Let's hbope they strike the bigotry and homophobic Prop 8 Down. This is 2009 NOT 1779.

Larry

It is very likely they will uphold it, Larry. Not because it isn't bigoted and homophobic, but because under the CA Constitution the way it was conducted was legal.

I know its hard to imagine that a simple majority vote in America is allowed to decide who gets legal rights, and who doesn't. But in CA it does.

I hope (and think) they will affirm the marriages that have already taken place.

They just ruled--

Uphold the voters on Prop 8

The marriages will stand.

That's right Larry, democracy be damned screw the people, they don't know what they want. It's not like we can let society decide what is acceptable in their own capacity. We need a governing body that is willing to completely disregard the will of the people. Right?

If any one disagrees with your minority morality they must be a bigot. After all you are infallible and your reasoning is perfect, to disagree is to spit in the face of all that is right.

Congratulations Biggots and Homophobes. Congratulations on shitting upon Your fellow Countrymen/Women.

Larry

That's right Larry, democracy be damned screw the people, they don't know what they want. It's not like we can let society decide what is acceptable in their own capacity. We need a governing body that is willing to completely disregard the will of the people. Right?

If any one disagrees with your minority morality they must be a bigot. After all you are infallible and your reasoning is perfect, to disagree is to spit in the face of all that is right.

#4 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-05-26 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

There is no justification for this and You know it. It's purely out of bigotry and or homophobia. PERIOD.

Larry

The court screwed this up--they should have issued the injuction after they ruled the Prop 22 was unconstitutional.

And they will likely get another amendment on the 2010 ballot.

"Uphold the voters on Prop 8"

Hey the people won one. Congrats California.

That's right Larry, democracy be damned screw the people, they don't know what they want. It's not like we can let society decide what is acceptable in their own capacity. We need a governing body that is willing to completely disregard the will of the people. Right?

#4 | Posted by salamandagator

How do you think Brown v. Board of Education (and several of its precursor cases), and Loving v. Virginia would have come out if put to a simple majority vote?

Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have passed a simple majority vote in the states?

The SCOTUS will have to straighten this out someday and I hope it's soon.

Larry

The people of CA can change their constitution.

Congrats California.

#9 | Posted by salamandagator

Enjoy it while you can. It won't last long.

"democracy be damned screw the people, they don't know what they want."

If the tables were turned, would you want other people to vote on which rights you get?

Hey the people won one. Congrats California.

Posted by salamandagator at 2009-05-26 01:08 PM | Reply

You mean the Bigotted Homophobiuc pricks don't You?? The Gays and Lesbians People lost. Oh and since they lost in actuality the People lost.

Larry

"There is no justification for this and You know it. It's purely out of bigotry and or homophobia."

Ahh, no bigotry in that statement at all. It always amazes me when i hear some bleat like this. Larry do you truly believe that no one has any real objection to homosexuality? Is it all contrived nonsense? I truly feel sorry for and your inability to reason or even think about opposing opinion, it must be a truly sad existence trapped with a mind that closed.

"and since they lost in actuality the People lost."

Larry, haven't you been paying attention? Gays and Lesbians aren't people.

Ahh, no bigotry in that statement at all. It always amazes me when i hear some bleat like this. Larry do you truly believe that no one has any real objection to homosexuality? Is it all contrived nonsense? I truly feel sorry for and your inability to reason or even think about opposing opinion, it must be a truly sad existence trapped with a mind that closed.

Posted by salamandagator at 2009-05-26 01:12 PM | Reply

Ok You tell Me what rational reason is there to ban same sex marriage?? You can't find one.

Larry

Larry, haven't you been paying attention? Gays and Lesbians aren't people.

Posted by Danforth at 2009-05-26 01:12 PM | Reply

True Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[/SARCASM]

What is your answer to my #10, Sal?

"f the tables were turned, would you want other people to vote on which rights you get?"

That is what a society in democracy is.

That is what a society in democracy is.

#21 | Posted by salamandagator

But, as you know, the United States is NOT a pure Democracy. We have this little constitutional concept about rights for the minority, and protection from the tyranny of the majority.

#10 Sal?

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS GAY MARRIAGE BAN

Sal?

So it's a muddle. How unusual.

Thank God - the will of the people - right or wrong, left or right, has been upheld.

With all the BS coming out of DC, this is a spot of good news. Our Constitution still has a heartbeat. And in California, no less.

"""That's right Larry, democracy be damned screw the people, they don't know what they want. It's not like we can let society decide what is acceptable in their own capacity. We need a governing body that is willing to completely disregard the will of the people. Right?"""

The will of the people is golden, but protecting the rights of minorities should at times trump this. If people had voted on the whole de-segregation issue, blacks would have lost. You know, democracy vs. republic and all that jazz. In any case, I find it sad that people that are actually against a certain type of lifestyle that causes them no harm find solace through the negation of their rights.

"That is what a society in democracy is."

Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia would disagree.

So again...would you want others to be able to vote regarding whether or not you get, say, survivors social security? Whether both you and your wife could be legal parents to your children?

Would you seriously "do unto others" what you wouldn't want done unto you?

So again...would you want others to be able to vote regarding whether or not you get, say, survivors social security? Whether both you and your wife could be legal parents to your children?

Would you seriously "do unto others" what you wouldn't want done unto you?

#29 | Posted by Danforth

Sal doesn't seem to want to answer those questions. I've asked him several times to answer my # 10.

Just in case you forgot the question...

How do you think Brown v. Board of Education (and several of its precursor cases), and Loving v. Virginia would have come out if put to a simple majority vote?

Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have passed a simple majority vote in the states?

#10 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-26 01:09 PM

"Would you seriously "do unto others" what you wouldn't want done unto you?"

Certainly not. But give them civil unions with EQUAL rights under the law.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS instituion. Reserve marriage for heteros. If homosexuals wish to be recogized in marriage, cool. Go find a religion that supports that and seek its blessing.

All those despicable, narrow-minded, bigoted, homophobic California voters who. No wonder Obama lost California.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS instituion.

Zsa Zsa Gabor, Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney all agree with you.

Certainly not. But give them civil unions with EQUAL rights under the law.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS instituion. Reserve marriage for heteros. If homosexuals wish to be recogized in marriage, cool. Go find a religion that supports that and seek its blessing.

Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me at 2009-05-26 01:32 PM | Reply

You're full oif shit. Marriage is a Fundamental Civil Right. Since nonreligious heterosexuals get married all the time that blows that fucking lame excuse all out of the water. Oh and Separate but Equal isn't equal at all.

larry

Sorry guys but i am working and away from my computer. I will try to answer your question but it will take me a bit.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS instituion. Reserve marriage for heteros. If homosexuals wish to be recogized in marriage, cool. Go find a religion that supports that and seek its blessing.

#32 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me

You're really not that smart, are you?

Otherwise, you might recognize just how ridiculously uninformed that post was.

"Zsa Zsa Gabor, Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney"

Kinky!

"Dahlink, it's my turn to fuck the dwarf."

Zsa Zsa Gabor, Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney all agree with you.

LOL. But seriously. In the eyes of the Lord Jesus Christ, only men and women are sanctioned for marriage.

Everyone else - cool. But it must be a societal institution, not a religious one. Unless of course they can find a religion that condones gay marriage.

LOL. But seriously. In the eyes of the Lord Jesus Christ, only men and women are sanctioned for marriage.

Everyone else - cool. But it must be a societal institution, not a religious one. Unless of course they can find a religion that condones gay marriage.

Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me at 2009-05-26 01:37 PM | Reply

Why are You injecting Your religious bigotry in a SECULAR SOCIETY??

Marriage is a Fundamental Civil Right.

WRONG LaRRy.

SECULAR SOCIETY??

LOL. Yeah right.

LArrY -

Why do you want gays to be sanctioned by my religion. Are you Christian?

Marriage is a Fundamental Civil Right.

WRONG LaRRy.

Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me at 2009-05-26 01:38 PM | Reply

Loving says differently.

It is decided.

Proposition 8 is upheld.
Gay marriage already done are legal.

Why do you want gays to be sanctioned by my religion. Are you Christian?

Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me at 2009-05-26 01:39 PM | Reply

NOBODY is wanting to force Your church into acknowledging Gay marriages.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS instituion. Reserve marriage for heteros.

Hold the phone people......what I just read was that a legal marriage was just "granted" to 18,000 same sex couples.

right? wrong???

Loving says differently.

The great intellect of our time has spoken.

You boob.

"""Marriage is a RELIGIOUS instituion. "".

Wrong. Civil weddings are performed every day. That right should be unalienable, period. Let each denomination decide how they want to deal with the issue, but this basic right to equality is just that: a basic right, which, unfortunately, has been negated today. I thought folks in Cali were a little more open minded than this. It's shameful and stinks of some freaky ME country's view on homosexuality: same phobia, different method of repression.

#10

I would think that a national vote would have in fact passed those kind of laws. I think the Voting record of congress confirms that. On a state to state basis they story might be different. But on the whole it would have passed and more importantly it was done by a vote not a court.

SECULAR SOCIETY??

LOL. Yeah right.

Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me at 2009-05-26 01:38 PM | Reply

TREATY WITH TRIPOLI

"But seriously. In the eyes of the Lord Jesus Christ, only men and women are sanctioned for marriage."

Seriously...where, exactly, did Jesus say that?

As an aside, I'm sure Jesus is thrilled you've turned his whole "do unto others" bromide upside down.

"Unless of course they can find a religion that condones gay marriage."

There are already several.

"In the eyes of the Lord Jesus Christ, only men and women are sanctioned for marriage."

Where did He say that?

But that is beside the point anyway, and has nothing to do with my civil rights and legal protections in this country.

Separate but equal doesn't cut it in the United States of America. So unless you are willing to make civil unions the law of the land for ALL couples who want that legal status, and make "marriage" the optional religious component, then the answer is NO.

Right, Eberly.

I believe my side is content to cut its losses at 18k and move on with the decision.

Proposition 8 is upheld.
Gay marriage already done are legal.

#45 | Posted by kirk at 2009-05-26 01:40 PM | Reply |

Isn't that a complete f'n contradiction?

"I would think that a national vote would have in fact passed those kind of laws."

Clueless.

"Civil weddings are performed every day" - under the auspices of religion you twit.

"my side is content to cut its losses at 18k"

And what, exactly, did your side lose?

I would think that a national vote would have in fact passed those kind of laws. I think the Voting record of congress confirms that. On a state to state basis they story might be different. But on the whole it would have passed and more importantly it was done by a vote not a court.

#50 | Posted by salamandagator

Brown and Loving were done by the courts. And I really don't believe that YOU believe those decisions would have passed a simple majority vote. Were you around in the 50's and early 60's?

Let's hope they strike the bigotry and homophobic Prop 8 Down. This is 2009 NOT 1779.Larry#1 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-05-26 12:53 PM | Reply

Sorry, Larry.

