is off. You say that gay marriage is only a matter of equal rights, and then you compared it to interracial or womans rights? It comes down to what a marriage is, a man and a woman, that is what a marriage is. You don't grant a woman to play on the mans basketball team because that is not what the team is. You let her set up her own league with equal privileges in the law and she does. You just don't know what marriage is or what it is supposed to be.

WELCOME TO GAY COUNTRY:CALIFORNIA...NOT

WELCOME TO GAY COUNTRY:CALIFORNIA...NOT

I always wondered bout this when people say that you see gayness in nature. How does that perpetuate it self? Wouldn't it soon be eliminated from the gene pool?

Posted by sawdust

When thinking about these kinds of issues, it's important to remember that genetically, you are as similar to a sibling, as you are to your own child. Even if one doesn't have offspring, his/her genes are still passed down through one's relatives. In many species (specifically, I believe birds are most common), given certain selective pressures, it can often be more beneficial for siblings to not reproduce themselves, but to invest their resources towards helping a sibling, or his or her parents propagate.

Many anthropologists believe this basic concept lead to menopause among human females. While most female mammals (I'm pretty sure all other primates too) can procreate up until death, women can be infertile for many years of their lives. When viewed from a strictly evolutionary perspective, that all animals should reproduce as much as possible, menopause doesn't make much sense. But according to "Grandmother Theory", it is more beneficial for older women to invest resources towards helping their children procreate and to increase survivability amongst their grandchildren, than to attempt pregnancy during middle age.

I read an article a number of years ago that argued that human homosexuality was basically nature's way of creating individuals who are less likely to procreate, but not in a way to decrease a genetic line's overall fitness. Essentially, if 1 in 10 individuals are gay (and subsequently, less likely to reproduce), they would be more inclined to dedicate resources towards helping their siblings. By not reproducing themselves, their additional resources could be used to help a sibling (or parents) produce more offspring.

On a purely anecdotal level, I know many people who had "confirmed bachelor(ette)" aunts & uncles, that were very active in their nieces and nephews lives. It's impossible to say how many were gay vs. simply choosing to not get married/have children, but w/out the expense of children, they were generally well off financially, and contributed greatly to their sibling's families. On a personal level, my spouse's great aunt (who never married and never had a boyfriend) helped him get through college, as well as subsidized his parents when his dad lost his job.

-lifted from TomPaine.com-

What the right resents is what the framers of the Constitution intended--a judiciary able to serve as a counterweight to popular passions. Conservatives oppose the appointment of any judge who might confound the expectations of the presidents who appointed them. John Jones, who was active in Pennsylvania Republican politics before his appointment by Bush in 2002, is such a judge.

After Jones issued his carefully reasoned, scientifically literate decision on intelligent design, Phyllis Schafly--who preceded Ann Coulter as the doyenne of right-wing harpies--informed the judge that he owed his job to the evangelical Christians who voted for Bush and that he had "stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance."

Judge Jones answered the attack in a speech to the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League. "Polls show that many Americans believe that it is acceptable to teach creationism in public schools ... ," he observed, "But I submit to you that as citizens, we do not want and cannot possibly have a judiciary which operates according to the polls, or one which rules based on who appointed us or according to the popular will of the country at any given moment in time."

Thank You California. I love wedge issues and this is certainly one.

Gay people are looking to spread their disease to a town near you. You need to ask yourself why are so many chefs and waiters gay. They are looking to infect you. The federal gov't needs to wake up . We need a Rock Hudson law. We need a national Gay Offenders List

TIMBCI = mindless troll. And he isn't a very good one at that.

Ok let's say Coke represents the HeteroSexual Female Pepsi the Heterosexual Male and Dr Pepper represents the Gays and Lesbians. What harm does having Coke Pepsi and Dr Pepper on the same shelf?? Can't a person pick up a 6 pack of Coke just as easily as a 6 Pack of Pepsi?? I mean really all it is is a Union between two Dr Peppers. The Coke and Pepsi can get married no problems either. It's a bunch of shit to deny a person their equal rights simply over sexual orientation.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr
* * * * *

Now how can anyone argue with that?

Dr. Pepper is the original soft drink. It is the oldest soft drink in America started in Waco, Texas in 1885. Coca-Cola is a perversion of Dr. Pepper. Its original formula was filled with cocaine and killed people.

Heterosexual marriage is Dr. Pepper. Gay marriage, is the deviant union that belongs in the crawl space.

TIMBCI = FAILS ONCE AGAIN.


Dude, you're NOT funny. Not even close. Give it up.

We need a national Gay Offenders List

Posted by timbci at 2008-06-18 03:54 PM

timbci...

The Mighty Gay Offender!

He has a list!

n aside on CChris's patent bigotry: It does not matter whether YOU approve or not.

- Herm

As usual, the points made in my posts went right over your head.
It was not to debate the issue of whether gay marriage was right or wrong, but rather to point out how very stupid the timimg was for gay rights groups to have even allowed this issue to now get on the November '08 ballot in a very close race for President with 55 electoral votes at stake in CA. They should have waited until this election season was over before bringing their issue into to the courts.