Could you define "homophobic" and/or "homophobia" for me?

I believe my side is content to cut its losses at 18k and move on with the decision.

#54 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me at 2009-05-26 01:42 PM |

What is it exactly that you "loss"? You lost the opportunity to limit the rights of 18 000? Nice.

"There are already several."

Then why must MINE elect to support gay marriage if we do not want to?

"ou lost the opportunity to limit the rights of 18 000? Nice."

That's correct.

Why do you want gays to be sanctioned by my religion. Are you Christian?

#43 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me

I think you mean your DENOMINATION, not your "religion". And nobody wants to force you or your church to perform same-sex marriages if you don't want to.

"Civil weddings are performed every day" - under the auspices of religion you twit.

#57 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me at 2009-05-26 01:43 PM |

Then let them get a civil union, what's it to you?

#57 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me at 2009-05-26 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks his imaginary friend signs marriage licenses.

Could you define "homophobic" and/or "homophobia" for me?

Posted by kirk at 2009-05-26 01:44 PM | Reply

Fear of Homosexuals Those that voted for Prop 8 Fear Homosexuals excersizing the Rights Straights take for granted. It's as plain as day.

Larry

"I think you mean your DENOMINATION, not your "religion". "

Uh huh.

"And nobody wants to force you or your church to perform same-sex marriages if you don't want to." - BS. You want to force the govt to sanction gay marriage IN THE NAME OF my religion.

"Then let them get a civil union, what's it to you?"

EXACTLY. Jeesh you people are slow.

How long do you think it's going to continue like this? If they wouldn't "recind" the previous marriages then they all but legalized it going forward.......it is a short matter of time until that is done.

Same sex marriage advocates should be very happy about this.

Then why must MINE elect to support gay marriage if we do not want to?

#62 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me

Nobody, repeat NOBODY wants to force your church to do ANYTHING they don't want to.

Here's the deal - don't approve of homosexuality... don't be one. Don't approve of same-sex marriage... don't perform them.

But don't impose your religious beliefs on my legal and civil rights. 'K?

You want to force the govt to sanction gay marriage IN THE NAME OF my religion.

The rights bestowed by marriage come from the state, not your religion.

"Same sex marriage advocates should be very happy about this."

Gay spin.

"Loving says differently."

"The great intellect of our time has spoken. You boob."

Larry's correct. Loving proclaimed marriage one of the "basic civil rights of man"....

So...who's the boob?

"Marriage is a RELIGIOUS instituion. Reserve marriage for heteros"

Then why do you need to apply in person at the county clerk's office for a marriage license?

You want to force the govt to sanction gay marriage IN THE NAME OF my religion.

How?

BS. You want to force the govt to sanction gay marriage IN THE NAME OF my religion.

#68 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me

Hogwash.

But don't impose your religious beliefs on my legal and civil rights. 'K?

I won't. But you DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO GET MARRIED TO AN INDIVIDUAL OF THE SAME SEX.

Seems to me that's the fundamental statement today, yeah?

Then let them get a civil union, what's it to you?"

EXACTLY. Jeesh you people are slow.

#69 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me

Only if the same law applies to you.

What if the majority of America one day decides Christianity should be illegal or the right to bear arms is a bad thing? Majority does not mean right.

"ou lost the opportunity to limit the rights of 18 000? Nice."

That's correct.

#63 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me at 2009-05-26 01:45 PM |

Well at least you're honest. I sincerely hope that you are never in a position where you are persecuted for a way of life that causes harm to no one.

Only if the same law applies to you.

Huh?

Majority does not mean right.

Who said anything about the majority?

"But you DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO GET MARRIED TO AN INDIVIDUAL OF THE SAME SEX."

And for too long, interracial couples didn't have the legal right to marry, at all...what's your point?

If you and your wife can enter into those protective contracts, and my wife and I can enter into those protective contracts, why can't that couple over there enter into the same type of protective contracts?

How long do you think it's going to continue like this? If they wouldn't "recind" the previous marriages then they all but legalized it going forward.......it is a short matter of time until that is done.

That is correct. By upholding the legality of the 18k marriages, the California Supreme Court has sharpened the spear of the gay marriage movement (so to speak) and will be pointed to as the catalyst for this change.

"Well at least you're honest. I sincerely hope that you are never in a position where you are persecuted for a way of life that causes harm to no one."

Like being a Christian pothead for example?

But you DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO GET MARRIED TO AN INDIVIDUAL OF THE SAME SEX.

Seems to me that's the fundamental statement today, yeah?

#78 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me

The "No Shit Sherlock" award of the day.

And why don't I have the same legal rights that you do? Because your religion, or at least your VERSION of it is imposing its bias on the civil laws of this country.

"why can't that couple over there enter into the same type of protective contracts?"

They CAN you twit. But it should be a Civil Union, not a marriage.

I think you mean your DENOMINATION, not your "religion". And nobody wants to force you or your church to perform same-sex marriages if you don't want to.

#64 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue
That is what you say now, but apply that same argument to adoption. Many churchs no longer participate in adoptions because they are being forced to give same sex couples the same standing and hetro couples. They said at first "nobody wants to force your church to adopt to same sex couples, just the state" That turned out to be a lie, and so will your statement.

Only if the same law applies to you.

Huh?

#82 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me

Civil unions must be the law of the land for ALL couples, with "marriage" as an optional religious ceremony. Like I said before.

Otherwise, NO DEAL.

"Because your religion, or at least your VERSION of it is imposing its bias on the civil laws of this country."

Why do you insist that my religion condone your sticking your weiner into another mans anus?

"Civil unions must be the law of the land for ALL couples, with "marriage" as an optional religious ceremony. Like I said before.

Otherwise, NO DEAL."

OK, done. Makes sense to me. So, we agree?

And why don't I have the same legal rights that you do?

You do. You can't marry a man.....I can't marry a man (assuming you are a man)

sounds like the same legal rights.

Many churchs no longer participate in adoptions because they are being forced to give same sex couples the same standing and hetro couples. They said at first "nobody wants to force your church to adopt to same sex couples, just the state" That turned out to be a lie, and so will your statement.

#89 | Posted by freechoice

Bull.

They are not forced to do anything. But if they want taxpayer funding then they have to abide by the law.

Very poor attempt.

Why do you insist that my religion condone your sticking your weiner into another mans anus?

#91 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me

My religion does not condone that.

Prop 8 does not change that.

Why do you insist that my religion condone your sticking your weiner into another mans anus?

#91 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me

You're slipping further into complete idiocy.

Like being a Christian pothead for example?

LOL...Libs you have to be a white dude. Only someone as out of touch as a white male would consider getting baked as persecution.

"They CAN (have civil unions) you twit"

Not everywhere, fool.

"Not everywhere, fool."

DANG. That's my point you boob. Let's make Civil Unions the law of the land (for heteros too as far as I'm concerned), and make MARRIAGE optional as a religious ceremony.

Jeesh.

You do. You can't marry a man.....I can't marry a man (assuming you are a man)

sounds like the same legal rights.

#93 | Posted by eberly

Uhm, FF?

"You can't marry a man.....I can't marry a man ... sounds like the same legal rights."

Ahh, the cruelty response. Always a winner!

That is what you say now, but apply that same argument to adoption. Many churchs no longer participate in adoptions because they are being forced to give same sex couples the same standing and hetro couples. They said at first "nobody wants to force your church to adopt to same sex couples, just the state" That turned out to be a lie, and so will your statement.

#89 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-05-26 01:55 PM | Reply

No one will ever force a religion to do what it doesn't want to do, it's like a private f'n club! This is about law, not religion. It's really quite clear once you take your Jeebus glasses off and shake off the unfounded fear. You're propping up pathetic strawmen to support a position that can't be defended logically. Try harder or stop posting Chris.

"Only someone as out of touch as a white male would consider getting baked as persecution."

You're right. I got carried away entirely trying to make a point.

They are not forced to do anything. But if they want taxpayer funding then they have to abide by the law.

Very poor attempt.

#94 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue
And the law in cali is no more gay marriage, so abide by the law.

"And the law in cali is no more gay marriage, so abide by the law."

AMEN.

Why do you insist that my religion condone your sticking your weiner into another mans anus?

#91 | Posted by Libs_R_Below_Me

OK, you just jumped the shark with that one.

"OK, you just jumped the shark with that one."

LOL - done for effect, nothing more.

not sure what "jumped the shark means" but in that reference it made me laugh.

Ahh, the cruelty response. Always a winner!

I didn't mean to be cruel. seriously.

I also didn't write the laws but rather I simply applied it with consistency.

"not sure what "jumped the shark means"

See Happy Days when Fonzi ski jumps a shark in a freshwater lake.

And the law in cali is no more gay marriage, so abide by the law.

#104 | Posted by freechoice

Who said anything about NOT obeying the law? What is the choice? However, that doesn't mean stopping efforts to change the law, right? It isn't against the law to try to change the law is it?

Sheesh.

And the law in cali is no more gay marriage, so abide by the law.

#104 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-05-26 02:01 PM | Reply |

It's almost funny to see you guys reveling with the decision, yet you can't even come close to defending your point of view Chris. WWJS about your ducking under a pseudonym to address this thread? Are you too ashamed to defend your position in public?

"o again...would you want others to be able to vote regarding whether or not you get, say, survivors social security? Whether both you and your wife could be legal parents to your children? "

Um don't you realize that is how it works?
Society acting as a self regulatory system decides what rights it's people have. That is a fundamental principal of democracy.

Could you define "homophobic" and/or "homophobia" for me?Posted by kirk at 2009-05-26 01:44 PM | Reply
Fear of Homosexuals Those that voted for Prop 8 Fear Homosexuals excersizing the Rights Straights take for granted. It's as plain as day.Larry#67 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-05-26 01:47 PM | Reply

Larry,
So anyone who disagrees with whether homosexual behavior should be codified into law through legal marriages are like...the people wearing masks so they don't get swine flu?

...Or like some racist old lady afraid to get out of her car in a black neighborhood?

...Or is your epithet of "homophobe" just a manipulative ploy without much real meaning?

Kirk da man

"I also didn't write the laws but rather I simply applied it with consistency."

So what does the phrase from Loving mean to you? If marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man", how is it this group, over here, gets all these 1000+ rights, and another group, over there, is denied the same "basic civil rights"?

Society acting as a self regulatory system decides what rights it's people have. That is a fundamental principal of democracy.

#113 | Posted by salamandagator

That is complete crap and you know it. Courts and legislatures have many times had to take the lead, particularly in areas of civil rights, long before the general public was ready for it.

So anyone who disagrees with whether homosexual behavior should be codified into law through legal marriages are like...the people wearing masks so they don't get swine flu?

...Or like some racist old lady afraid to get out of her car in a black neighborhood?

...Or is your epithet of "homophobe" just a manipulative ploy without much real meaning?

Posted by kirk at 2009-05-26 02:06 PM | Reply

Since there is no legitement reason to deny Gays and Lesbians the right to Marry it does come down to Biggotry and or Homophobia.

Larry

"Brown and Loving were done by the courts."

Both of which i believe would have been passed on a broad nationwide vote but not in every state.

If marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man", how is it this group, over here, gets all these 1000+ rights, and another group, over there, is denied the same "basic civil rights"?

I know what you are saying. It is just that laws implement "restrictions". We are restricted the same.

Must mean there is no legitement reason to deny polygamist the right to marry, it must be biggotry to stop them.

Both of which i believe would have been passed on a broad nationwide vote but not in every state.

#119 | Posted by salamandagator

I can't even imagine that you actually believe that.

Nevertheless, the very REASON for both of those cases was to bring civil rights laws into compliance nationwide because there were still many states that had segregation and miscegenation laws firmly in place.

No different that what is occurring today with same-sex marriage.

Must mean there is no legitement reason to deny polygamist the right to marry, it must be biggotry to stop them.

Posted by freechoice at 2009-05-26 02:17 PM | Reply

Polygamy isn't a Marriage. It is MULTIPLE Marriages making it Not equal in comparison.

Larry

"""So anyone who disagrees with whether homosexual behavior should be codified into law through legal marriages are like..."""

Change homosexual marriage to "a marriage between a white woman and a black man" and look at the issue again. The past does serve certain lessons, yet some still fail to understand.

Polygamy isn't a Marriage. It is MULTIPLE Marriages making it Not equal in comparison.

Larry

#123 | Posted by LarryMohr
not if it is done in one process, "Butch, do you take Dyke and Harry to be your legally and lawful Husbands/Wives/equal yet not the same partenr, to love and to cherrish..." One Marriage.

Polygamy isn't a Marriage. It is MULTIPLE Marriages making it Not equal in comparison.

Larry

But you are denying their rights Larry.

Must mean there is no legitement reason to deny polygamist the right to marry, it must be biggotry to stop them.

As long as they are all consenting adults, you are correct.

I thought polygamy was 1 marriage to multiple wives.

Must mean there is no legitement reason to deny polygamist the right to marry, it must be biggotry to stop them.

#121 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-05-26 02:17 PM |

Another strawman Chris, why don't you throw in a goat to make the fallacy complete.

I thought polygamy was 1 marriage to multiple wives.

Posted by eberly at 2009-05-26 02:23 PM | Reply

Nope since there is more than 2 utterances of I Do that negates that balderdashed Statement.

Larry

But you are denying their rights Larry.

#126 | Posted by eberly at 2009-05-26 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You aren't being Intellectually honest here and You know it Eberly which has become sadly typical of You.

Larry

not if it is done in one process, "Butch, do you take Dyke and Harry to be your legally and lawful Husbands/Wives/equal yet not the same partenr, to love and to cherrish..." One Marriage.

Posted by freechoice at 2009-05-26 02:21 PM | Reply

A Marriage is a Union of 2 life forms becoming one. To add more Bodies to the equation doesn't a Union make.

Larry

You aren't being Intellectually honest here and You know it Eberly which has become sadly typical of You.

Larry

I am being consistent Larry. YOu are just blind and one sided.

sadly typical of you.

What is wrong with polygamy? consenting adults who want to have multiple spouses.

A Marriage is a Union of 2 life forms becoming one.

link?

The real issue is that you want to change the traditional defination of marriage. A moajority of the people do not want to change it. You have a new claim, if you really just wanted the same rights for a new cirsumstance, you would be happy with a new procedure to cover the new circumstance. But that is not really what you want. You want forced acceptance, and you can not legilate or rule forced acceptance.

Nope since there is more than 2 utterances of I Do that negates that balderdashed Statement.

Larry

I've never attended a ceremony of this type.

You must have otherwise you wouldn't have said that.

right? or are you just full of shit?

I've never attended a ceremony of this type.

You must have otherwise you wouldn't have said that.

right? or are you just full of shit?

Posted by eberly at 2009-05-26 02:29 PM | Reply

More than 2 is not a Union. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

A Marriage is a Union of 2 life forms becoming one. To add more Bodies to the equation doesn't a Union make.

Larry

#132 | Posted by LarryMohr
That is just the traditional definition for it to be 2, with the new rules of change it when you want, then you are just a biggot to limit it to 2. Admit your hate of people that love more than one person. What are they doing to hurt you? You are so full of hate Larry, when are you going to evolve past your hate?

This is not to pick a fight but is an honest question --

WHY can't gays just be satisfied with a civil union which gives them all of the same rights and benefits of a heterosexual couple united in marriage?

Marriage is not the same as a civil union. For most people marriage is a "sacrament" and is an important religious aspect.

Here is a quote which might help you better understand the meaning of a sacrament and how it applies ONLY to the marriage between a man and a woman. It's not the church or a priest, or pastor who makes marriage a sacrament -- it is the uniting only of mB>a man and a woman who between themselves make their union a sacrament of marriage.

What makes marriage a sacrament?
Marriage is unique among the seven sacraments. In the other six [sacraments] the ordinary minister is a bishop, priest or deacon (i.e. someone who is ordained) but in the case of marriage it is the man and woman who are getting married.

The proof that we have failed to communicate this reality is obvious from the language that we use. We speak of the priest as having married a certain couple when this is not the case. The priest does not marry any couple; rather the man and woman marry each other. The task of the priest (or bishop or deacon) is to assist at the ceremony and bless the marriage.

But with the complete domination of clergy in the church in recent centuries one could be forgiven for thinking that the key figure at many weddings is indeed the priest....

I feel I personally have become more open over the last few years because before I would not even consider allowing a civil union for gays. But after a time of reading the comments of some those on here on DR, some of whom I respect and who are in the gay community, I began to more understand their feelings about wanting the same benefits and rights for themselves and their partners, and being able to have a ceremony which showed their commitment to their partner. I've come a long way in that regard but will NEVER agree to allowing anyone but a man and woman to actually call it "marriage" because to me, and millions of other straight people, marriage will ALWAYS be a "sacrament" -- not just a civil ceremony..

So -- and I've asked this question before but never got a solid answer -- WHY won't gays just leave it be and not continue to insisting on calling their union a "marriage" and just be satisfied with having the ceremony uniting them with their partner a "civil union" which gives them all of the same rights and benefits? WHY keep demanding to call it a "marriage"?

People are starting to get the feeling that the more activist gays just want to throw it in our face and keep on demanding it be called "marriage" when all they are doing is just hurting their cause.

I think I may be speaking for how the majority of straight people see this issue. It's not that they are anti-gay or anything. I am of the belief that gays are born that way and should not be demeaned or suffer prejudice for something decided for them at birth. But when gays continue to push for the right to call their union a "marriage" they shove others centuries-held religious beliefs down their throats and all it does it create animosity.

So, again, why can't gays be satisfied with calling it a "civil union" and leave the term "marriage" out of it?

"What is wrong with polygamy?"

Well, if you're talking purely about the legal aspect, it voids a lot of the marriage contract, which is mainly about superseding rights.

#139 | Posted by CalifChris
because forced acceptance is the real goal.

to be more understand their feelings = to be more understanding of their feelings

"I can't even imagine that you actually believe that."

Well look at the congressional votes, the idea is that representative speak for the general opinion of the populace of the state.

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

* The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
* The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
* The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

[edit] By party

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Well, if you're talking purely about the legal aspect, it voids a lot of the marriage contract, which is mainly about superseding rights.

#140 | Posted by Danforth

fucker.

I know that. I wanted to see how long larry would twist on that one.

#141 | Posted by LarryMohr
again with your bacwards 1779 way of thinking about traditional definitions of marrige! when will you evolve past your traditional view of marriage? 2 is just the way it has been, but it should be ther right of every person to marry who they love. Get past the hate Larry, one day you will be a carring human being and feel for the rights of all who love.

So, again, why can't gays be satisfied with calling it a "civil union" and leave the term "marriage" out of it?

Is marriage an exclusive term of Christian religions? Why could a Satanic church not marry gay people? Can't religious terminology have different meanings in different religions?

"So, again, why can't gays be satisfied with calling it a "civil union" and leave the term "marriage" out of it?"

And, in the meanwhile, can you gays drink out of that water fountain...over there...?

Couple meaning 2 NOT 2 or more.

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/
webwn

#141 | Posted by LarryMohr

Good God. I didn't need you to google "marriage" for Christ sakes. Trust me, I know what it means.

I also think you are denying consenting adults their rights you bigot.

So, again, why can't gays be satisfied with calling it a "civil union" and leave the term "marriage" out of it?

#139 | Posted by CalifChris

CC - it has to do with the fundamental concept of "separate but equal" which is unconstitutional.

As we discussed earlier in the thread, I would have NO problem if civil unions are made the law of the land for ALL couples, with "marriage" being an optional religious ceremony.

There are plenty of churches that perform same-sex unions now. It should be the right of any religious entity to perform or not perform any marriage, as dictated by their beliefs.

But the law MUST apply equally to everyone, not one law for some and another for others.

Nothing about same-gender marriages changes the definition of marriage. Voters deserve no say over who weds whom, who carries an embryo to term or who may pull the plug once life becomes unendurable. Those who suggest otherwise are swimming uptream, and WILL lose. herm

"fucker."

No, i dug her up, you fuck her.

I also think you are denying consenting adults their rights you bigot.

Eberly, you are 100 right. Let's see him Dancy Pelosi out of this one.

Good God. I didn't need you to google "marriage" for Christ sakes. Trust me, I know what it means.

I also think you are denying consenting adults their rights you bigot.

Posted by eberly at 2009-05-26 02:37 PM | Reply

If You knew what it means then why do You have to be such a useless fucking jerk Eberly??

Larry

#141 | Posted by LarryMohr
Marriage is defined in cali as a man and a woman, but you fight against what you call is unjust, and want to change the definition. If you were not filled with hate you would extend that fight to change the biggotry of it being defined with just 2. I truly feel sorry for people as hateful as you are.

And, in the meanwhile, can you gays drink out of that water fountain...over there...?

#148 | Posted by Danforth

We aren't getting rid of those are we? !!!!

Well look at the congressional votes, the idea is that representative speak for the general opinion of the populace of the state.

#144 | Posted by salamandagator

Loving and Brown were not legislative decisions, they were court decisions.

And I truly don't believe that congressional votes necessarily reflect public opinion.

But the major point is that without either the courts or Congress, there would still have been many states with discriminatory laws.

This all stems from ignorant people that choose to believe the bible. I wish the govt would torture all these dumb bible thumpers. I truly hate xtians.