But, since that would take someone with at least some intelligence to be able to put aside their personal bigotry and follow the premise, Herm as usual resorts to his bottomdweller tactics of namecalling without even touching the real issue of the political ramifications at stake. Yawn. Come back if you can manage to raise your IQ by about 10 points try re-reading them again. Maybe they will finally sink in.

For those who state that this is the wrong time to protect the rights of Gays and Lesbians to be allowed into a Marriage covenant I say it couldn't be a more right time. We are about to do(You better be correct RIR or else I will be highly pissed) a Black man to the Presidency. We are about to embark upon a great change I believe. What better time to quash at least some symbolance of our collective bigotry and homophobia than at this juncture of Our lives. If We profess to be Great Americans and that We are about being a becon of hope of Freedom what better way to show it?? It would show that even We Americans can change for the better. I think the time is NOW. Not yesterday and not tomorrow.

Larry Mohr

I N V I T A T I O N

Won't you join us this day as we witness the joining in marriage of Benny and Devon?

Meet us at the First Church of Sodom and joing us on our special day as we join sphincters in holy matrimony.

Come down and share in our festivities as these two curtain designers unite in the holy estate of the sodomite lifestyle.

Bring your leather strap ons to support us, and join in the festivities afterward at Benny's Astro Glide Sauna and Tanning Spa. We will play all kinds of kinky games like "Pin the Sphincter on the Butt Pirate" and "Swallow the Cucumber."

RSVP please.

p.s. Free cherry condoms will be supplied at Benny's Spa!

Chris, the Tims and Thoms will always be with us, like piles of doggy-doo on city streets.

Attempts at sarcasm don't become you, not with the Tims and Thoms, snipers and bogus paratroopers setting a pace, but you err badly in suggesting that essential human rights wait for a more politically expedient time. The time will NEVER be perfect, but marriage rights as well as Barack Obama will be upheld in California and around the nation this fall. herm

let the natural disasters resume. as in the days of noah.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-06-18 09:04 AM

"The 'gays' want to pretend that their psychological deviation..."

You know, if that were true, one would think that psychologists and psychiatrists would classify it as such.

Tyranny like Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Powell v. Alabama, Hernandez v. Texas?

(cont.)

Geez, it seems to really both people like Johnson and DoubtingThomas that California now allows mature consenting adults to legally get married. Makes me wonder just how sexually repressed they must really be.

Queer marriage, how discusthing is that.??

Queer marriage, how discusthing is that.??

Who's cruel idea was it to put an "s" in "lisp?"

"Constitutional rights are not for the masses to vote on."

Posted by 726

Marriage is not a Constitutional right.

"One would be happy they can't have children, growing up confused and all. But the liberal courts will see to it they can fuck up the mentality of our children."

Posted by rightnut

There is no proven correlation or evidence that indicates children raised by gay parents subsequently become gay themselves, or have any other sexual identity problems. In fact, the majority of gays are raised by heterosexual parents. How does that jive with your rather skewed and unfounded views?

"I'm sorry, but gay sex is gross."

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Would you say the same about a couple of hawt babes tongue wrestling each other?

Who's cruel idea was it to put an "s" in "lisp?"

Posted by YAV

That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while... the "s" conveys the definition of the word perfectly... so funny. beyond ff'able.

"I don't believe in gay marriage , it is an abomination. If they want a gay union fine, but not matrimony, especially not Holy Matrimony, that is a poke in the eye of everything good.
The only reason they want a marriage is to belittle the ceremony for heterosexuals."

Posted by rightnut

What you do in your church is up to you. You can believe in whatever god or religion you want. If that religion rejects gays, so be it (though that would not be very Christian).

Gays are not fighting to be married in churches, a minor nuance you seemed to have missed. If a church opts to accept gays, so be it.

Gays are fighting for the same legal contract/license with the state that hets have. It is all very simple.

"Judicial activists overturned democratic control of the country in which we reside."

It's always cute when Johnsons purport to define democracy. Important as it is for people to vote on what affects them, democracy protects minorities from against voters who are not affected. Again ...

Voters have NO say over whom I wed, if I carry a pregnancy to term, excise a malignancy or pull the plug on a painful existence. Johnson's Fascist SCOTUS heroes don't understand that, but the California justices who proclaimed human rights for everyone did. herm

"I'm sorry, but gay sex is gross."

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

There's alot of gross hetero sex out there rob... and if you do the math, probably much more gross hetero sex than gross gay sex, even if i accept your definition that all gay sex is gross.

"Marriage is not a Constitutional right."

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Read Loving v. Virginia.

14th Amendment extract:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This does not make marriage in and of itself a Constitutional right. Loving v. Virginia was more about civil rights, racial discrimination, and equal protection under the laws of this land than specifically marriage.