If You knew what it means then why do You have to be such a useless fucking jerk Eberly??

Larry

bigot

polygamistphobe

Larry

bigot

polygamistphobe

#159 | Posted by eberly at 2009-05-26 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

They aren't equal comparisons and You know it. G=d Eberly You used tyo be worth a shit. Now You ain't even worth recycled TP. What fucking happened to You dude?? That is what usually happens when they get higher promotions they become assholes.

Larry

By Larry's definition he is as much of a biggot as the people he claims are biggots. He thinks it is alright, because the people that love more than one person are not as vocal about their cause as he is about his. Or there are not as many of them, or for whatever reason. His biggotry is alright apparently???

#161 | Posted by freechoice

Since you didn't have much luck arguing the case at hand I guess you figured it would be better to deflect to something else, huh?

By Larry's definition he is as much of a biggot as the people he claims are biggots. He thinks it is alright, because the people that love more than one person are not as vocal about their cause as he is about his. Or there are not as many of them, or for whatever reason. His biggotry is alright apparently???

Posted by freechoice at 2009-05-26 02:44 PM | Reply

Horseshit and You know it. Intellectually dishonest folks.

Larry

You ain't even worth recycled TP. What fucking happened to You dude?? That is what usually happens when they get higher promotions they become assholes.

this is all you have larry?

you can't defend your limiting of these folks rights? I would expect more of you larry when you so adamantly defend the rights of gays/lesbians.

why do you defend these individuals and not others?

On the positive side, contributions to HRC (just one of several organizations) have been almost $1 million just in the few hours since the decision was announced.

you can't defend your limiting of these folks rights? I would expect more of you larry when you so adamantly defend the rights of gays/lesbians.

why do you defend these individuals and not others?

#164 | Posted by eberly at 2009-05-26 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Because they aren't equal comparisons Damn dude don't You fucking get it Eberly?? My G-d I wished the Eberly of 2 or 3 Years ago was still around. He was worth more than this Eberly of today.

Larry

"Loving and Brown were not legislative decisions, they were court decisions."

Like i said. I was using the congressional opinion as a temperature of the nation as i am unaware of any national poll that says otherwise.

I do agree that congress is not always in touch with the public however the numbers seem to indicate that it is very probable that that was in fact the climate at that time.

#163 | Posted by LarryMohr
It is very honest, if you can not defend your position to change the definition to more than 2, then you can't defend changing it from man and women to whatever the hell 2 freaks come before the judge. It is simple, if you change it for one, then you have to change it for all. Real simple solution, new claim on rights = new solution, not change what has been around since the start of the country and longer.

I also think you are denying consenting adults their rights you bigot.

Posted by eberly at 2009-05-26 02:37 PM | Reply

Intellectually cheap to invoke a hypothetical situation to negate the rights of real people.

"""Marriage is defined in cali as a man and a woman"""

Not everywhere, so it is not an absolute.

Because they aren't equal comparisons Damn dude don't You fucking get it Eberly??

I see it as pretty equal.

I'm dead serious. Individuals should have the right to marry who they want.

What is different here is the "lifestyle" that these people choose.

Because more than 2 is NOT A Marriage NOT A Union.

Larry

"But the major point is that without either the courts or Congress, there would still have been many states with discriminatory laws."

I believe that through a process of essentially natural selection these states would have been forced to drop them for economic reasons.

not change what has been around since the start of the country and longer.

#168 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-05-26 02:51 PM |

Slavery was around since the start of your country and even longer. Does that make it right?

"Because more than 2 is NOT A Marriage NOT A Union.

Larry"

Because i say so. Right?

Intellectually cheap to invoke a hypothetical situation to negate the rights of real people.

I am not trying to negate the rights of real people. I am not against same sex marriage.

Just playing devils advocate.

Are you saying that Polygamists aren't "real people"?

I do agree that congress is not always in touch with the public however the numbers seem to indicate that it is very probable that that was in fact the climate at that time.

#167 | Posted by salamandagator

Again Sal, I think you are missing the point. Segregation and miscegenation laws might have been overturned in some states, while being upheld in others. The end result would have been different civil rights for some people in some places than in others.

These decisions and others created a certain standard of civil rights under the US Constitution.

Because more than 2 is NOT A Marriage NOT A Union.

Larry

#171 | Posted by LarryMohr
Only by traditional definitions you bacwards hateful amn. Get with the times this is 2009, get past your hatred for people that love more than one person, what are they doing to hurt you?

Because more than 2 is NOT A Marriage NOT A Union.

Larry

Why can't it be a "union" of 4 people?

I believe that through a process of essentially natural selection these states would have been forced to drop them for economic reasons.

#172 | Posted by salamandagator

So then you would argue that those court cases should never have come about and we should have waited however long it took for those states to do away with discriminatory laws on their own?

Not real people, there are whole communities where people practice polygamy, what in the hell are you thinking, not real people? That just goes to show your real biggotry, you don't even classify them as real people? You are so hateful, what did they ever do to you?

I see it as pretty equal.

I'm dead serious. Individuals should have the right to marry who they want.

What is different here is the "lifestyle" that these people choose.

You are right Eberly. This has nothing to do with the "slippery slope" gay marriage-->polygamy-->beastiality-->pedo angle that most people play. If you believe that consenting adults should be able to marry their own gender (which I do), then they logically should be able to marry multiple partners as consenting adults (which I do as well).

If Larry were playing the "contract between two people" angle, he would have a leg to stand on. Instead he chooses the "Union as defined" angle, which makes him no better than the Prop 8ers.

At least Iraqi is honest!

If Larry were playing the "contract between two people" angle, he would have a leg to stand on. Instead he chooses the "Union as defined" angle, which makes him no better than the Prop 8ers.

Larry never "thinks"....he just "feels"

Danforth makes a great point about disposition of property and other legal marital issues that would be upside down if polygamy was legally recognized.

I was kidding about being "dead serious". I think the issue of polygamy is stupid. HOwever, anybody who's argument is about "IT ISN'T FAIR"!!!!! falls short when you mention polygamy.

I was kidding about being "dead serious". I think the issue of polygamy is stupid. HOwever, anybody who's argument is about "IT ISN'T FAIR"!!!!! falls short when you mention polygamy.

I knew you were kidding. But it doesn't make you any less right. :)

I didn't realize this was a setback to ethnic minority women as well. According to the news conference in San Fran ending the cities involvement.

Proposition 8 is upheld.
Gay marriage already done are legal.

#45 | Posted by kirk at 2009-05-26 01:40 PM | Reply |

Isn't that a complete f'n contradiction?

#55 | Posted by panchovilla

Bingo!

I am not trying to negate the rights of real people. I am not against same sex marriage.

Just playing devils advocate.

Are you saying that Polygamists aren't "real people"?

#175 | Posted by eberly at 2009-05-26 02:54 PM | Reply |

No. They are real people and if they have a fight to put up for the enforcement of their rights, then they should get started. I agree that it's an event between consenting adults, and in some cultures, its widely accepted. Where I do see a difference, and it is possibly purely circumstancial, in most polygamist relationships I've seen, equal rights and freedoms are not afforded to all within the "deal". In most cases I've observed, the women are treated as inferior and the whole mindset is more a representation of the past than of the present. Fast forward the concept amd its parameters to the 21st century and I might be more comfortable with it. Yet there still is a difference between uniting 2 people and a crowd. I think the biggest problem that the state would be faced with in terms of polygamy is the whole context of law...e.g.: what happens during a divorce? The kids? The money? The house?

I fundamentally believe (cue pageant music) that as long as a person's actions are not completely detrimental to their health or the health of others, live and let live. If you don't like it, don't do it. What is it with people that think they need to interfere with others' lives?

Danforth makes a great point about disposition of property and other legal marital issues that would be upside down if polygamy was legally recognized.

Right...and that response was the easy answer. Unfortunately, Larry decided against it.

I'd like to read just one argument against gay marriage that makes sense. Against polygamy there are plenty but there is not one good argument against gay marriage.

Careful not to get divorced or you'll be movin to Massachusetts to get married again.

Danforth makes a great point about disposition of property and other legal marital issues that would be upside down if polygamy was legally recognized

And how does having 2 mothers or fathers turn child custody laws upside down? It screws with everything when you make a change. But according to the gay community change for what they want is alright, but change for what others want is not. Messing with current laws to get what they want is alright, but accomidations for other lifestyles is not.

(cue pageant music)

FF

"""If you believe that consenting adults should be able to marry their own gender (which I do), then they logically should be able to marry multiple partners as consenting adults (which I do as well)."""

Can I ask what the basis for your opposition is?

"""But according to the gay community change for what they want is alright, but change for what others want is not. Messing with current laws to get what they want is alright, but accomidations for other lifestyles is not."""

And what solid foundation do you base that on?

"Again Sal, I think you are missing the point."

I believe in your post the intent was to say that if it were put to a vote the civil rights laws would not have passed. I think you are wrong and now moving the goal post to include your conclusions. But like i said it would be very difficult have differing rights, i think there would have been conflict like the civil war. Maybe not violent but at least economic.

I believe in your post the intent was to say that if it were put to a vote the civil rights laws would not have passed. I think you are wrong and now moving the goal post to include your conclusions.

#194 | Posted by salamandagator

No, you are the one trying to LIMIT the goal posts by restricting your responses simply to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when my original point included 2 very major court decisions.

It is possible the Civil Rights Act might have passed a popular vote, but I think if you research it you will find it is not very likely. Court cases like Loving and Brown would NEVER have passed a popular vote in the states where such laws still existed at that time.

Bigots celebrate while you can but time is on the side of those who believe in marriage equality. Another ten years and you prohibition against gay marriage will seem about as relevant as miscegnation laws do today. I bet many who voted against gay marriage in California and in Florida too will be ashamed to tell their grandkids.

Bigots celebrate while you can but time is on the side of those who believe in marriage equality.

Who? Larry? He doesn't believe in treating individuals with "equality"

LOL

Let's hbope they strike the bigotry and homophobic Prop 8 Down. This is 2009 NOT 1779.

Larry

#1 | Posted by LarryMohr

Don't worry Larry.

You can get more penis as a single man anyway.

Married people don't have sex.

And how does having 2 mothers or fathers turn child custody laws upside down?

Feel free to answer the question Free...I don't think you have an answer.

Can I ask what the basis for your opposition is?

Opposition to what? Same sex marriage? I have no opposition to same sex marriage.

Fear of grandkids wrath ...nice shame tactic. Its gays fault for in the 80s you taught us you were an "alternative" lifestyle. Thats why civil unions most people don't have a problem with its the Marriage word that both sides seem to be fighting over. BTW I highly doubt either side is going to convince the other and calling one side bigots could easily be applied in the reverse depending on your perspective.
Be well and keep scanning the prop 8 donation list to see if there is someone you can destroy.
peace
Darkstar

"because before I would not even consider allowing a civil union for gays..."

And if the tables were turned, would you want gays to be empowered whether they would deign to "consider allowing" you to be married? Or adopt kids? Or whether your spouse would get your social security after you died?

I'm always stunned when Christians use a book with the major tenet as "Love thy God, and thy neighbor as thyself" as proof they should create a legal group of second-class citizens; not only creating a "least of my brethren", but shitting on them as well.

And nobody wants to force you or your church to perform same-sex marriages if you don't want to.

#64 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-26 01:46 PM

BULLSHIT!!!!

Ok You tell Me what rational reason is there to ban same sex marriage?? You can't find one.

Larry

#18 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-05-26 01:13 PM |

The reason to ban same sex marrige is because it provides no benefit for ouor society and it wont stop there! You will want to push your homo agenda on us all. In our church, in our schools with our children, in public places, in rest rooms in our homes, in our work place, every media outlet and every thing else.

You provide no benefit to society and your agenda is counter productive to building families. Deal with the fact that the majority of people in our society view your acts as non moral and not required. Just as sex with animals, children, plants and fruits are of no benefit and therefore most dont see a need to sanction it and provide benefits for people to engage in it

I'd like to read just one argument against gay marriage that makes sense.

The lightning bolts that will surely smite thee for viewing a man's hairy ass as a smorgasbord.

Thats why civil unions most people don't have a problem with its the Marriage word that both sides seem to be fighting over.

Religious freaks will simply move the goalposts if Civil Unions were to equal Marriage. My personal feeling is that they just want to deny rights to people they feel are going to Hell. Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman is just a convenient place to start the fight.

SanAntonioRogue

Thanks for your answer. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree! I will always believe marriage is a sacrament to only be between a man and a woman.

Hey, while we're on the topic of gays, maybe you can answer a couple (probably dumb) questions I've had for awhile and wondered about when it comes to gay folks.

1. Why are lesbians not considered to be "gay"? Doesn't "gay" mean homosexual? But you always read about "gays and lesbians" as though they are two different groups.

2. And why have so many lesbians been previously married -- and even have children from that marriage -- if homosexuals are supposedly gay from birth (as they allege) and it's not a matter of choice?

Or are previously married lesbians really just "bisexual" and not really "gay" at all? (I wondered because I read another article recently here on DR about some 39 YO woman who had 3 kids (one or two already in their teens) who had a dispute with her "long time lesbian lover of many years."

I thought to myself when I read the article her marriage must have been a fraud from the start and based on a lie from the beginning if she's only 39, has 3 kids from a marriage with a man, yet has been in a long term lesbian relationship for many years. So when did she become a lesbian??? Or was she always a lesbian from birth and her marriage to her husband only a sham? I thought lesbians did not want any kind of sex with a man? (I'm kind of naive on this stuff so bear with me on these questions!)

And wouldn't a woman who claims to be a lesbian but had been married and had kids kind of blow gays' oft-helf contention they are gay from birth right out of the water? So are they really gay (lesbian, whatever) or bisexual, or what?

(And before I get any wisecracks thrown my way from some of the jokers on here, I am now, and always have been, a normal straight female. Love guys even though they can drive you nuts at times! lol)

I'm pretty neck deep in paperwork right now but will look back on here a little later and see if you had a chance to clarify a couple of my questions. Thanks.

You will want to push your homo agenda on us all. In our church, in our schools with our children, in public places, in rest rooms in our homes, in our work place, every media outlet and every thing else.

#203 | Posted by WI_Hunter

Uhm, yeah, sure thing.

You provide no benefit to society and your agenda is counter productive to building families. Deal with the fact that the majority of people in our society view your acts as non moral and not required. Just as sex with animals, children, plants and fruits are of no benefit and therefore most dont see a need to sanction it and provide benefits for people to engage in it

Sooo...no marriage for those who choose not to have children or those outside the child bearing age? What if the woman has a hysterectomy or the man is sterile? Are you going to get them to fill out a form for that or what?

Bigots celebrate while you can but time is on the side of those who believe in marriage equality

Maybe if more of these bigots quit siging petitions, putting expensive poorly written measures on the ballot every couple of years...

The only entities (Californias Assembly, Senate and Governor) have spoken. That is who the non-bigots should be fighting.

"Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree! I will always believe marriage is a sacrament to only be between a man and a woman."

I'm not sure we really disagree. If that's what you believe, then attend a church that believes the same way. Many churches already perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. It is the civil/legal component that is missing.

"1. Why are lesbians not considered to be "gay"? Doesn't "gay" mean homosexual? But you always read about "gays and lesbians" as though they are two different groups."

Gay has historically been a term associated with homosexual men, although sometimes it is used as an generic term for both sexes.

"2. And why have so many lesbians been previously married -- and even have children from that marriage -- if homosexuals are supposedly gay from birth (as they allege) and it's not a matter of choice?"

Probably for the same reason many gay men have been previously married. Because that is what society expected and demanded. We were told from an early age that anything else was unacceptable so because of that pressure, we forced ourselves to try to "fit in" with everyone else.

As a sidelight to that, why do you think suicide rates among GLBT teens is so high?

"And how does having 2 mothers or fathers turn child custody laws upside down?"

Not one bit. There's already a legal mold which fits quite well.

"Messing with current laws to get what they want is alright, but accomidations for other lifestyles is not."

Whoa...we were talking about contract law and superseding rights, not about whether you get to approve of "lifestyles". For example, currently, a spouse MUST be the sole beneficiary of the partner's worker-pension plan, or must sign away that right. When gays marry, that right is theirs, same as the right we straight folks get. Very clean. With polygamy, who automatically gets that right? (No one, it would have to be designated.) And since "designating" the pension to one or the other can be done with or without marriage, any advantage is lost. Regardless, that right, and another 1,000+ will have to be revisited by the courts.

Equating gay equality with polygamy on a legal standpoint is nuts. One fits into the mold perfectly. The other stands the entire legal point of marriage on its head.

How "sacred" the contract is relative to the individuals just as any contract is only as good as the intentions of those who sign it.

It's the gals who want to "marry" and share their Hope Chests. I've read that 80% of the marriages so far are between two women. Not exactly a guy thing.

It probably does violate Equal Protection but that's been a rubber hammer since the Amendment passed. Legal unions could be required as a civil contract for everyone, hence no bias. Not everyone wants a church wedding as Las Vegas demonstrates daily, but I am amused when the "bride" wears white for the second or third time - or Elvis shows up.

I look at most of this stuff as nonsensical drama designed to divert our attention from the Country going broke while our troops are dying in a foreign land. Who cares?

The Women...

What is it with people that think they need to interfere with others' lives?

#187 | Posted by panchovilla

Jeebus tells them to do it......

I look at most of this stuff as nonsensical drama ...

Bingo

Or-maybe it's "Clinton's Fault"/TM.........

"You provide no benefit to society and your agenda is counter productive to building families..."

...and to punish you and prove we're right, we're not going to let you build families and provide a benefit to society!

It's the gals who want to "marry" and share their Hope Chests. I've read that 80% of the marriages so far are between two women. Not exactly a guy thing.

#212 | Posted by OzarkAggie

You're a little off (not a lot) on your stat, but I guess that's another case in point where gays aren't much different than straights...

its the women who want to get married and the men run like hell.

#216 | Posted by Danforth

Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner!

Equating gay equality with polygamy on a legal standpoint is nuts. One fits into the mold perfectly. The other stands the entire legal point of marriage on its head.

So fairness doesn't matter anymore?

Polygamists!!! go drink at THAT fountain!!

I love this.

I've read that 80% of the marriages so far are between two women

The same 2 women??

DAMN! They've been BUSY!

California Upholds Prop 8, Lets Marriages Stand

If anyone is keeping score, throw me in the Couldn't Care Less pile.

Queers and Californians.........do whatever the fuck you want, just leave me out of it.

"No, you are the one trying to LIMIT the goal posts by restricting your responses simply to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when my original point included 2 very major court decisions."

I don't know how much clearer i can make myself. I used that vote because no other real number exist that i can find. I could just follow your example and state whatever i want but i was looking for some sort of evidence.

", but I think if you research it you will find it is not very likely. Court cases like Loving and Brown would NEVER have passed a popular vote in the states where such laws still existed at that time."

You have not provided any support for that statement. I do not mean to be rude but i do get slightly irritated when someone tells me i am wrong but cannot support it, i at least provide some support(meager but i don't have much time.) You seem to like to repeat the same thing over and over but it does not get closer to correct just by saying it a thousand times.

I do not disagree that there was a large portion that would have been against it. But your conclusions are based on hypothetical questions and you have failed to support them in any way shape or form.

"""Religious freaks will simply move the goalposts if Civil Unions were to equal Marriage. My personal feeling is that they just want to deny rights to people they feel are going to Hell. Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman is just a convenient place to start the fight."""
Hello! Calif has civil union laws on the books already dummy.
peace
Darkstar

#222 | Posted by salamandagator

Look, if you want to believe that court decisions such as Brown and Loving would have passed a popular vote in many states at the time they were decided fine. I'm not going to argue about it any more. Same with CRA 1964.

Remember, we are NOT talking about a national referendum here, but votes of individual states. There is not a single "source" or "poll" to point to, but rather a study and knowledge of 20th century American History.

its the women who want to get married and the men run like hell.

That's because the majority of men don't really know what's best for them. lol!

Takes a good woman to show a man what he's really missing in life by staying a bachelor. Proof is the fact married men often live much longer than single guys.

Why do you think it's mostly always married men who, after going through a divorce or becoming widowed, are usually the first ones looking to quickly remarry again yet women in the same situation are often more than content to remain single. Maybe it's because men realize they get the better part of the deal when it comes to marriage?

Larry's correct. Loving proclaimed marriage one of the "basic civil rights of man"....

So...who's the boob?

#74 | Posted by Danforth

Fortunately or unfortunately Loving v. Virginia does not define marriage.

When looking at the whole quote from Loving v. Virginia (which was conveniently cropped to advance one particular side of this debate) it could be construed that the court felt marriage should be between a man and a woman.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"

There is also precedent on this whole issue.

#225 | Posted by CalifChris

CC - did you see my response (#210) to your earlier questions?

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"

Other than procreating, why else would we need marriage to exist and survive?

I'm not sure where some of the country, mostly liberals, decided that the 3 equal branches of government meant that the courts were higher than the legislative branch.

The constitution was amended by Californians, hardly a group of right wingers, after the courts turned down an earlier ban saying it was unconstitutional. Well, now its clear, the constitution in California was amended to disallow gay marriage.

Its a wise ruling, fully in line with not only what President Obama says is his position, but most of the democrats in congress, and the vast majority of Americans. Gay marriage proponents lose just about everywhere except in liberal courts, and this time, they even lost there.