But by the same reasoning that inter-racial marriages were ultimately allowed based on the Loving v. Virginia case, disallowing the legal recognition and sanction of civil unions (a.k.a. marriage, perhaps erroneously) between consenting homosexual adults, based on the criteria presented in Section 1 above, is patently unconstitutional. Gays as American citizens are worthy of the same equal protection of the laws, equal treatment under the laws, or specifically, equal access to the laws.

I wonder if Patrick Henry or John Jay would have stuck their necks out for the right for Petey to stick his Peter in John Hancock's ass. Chances are they tarred and feathered them

I wonder if Patrick Henry or John Jay would have stuck their necks out for the right for Petey to stick his Peter in John Hancock's ass. Chances are they tarred and feathered them

Posted by timbci at 2008-06-19 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag:


They also owned slaves. What's your point?

John Jay is the father of the US Supreme Court would have burned gay men at the stake. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton because he pinched his ass in church

Larry Mohr, I am for equality, but will not allow my country to be subverted by those who choose perverted lifestyles. Yes it is a choice and has been proven through science with tests run on identical twins with identical DNA and proved that there was no medical/scientific difference between them that it had to be a choice. With that theory blown out of the water it is nothing more than self serving perversion in line with pedophilia and beastiality. To try and give them rights and make them special with things like hate crimes bills, etc., you are part of the problem with this country. They have the right to marry - someone of the opposite sex. All the other rights they have already been given, such as wills, medical legal paperwork, etc. So don't lie and try to make this something it isn't.

"I'm sorry, but gay sex is gross."

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


Then stop having gay sex. Easy solution.

YOu know if we did the same thing to butt pirates that Iran does we wouldn't even have an issue

Posted by herm at 2008-06-19 09:41 AM

"Judicial activists overturned democratic control of the country in which we reside."

It's always cute when Johnsons purport to define democracy. Important as it is for people to vote on what affects them, democracy protects minorities from against voters who are not affected. Again ...

Voters have NO say over whom I wed, if I carry a pregnancy to term, excise a malignancy or pull the plug on a painful existence. Johnson's Fascist SCOTUS heroes don't understand that, but the California justices who proclaimed human rights for everyone did. herm

Johnson - your understanding of the limits of democratic rule when it is in tension with individual rights guaranteed under state or federal constitutional law is flawed. But that's okay.

Posted by moder8 at 2008-06-19 12:58 AM

Geez, it seems to really both people like Johnson and DoubtingThomas that California now allows mature consenting adults to legally get married. Makes me wonder just how sexually repressed they must really be.

"Deviant" Behavior...

What an idiot.

BTW: IT'S DAY THREE of my LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE.

How is your Heterosexual Marriages doing today? Fallen apart yet? You feeling Morally degraded?

No? Hmmm....and guess what? California has NOT falle into the pacific from a god-generated earthquake.

See ya all on DAY FOUR!

"...In California, the "voters" are going to have a say. Just what the outcome will be is of course unknown...."

Polls are showing 51% to 42% in favor of gay marrige. So now what are you going to say Johnson?

"...but the California voters, who previously voted to enact a law to prohibit the inanity of homosexual "marriage," -- overthrown by the California Supreme Court..."

...Who found prop 22 to be a totally illegal and unconstitutional law, and therefore not binding. It was thrown out on it's ass by a Republican Stacked Supreme Court - Strict Constitutionalists at that. Got a problem with that Johnson?

"...will again vote on a Constitutional Amendment, which the California Court will not have the power to wrongfully set aside as it did the law..."

Wrong. The ammendment is Failing. The marriages will stand. And even if by some slim chance that it should pass, it will be set aside as illegal once again. You may have your happy day if it passes and think yourmarriage is safe again, but it will work it's way back up to the same judges who will declare the ammendment unconstitutional again.

How the hell do you think Prohibition was Repealed in the 1930s, Johnson? By a vote of the people?

No. Get it? Your people Lose Twice.

But hey, I do enjoy watching you squirm like a little baby because your ability to legally discriminate about a class of people is quickly being eroded.

And according to my Gay Agenda Handbook, We have prison camps ready for Gay Haters like you!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

PS: The AMA also says people who believe in invisible fantasy, like sky gods, are suffering from disassociative disorder and mass delusion. But I don't see you shutting your yap about your fake 'God'

Hey Johnson: Do you listen to Michael Savage on the radio? You know, that loud-mouthed republican hate-monger who just called us Legally Married Gay People Child-Miind-Rapers!

Guees what? He's a Pedophile who likes to jerk off little brown children in the south pacific. He admits it in his Biography.

He says he used to skinny dip with that 'Faggot' Poet Allen "Howl" Ginsburg. His letters included descriptions of doing the hand-jive with the little brown boys in Fiji where he was doing botany research. In his book "Vital Signs" Michael writes, "I choose to override my desires for men when they swell in me", Weiner wrote, "waiting out the passions like a storm, below decks."So, apparently, he has first-hand knowledge about these things.


Geez, you republicans keep good company!