The only reason there wasn't a marriage amendment in the original US constitution, is that the founding fathers never envisioned that there would arise a class of idiots that would ever question that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The only reason there wasn't a marriage amendment in the original US constitution, is that the founding fathers never envisioned that there would arise a class of idiots that would ever question that marriage is between a man and a woman.

#229 | Posted by nmg_no

I guess they never envisioned that slaves would be free, equal citizens who vote, or that women would have equal rights to men either.

"married men often live much longer than single guys."

#225 | Posted by CalifChris

Well, married men certainly suffer much longer than single guys.

" Maybe it's because men realize they get the better part of the deal when it comes to marriage?"

How d'ya figure that?

Opposition to what? Same sex marriage? I have no opposition to same sex marriage.

#200 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-05-26 03:36 PM | Reply |

Misread your original, sorry.

Now here's an interesting factoid from former LA mayor Tom Bradley...

Californians in 1964 passed an initiative to block landmark "fair housing" legislation to end discrimination by landlords and property owners who refused to rent or sell to African Americans. The initiative, which amended the state constitution to empower discrimination, passed with a whopping 65% of the vote. But it was overturned three years later by the U.S. Supreme Court.

#233

See, now there you go SA. Now that would be some supporting evidence. You are learning.

Congratulations Biggots and Homophobes. Congratulations on shitting upon Your fellow Countrymen/Women.
Larry

#5 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR AT 2009-05-26 01:05 PM | REPLY | FLAG

I voted against Prop 8, the people didn't. You had a chance in Court, and lost this round.

Get a grip. Insulting the majority does nothing for the cause.

#234 | Posted by salamandagator

I know its none of my business so if you don't want to say, I understand. But how old are you?

I voted against Prop 8, the people didn't. You had a chance in Court, and lost this round.

I see it differently. I see this as the Supreme Court of California just legally recognized 18,000 same sex marriages.

Larry doesn't even see this as any kind of victory.

"I understand. But how old are you?"

25

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"

Other than procreating, why else would we need marriage to exist and survive?

#228 | Posted by crispee_oc

That is a very good question.

I'm not sure what the court meant by that I'm just saying it could be used by some people to advance the argument against same sex marriage.

I'm not sure where some of the country, mostly liberals, decided that the 3 equal branches of government meant that the courts were higher than the legislative branch.

KBM

As opposed to Bush/Cheney's "Unitary Executive" - where they did what they wanted, pressured the politicized Justice Dept. to rule as legal what were considered long standing international illegalities (and domestically), issued 'signing statements' like toilet paper that said they didn't have to abide by the law they were signing, and thumbed their noses at the FISA court ... a court set up specifically to obtain warrants for eavesdropping?

For starters.

By the way SA my comment was not really meant as an insult, just having fun.

The gates have held! The residence of Sodom have temporarily been repelled. Alas, only fire and brimstone will rid us of this plague!

First of all Brown Vs BoE was ruled on based on the ORIGINAL CA Case of Mendez Vs Westminster. It was Latinos that ended school segregation

I don't get why the conservatives insist that gays should just accept Civil Unions because they are just as good as marriages. Which is a complete pile of shit. Civil Unions do not confer the same rights a marriage does and are not recognized by the federal government so that aren't equal.

I, myself, will not get married until everyone gay or straight can get married. I won't help myself to privleges other people are denied because of who they fall in love with.

Again they were speaking towards race and not gender.

Let's keep the argument honest and try not to use historical precedent that does not follow.

Posted by Prolix247 at 2009-05-26 05:16 PM | Reply

Race and Gender are equal. They are something that we are born with/As

Larry

#245 | Posted by LarryMohr

We both know that that is debatable Larry (both regarding race and gender). I am only saying that these precedents do not follow the arguments put forth here.

Apples and oranges.

Don't be so reactionary.

The gates have held! The residence of Sodom have temporarily been repelled. Alas, only fire and brimstone will rid us of this plague!

#242 | Posted by TheOneBS

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

#244 | Posted by astrobuckeye
I will let the one polygamist know that you are waiting to get married until he can. He will apperciate that.

"The residence(sic) of Sodom"

*headdesk*

Race and Gender are equal. They are something that we are born with/As

Glad to see you ignore the definition of marriage in respect to survival and existence. I am sure gender had nothing to do with it when written.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

#247 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN

Problem here is that bro' doesn't think sin is sin. So it's a moot point

"They were talking about race and not gender"

More specifically, they were talking about "classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment".

That perfectly describes the current status of second-class citizenry afforded gays in our country.

"Glad to see you ignore the definition of marriage in respect to survival and existence."

So where do infertile and post-menopausal couples land? Are they "allowed" to marry, or not? What of those who just don't want to have kids? Are they also deemed non-important to "survival and existence", and therefore denied the right to marry?

Alas, only fire and brimstone will rid us of this plague!

#242 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2009-05-26 05:14 PM

You sound down right afraid of gayness as thogh you could catch it!

Are you a closet GAY? Is that why you are so afraid of other GAY people? They might out you?

Glad to see you ignore the definition of marriage in respect to survival and existence. I am sure gender had nothing to do with it when written.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-05-26 05:25 PM | Reply

Oh since Gays and Lesbians make up what I will say 10% of the population (I am being generous here) How would that shrink the ever growing population rolls?? Oh and since the first time Marriages 50% of them end in dovorce negates anything to do with preserving the sanctity of Marriage. Just another in a long line of lame excuses to justify bigotry and or homophobia. PERIOD.

Larry

That perfectly describes the current status of second-class citizenry afforded gays in our country.

#252 | Posted by Danforth

That's not what the court decided just five years after Loving V. Virginia when it upheld Baker V. Nelson in 1972

Glad to see you ignore the definition of marriage in respect to survival and existence."

So where do infertile and post-menopausal couples land? Are they "allowed" to marry, or not? What of those who just don't want to have kids? Are they also deemed non-important to "survival and existence", and therefore denied the right to marry?

Maybe you should take that up with those who defined marriage. The definition of marriage was posted in response to the ridiculous notion of a so called gay society.

I see it differently. I see this as the Supreme Court of California just legally recognized 18,000 same sex marriages.

I agree but at the same time as recognizing these 18,000 they said it is illegal.

Now 36,000 people will not be at the protest march against the court.

#252 | Posted by Danforth

Do you agree that the court was only describing race at this time?

Or

Do you think that the court somehow foresaw gender being an issue also?

Maybe it's because men realize they get the better part of the deal when it comes to marriage? CaliCutie

Hence you're single - no history since hanging by the pier for your surfer boyfriend.

BTW, how'd that turn out?

Men who live with women end up hanging around the house. Some of that is good, keeping busy and all, but it's The Nest and women like to control it one way or another. I like having my own space and the freedom to bug out and set up a camp.

That way instead of getting underfoot or bored you can at least concentrate on logistics. Your place, my place, or neutral ground.

But you have to have complete trust, and there's a reason I haven't had a joint account since 1976. LOL

Glad to see you ignore the definition of marriage in respect to survival and existence. I am sure gender had nothing to do with it when written.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-05-26 05:25 PM | Reply

Oh since Gays and Lesbians make up what I will say 10% of the population (I am being generous here) How would that shrink the ever growing population rolls?? Oh and since the first time Marriages 50% of them end in dovorce negates anything to do with preserving the sanctity of Marriage. Just another in a long line of lame excuses to justify bigotry and or homophobia. PERIOD.

Larry

OK Wile E Coyote Super Genius, why is survival and existence included in the definition of marriage?

That's not what the court decided just five years after Loving V. Virginia when it upheld Baker V. Nelson in 1972

#256 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN

Tx is correct.

Now 36,000 people will not be at the protest march against the court.

#258 | Posted by moneywar

I think the court left the door wide open (on purpose) to eventually legalize them.

And I also think the 36,000 will not necessarily abandon the rest of them.

And I also think the 36,000 will not necessarily abandon the rest of them.

Posted by eberly at 2009-05-26 05:45 PM | Reply

Sure they will just like the blacks and interracials have done towards Gay Marriage. Once people FINALLY gain the rights they are due they forget about their brethern that get left behind. Same shitty song and dance I've got mine fuck you too.

Larry

Problem here is that bro' doesn't think sin is sin. So it's a moot point

#251 | Posted by TheOneBS

It's not a moot point the passage has more to do with you pointing out others sin while over looking your own. It has little do with their perception of their sinful actions.

We all sin everyday whether we would like to admit it and if you are a believer who says other wise you are worse than an unbeliever for you deny the need for the sacrifice of Christ.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"

I think the court left the door wide open (on purpose) to eventually legalize them.

And I also think the 36,000 will not necessarily abandon the rest of them

Maybe the courts shouldn't take the cases anymore. Leave it up to the Legislation. No more ballot measures, lawsuits... They can pressure Sacramento and quit bothering the rest of the State. Can any other entity change the California'
s Constitution?

Once people FINALLY gain the rights they are due they forget about their brethern that get left behind. Same shitty song and dance I've got mine fuck you too.

Larry

Would you do that Larry if you were one of the 36,000?

Eberly,

I agree I think they left the door open and on purpose.

Now it will be up to one of the 18,000 couples to stand up.

The real question here is what is the fear of letting them marry in the first place. Those who support prop 8 think it is a religious thing then their faith in their religious belief is on shakey terms.

I know for myself that gays getting married effects my faith not one iota.

Would you do that Larry if you were one of the 36,000?

Posted by eberly at 2009-05-26 05:53 PM | Reply

Not I Eberly

Those who support prop 8 think it is a religious thing then their faith in their religious belief is on shakey terms.

agreed.

One thing is for sure, the oppressed never give up.

Once the court rules correctly, those who choose to oppress will give up the battle because they know.

Not I Eberly

#269 | Posted by LarryMohr

That is what I thought Larry. Yet you choose to "judge" these people who I think have been judged enough.

Jesus, you are a hateful person.

Gotta go.

"Do you agree that the court was only describing race at this time?
Or Do you think that the court somehow foresaw gender being an issue also?"

I think "classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment" can apply to more than just gender. Don't you?

Let's hbope they strike the bigotry and homophobic Prop 8 Down. This is 2009 NOT 1779.

Larry

#1 | Posted by LarryMohr

Yes; the decision sucks for you Larry.

But there is a bright side to this!

Since married people don't have sex, Larry, you can get more and better penis by remaining single!

How's that for turning lemons into lemonade?

So, cheer up! There's always the next court case.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"

#265 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN

Deflecting from the issue. Is homosexual behavior sin? You don't seem to want to answer this.

And even if you did answer it, most here would call it a virtue and not something to confess as sin. So yes, yours is a moot point!

I, myself, will not get married until everyone gay or straight can get married. I won't help myself to privleges other people are denied because of who they fall in love with.

#244 | Posted by astrobuckeye

If you're bi-curious, just take the plunge(r)!

Ain't no sense in martyring yourself by denying yourself the penis.

"That's not what the court decided "

Are we discussing law, or morals? Interracial marriage was banned at one point as well. Slavery was legal. Both those positions were wrong before the law's recognition caught up. Now we have a group of Americans denied equal rights because God made them gay. So what we're left with is pretending they don't exist, pretending they don't deserve equality, or doing what's right.

Not surprisingly, the Bible suggests #3.

Deflecting from the issue. Is homosexual behavior sin? You don't seem to want to answer this.

And even if you did answer it, most here would call it a virtue and not something to confess as sin. So yes, yours is a moot point!

#275 | Posted by TheOneBS

When you ask about sin.

Do you mean a sin against God or a sin against the Church?

Or is there no difference between God and Church in your mind?

I will definately take on THEONEBS on this issue of sin.

If you are moronic enough to believe in the bible and god, then said Moron may believe it to be a sin. That is their choice.

But for people who couldn't give a rat's ass about your religious delusion and fantasy..

Then no. It is not a sin. Apply your religious BS to people like yourself, not others.

And BTW. My Big Fat Gay Marriage still stands and their ain't nothing that you, or murphy, or johnson or grendel or 101hairbraine or any ther of the DR Moron's club can do about that.

And now that I have been declared legally married by the supremes of caqlifornia you can now tell me how exactly my marriage will impact you.

On second thought, don't bother. You have NO answer.

Just the hollow platitudes of Morons.

And now that I have been declared legally married by the supremes of caqlifornia you can now tell me how exactly my marriage will impact you.

On second thought, don't bother. You have NO answer.

Just the hollow platitudes of Morons.

#279 | Posted by DUMPLING1

Although I personally support gay marriage, the impact, or not, of your gay marriage on others was not the standard that was used by the courts in this case.

The court ruled that the constitutional amendment affirming marriage as between 1 man and 1 women was legal in California.

Wrong-headed or right-headed, the People of California legally amended their constitution.

In my view, sex is way over-regulated.

Sex should be almost completely without any laws at all - especially laws based in religious ideology.

Sex with inanimate objects, fruits, vegetables, men and women over the age of nine, basketballs, baseball bats, and pink plastic tupperware should be allowed.

But that's just me. I've always been about 20 years ahead of my time.

Is homosexual behavior sin?

No.

The notion of "sin" is a social construct dressed up in the trappings of an absolute truth...

Deflecting from the issue. Is homosexual behavior sin? You don't seem to want to answer this.

And even if you did answer it, most here would call it a virtue and not something to confess as sin. So yes, yours is a moot point!

#275 | Posted by TheOneBS

You didn't ask so I didn't know I was supposed to answer a non-existent question, but since you have now asked.

I believe it is sinful, but I'm not the Just Judge and neither are you.

I don't know what I believe to be sin or not has to do with people marrying who ever they wish.

I think It's wrong so I wont be marrying another man what others do is none of my business and is between them their conscience or their God they will have to answer for their choices and I will have to answer for mine.

#284 - this is the sort of person that, while I may disagree on some issues, I have nothing but respect for.

Libertarians... are they the only ones left who respect personal freedom?

Are we discussing law, or morals?

#277 | Posted by Danforth

Well since this thread is about a legal decision I would say we are discussing the law although it's kind of hard to separate the two issues all laws have a moral aspect to them.

If you are moronic enough to believe in the bible and god, then said Moron may believe it to be a sin. - Ms DUMPLING

Nothing like a militant intolerant fag to bring the argument of acceptance full circle.

"Nothing like a militant intolerant fag to bring the argument of acceptance full circle."

Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort.

"it's kind of hard to separate the two issues all laws have a moral aspect to them."

Well, this one codifies one group as lesser. Are you all right with that? My Bible tells me no, but it seems to tell others it's okay to create a 'least of my brethren', and then treat him unfairly. I must have missed that part.

I think It's wrong so I wont be marrying another man what others do is none of my business and is between them their conscience or their God they will have to answer for their choices and I will have to answer for mine.

#284 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN

What others do is none of your business? Do you stand for nothing or everything? And what would be the difference?

"What others do is none of your business?"

It's called freedom, Gladys Kravitz.

#287 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 / REPLY: LOL!

And now that I have been declared legally married by the supremes of caqlifornia you can now tell me how exactly my marriage will impact you.

On second thought, don't bother. You have NO answer.

Just the hollow platitudes of Morons.

#279 | Posted by DUMPLING1

already costing tax money thanks to QUEEN hillary who has decreed that WE TAX PAYERS will have to foot the bill for state dept gays to take thier "family"....hurt to type that...on TRIPS with them..
cover them with TAX PAYER medical facilities and other shit
so DONT EVEN try and tell me it doesnt cost me something...it ALREADY IS.....

And BTW. My Big Fat Gay Marriage still stands and their ain't nothing that you, or murphy, or johnson or grendel or 101hairbraine or any ther of the DR Moron's club can do about that.

#279 | Posted by DUMPLING1

....said the man from Sodom as he chased Lot and family from the city!

"already costing tax money thanks to QUEEN hillary who has decreed that WE TAX PAYERS will have to foot the bill for state dept gays to take thier "family"....hurt to type that...on TRIPS with them.."

So we would do that for the straight families, but not for the gay families...and you're okay with that type of discrimination?

"DONT EVEN try and tell me it doesnt cost me something...it ALREADY IS.."

So, tell us ... at what price do equal rights become too expensive?

If you can call what they have legal. its just a perversion with a permit. And big ears wants these candy asses to serve in the military openly. Might work, the enemy might die laughing or at least get distracted until a real Soldier can cut their throats.

"as he chased Lot and family from the city!"

Well, luckily, good and virtuous Lot survived, and went on to getting drunk and incestuously impregnating both his daughters.

Mmmmm....Bible Family Values!

Afka...LOL!

You have no problem with paying for the """normies""" but gays....LOL!

" its just a perversion with a permit."

Let me guess...you're one of those Biblical types, who wouldn't want inequality "done unto them", but doesn't see any parallels when you do it unto someone else.

....said the man from Sodom as he chased Lot and family from the city!

#294 | Posted by TheOneBS

... right before Lot's daughters, whom he had generously offered to throw under the bus, so generously offered to bring him a few beers, right Theo?

already costing tax money thanks to QUEEN hillary who has decreed that WE TAX PAYERS will have to foot the bill for state dept gays to take thier "family"....hurt to type that...on TRIPS with them..
cover them with TAX PAYER medical facilities and other shit
so DONT EVEN try and tell me it doesnt cost me something...it ALREADY IS.....

#293 | Posted by afkabl2

Its for ALL employees in committed, domestic partnerships, Ish, not just gay ones.

I know you hate to be interrupted with facts, but I thought you'd want to know.

#297 | Posted by Danforth

Actually DANFORTH, it was the daughters who got daddy drunk so they could have progeny. God didn't look too kindly upon it, given the judgment upon the two nations that came from the incestuous act.

But I'm sure if said act happened today, you'd be skipping to a different tune, defending their licentious behavior while pleasuring yourself with KY jelly and the latest Noam Chomsky book.

I think "classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment" can apply to more than just gender. Don't you?

#273 | Posted by Danforth

You mean race. So you decided not to answer. That's okay, we both know they were speaking to race and not gender.

To set precedent for gender the court must be discussing gender just as they did in baker v nelson.

"Uphold the voters on Prop 8"

Hey the people won one. Congrats California.

#9 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-05-26 01:08 PM

you mean that the Mormons won one... Congrats Utah!

"Wrong-headed or right-headed, the People of California legally amended their constitution."

Wrong-headed of you, Bendover! Californians have no right to deny basic human legal rights. They have no say over whom I bed, or - if female - whether I opt to carry to term. herm

Wrong-headed of you, Bendover! Californians have no right to deny basic human legal rights. They have no say over whom I bed, or - if female - whether I opt to carry to term. herm

#305 | Posted by herm

The ruling today was about whether or not Prop 8 done legally under California law. It was NOT about the content of Prop 8 Under the law, they have a right to change their Constitution. Undoing that will be up to another vote, or a higher court.

Something like this...

Californians in 1964 passed an initiative to block landmark "fair housing" legislation to end discrimination by landlords and property owners who refused to rent or sell to African Americans. The initiative, which amended the state constitution to empower discrimination, passed with a whopping 65% of the vote. But it was overturned three years later by the U.S. Supreme Court.

#305 | Posted by herm

At what age do "basic human rights" begin?

So why doesn't Larry send Obama an email and call him a bigot and homophobe?

So why doesn't Larry send Obama an email and call him a bigot and homophobe?

#308 | Posted by MURPHY

Because of one BIG difference. Although Obama believes marriage is between a man and a woman, he believes that is a private religious matter and should not be legislated or encoded in to civil law.

Wrong-headed of you, Bendover! Californians have no right to deny basic human legal rights. They have no say over whom I bed, or - if female - whether I opt to carry to term. herm

#305 | Posted by herm

I don't agree with the outcome either.

But, you are plain old wrong on both of your points.

The State does have a say in whom you can bed - both prostitution and having sex with children are illegal. Whether they should be illegal isn't the question. They are illegal, and the laws are upheld.

The State also has limitations on abortion - depending on where you live.

Amending the California Constitution was legal in this case.

The good news is, you don't have to like it.

"'Today's decision is a terrible blow to same-sex couples who share the same hopes and dreams for their families as other Californians', said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights"

I am wondering something.

Why do these gay "families" need a license to fulfill their hopes and dreams?

Are they putting so much stock in this license that they somehow believe their "family" will be missing something if they don't it?

I mean...don't gay couples already claim their "families" are just like straight traditional ones?

Why is it NOW they say they need a license to "share the same hopes and dreams"?

Sounds like they're contradicting themselves, to me.

Larry,

"Separate but Equal isn't equal at all."

But Civil Unions could be 100% equal.

civil unions = marriage (legally speaking)

What the gay culture needs is full legal representation and protection.

"gay marriage" is simply a fringe issue some gays/liberals are stuck on.

What does "marriage" have to do with equality, really, if Civil Unions could provide that SAME level of legal representation?

This "separate but equal" fixation doesn't hold water.

And...if a gay couple wants to call it a marriage, go to a church that holds these ceremonies and have one.

#311 | Posted by BillJohnson

It's all about the money, Johnson.

It's ALL about the money...

This "separate but equal" fixation doesn't hold water.

#312 | Posted by BillJohnson

They are trying to compare themselves to the Black Civil Rights Movement. It's ridiculous, but that is what they are attempting...

"Separate but Equal isn't equal at all."

But Civil Unions could be 100% equal.

civil unions = marriage (legally speaking)

What the gay culture needs is full legal representation and protection.

"gay marriage" is simply a fringe issue some gays/liberals are stuck on.

What does "marriage" have to do with equality, really, if Civil Unions could provide that SAME level of legal representation?

This "separate but equal" fixation doesn't hold water.

And...if a gay couple wants to call it a marriage, go to a church that holds these ceremonies and have one.

Posted by BillJohnson at 2009-05-26 08:41 PM | Reply

When You class two things with different terminology even though they may be equal in force it is still separate but Equal isn't Equal at all. Take for instance the Colored only bathrooms and drinking fountains. While the Whites only and Coloreds only bathrooms and drinking fountains used the same exact municiple water supplies and dumped into the same sewage systems they were not equal because the colored folks couldn't use the same facilities their white Counterparts could. Just like Rosa Parks accordings to You should have been AOKAY with sitting in the back of the bus. The seats were all equal but She was separated because She was colored(The terminology back then) so in effect She was a less than accordings to the Law at the time. Separate but Equal isn't equal at all.

Larry

They are trying to compare themselves to the Black Civil Rights Movement. It's ridiculous, but that is what they are attempting...

#314 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2009-05-26 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Because it IS the same. Even Coretta Scott King declared it to be the same struggle the blacks faced not some decades ago. It's a certain segment of the population being discriminated against simply because of who they loved and who they are.

Larry

They are trying to compare themselves to the Black Civil Rights Movement. It's ridiculous, but that is what they are attempting...

#314 | Posted by Prolix247

Isn't it odd that real civil rights leaders - you know, the ones who were THERE, say you're full of it?

Larry,
A white gay man would drink from the "White's Only" privileged fountain, While a black gay man would have to drink from the "Colored Only" fountain.

Now who is being discriminated against here?

A white gay man could demand a colored woman to leave her seat and go to the back of the bus. A black gay man would HAVE to sit in the back of the bus.

Now who is being discriminated against here?

See the difference???

#317 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Since you and I do not know these people, or how they really feel and speak to each other, we only have access to speeches made during fund raising events or paid speaking engagements now don't we.

You assume too much...

A white gay man would drink from the "White's Only" privileged fountain, While a black gay man would have to drink from the "Colored Only" fountain.

Now who is being discriminated against here?

A white gay man could demand a colored woman to leave her seat and go to the back of the bus. A black gay man would HAVE to sit in the back of the bus.

Now who is being discriminated against here?

See the difference???

Posted by Prolix247 at 2009-05-26 08:55 PM | Reply

No difference just another bullshit argument to justify the bigotry and or homophobia ever present in todays society.

Larry

Since you and I do not know these people, or how they really feel and speak to each other, we only have access to speeches made during fund raising events or paid speaking engagements now don't we.

You assume too much...

#319 | Posted by Prolix247

LOL!

Nothing much more to be said about a silly comment like that.

Since you and I do not know these people, or how they really feel and speak to each other, we only have access to speeches made during fund raising events or paid speaking engagements now don't we.

You assume too much...

Posted by Prolix247 at 2009-05-26 08:57 PM | Reply

We have their words written down in history to glean that information from.

Larry

No difference just another bullshit argument to justify the bigotry and or homophobia ever present in todays society.

Larry

#320 | Posted by LarryMohr

Bigotry and homophobia?

Like heterosexuals shouldn't be crowned as Miss America?

Hate cuts both ways.

#309 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

So Obama is a bigot and discriminates as he is not for gay marriage? Larry words.

We have their words written down in history to glean that information from.

Larry

#322 | Posted by LarryMohr

And there are MANY speeches and interviews from Mrs. King, Rep. Lewis, Julian Bond, Tom Bradley and more that were anything but "fundraisers" or "paid speeches".

Prolix thoughts are well known here, and he'll say just about anything, no matter how ludicrous, to support his argument.

Bigotry and homophobia?

Like heterosexuals shouldn't be crowned as Miss America?

Hate cuts both ways.

#323 | Posted by BENDOR at 2009-05-26 09:02 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Nice strawman

So Obama is a bigot and discriminates as he is not for gay marriage? Larry words.

#324 | Posted by MURPHY

Murphy - stop being such a petty little jerk. I told you very plainly in my #309 what the difference is. And it is a BIG difference.

This is so true RIO. I should remember that. Sighhhhhhh

Larry,

Corretta King is not the spokesmen for all things gay.

She would understand the plight of blacks, but that hardly makes her able to fully comprehend what it's like to be gay.

The reason separate but equal wasn't equal is because you can't sit in the back of the bus and claim it is the same as sitting in the front of the bus.

And black facilities were not equal.

CU could be equal....100%...legally speaking and that IS the heart of the matter.

Of course....what some won't admit is they REALLY want to overturn centuries of discrimination by "the church".

However...passing gay marriage laws won't change that and I suspect if gay marriages were recognized on a federal level, these gay "married" couples would have short lived contentment. The fact many churches would still refuse to recognize their "legal marriages" would grate on their nerves and they still won't be happy.

Just accept it....Civil Unions are a great solution.

Everyone comes out ahead.

That is except the homophobes who would just as well prefer to see all gays denied the right to breath, eat or even exist.

Obama is not for gay marriage--and you give him a pass and Larry calls everyone else a bigot and homophobe.

You are a tool and parsing bs from the one because it is Obama.

Obama and Hillary and whole slew of Dems are for traditional marriage and not in favor of gay marriage.

Who is being the petty little jerk?

You are!

This is not an issue about mob majority, and why people think it is tells loads about their educational astuteness.

Obama is not for gay marriage--and you give him a pass and Larry calls everyone else a bigot and homophobe.

You are a tool and parsing bs from the one because it is Obama.

Obama and Hillary and whole slew of Dems are for traditional marriage and not in favor of gay marriage.

Who is being the petty little jerk?

You are!

#331 | Posted by MURPHY

Seems like every time I get to thinking you're really not as dim as I thought, you come up with something like this.

Let me try this again. Obama and Hillary, etc. do not support gay marriage, but they believes that is a PRIVATE RELIGIOUS OPINION AND HAS NO PLACE IN CIVIL LAW. They ACTIVELY OPPOSES any such efforts. I can disagree with him, but respect his opinion.

YOU and others like you actively want to legislate to permanently make me a second class citizen under civil law. You want your RELIGIOUSLY-BASED BELIEFS to govern civil law. That I cannot respect and will strenuously work to kick your ass.

"From the White House today, President Barack Obama..."

With the GOP's shrinking tent get used to 8 years of hearing that.

Yes I believe that what others do is none of my business as long as it does not infringe on someone else's Constitutional rights.

I stand for many things one the most important being freedom which I'm sure you know is one of the basic tenants of Christianity.

Faith and morals forced upon people against their free will is fruitless and severs neither the forced or enforcer.

My #335 was in response to TheOneBS #290

San--

You are still parsing with Obama.

Clinton signed DOMA at the WH.

And it is not just religious reasons.

I firmly believe in traditional marriage.

Once you change the definition of marriage it means nothing.

-----------------

And what about the gays and lesbians who choose to be gay or lesbian?

Some or most whichever--claim they are born gay.

Some or many whichever--are not born gay--they choose the lifestyle or the same sex--because they want to.

How does anyone decipher the difference?

"You are still parsing with Obama."

Do you know what the meaning of that word is? The difference is ENORMOUS, Murphy. That is NOT parsing. I can't believe you refuse to see the difference between a privately held belief, and trying to make that belief the law of the land. Seriously, Murphy.

"Clinton signed DOMA at the WH."

I don't think we were talking about Bill Clinton. I vehemently disagree with him signing that bill. By the way, his wife thinks it should be repealed.

"And what about the gays and lesbians who choose to be gay or lesbian?"

No one does that Murphy. You'll just have to trust me on that one. They may choose whether or not to ACT on their sexuality, but they do not choose their sexuality.

"You mean race"

No, I mean exactly what I said. Gays are currently treated, under the law, as second-class citizens. Now you can pretend that's not the case all you want, but it doesn't change the underlying facts. Nor does it change the fact you never answered my question directly: Do you believe there are other instances that could be unequal, or do you believe inequality can only be about race?

"But I'm sure if said act happened today, you'd be skipping to a different tune, defending their licentious behavior while pleasuring yourself with KY jelly and the latest Noam Chomsky book"

I'd be defending incestuously impregnating two daughters?!? Good God, you had to go a long way to be wrong, didn't you?

"Why do these gay "families" need a license to fulfill their hopes and dreams?"

Because if one partner dies, the survivor currently gets NO survivor's benefits, whereas all straight couples do. This, despite the fact both sets of couples pay into the system equally. There are over 1000 more. Do you actually need a list?

the right has reduced marriage to PERMISSION TO HAVE SEX AND GET PREGNANT GRANTED BY A RELIGIOUS ENTITY. that is what they REALLY mean by traditional.

as a 51 year old gay person i must say that if civil unions offer all the same rights and benefits, then gays should take them. during my lifetime one by one of the anti gay laws have fallen. this too shall fall but i would take any rights i could get and forget about the stupid title.

gays can do all the same things with a civil union in regards to celebrations etc. in europe ALL marriages are civil unions that require going to the court house and then having a church service. let the bigots have their word. we all know what they claim to be tradition and history is nothing but a flat out lie, but, that is what they are good at, lying.

Great rally in the park tonight. This setback reminds of the battle of the bulge 65 years ago, probably beyond most Drudgies' recall. The good guys were mopping up Hitler's finest, but at Bastogne The Beast reared its ugly head one last time before the triumphal entry into Berlin. This ruling was the uglies' dying gasp. The next initiative will bring California liberty and justice for all. herm

"It's all about the money, Johnson. It's ALL about the money..."

Then tell us...at what price would equality be worth it?

in case anyone still thinks gays choose to be gay YOU ARE WRONG, GAYS ARE BORN GAY. DEAL WITH IT.

"CU could be equal....100%.."

Just like separate drinking fountains!

Another perspective--

"Some or many whichever--are not born gay--they choose the lifestyle or the same sex--because they want to."

Let's pretend, for a minute, it's 100% a choice.

Why would that void their right to equality?

#342 | Posted by ricmarc

I suspect there were many Blacks in the 50's and 60's who thought everyone should just settle for the minimum they thought they could get, and not push the envelope, since it was better than what they had before.

Thank God that viewpoint didn't prevail.

The ONLY way civil unions would be acceptable is if it is civil unions for EVERYONE, with "marriage" being the optional religious ceremony. Otherwise, NO to separate but equal!

"gays can do all the same things with a civil union in regards to celebrations etc"

BFD. Let us know when the 1000+ important rights are being discussed.

#347 | Posted by MURPHY

Murphy and the Mormons. Strange bedfellows (if you'll pardon the expression) indeed.

"Another perspective--"

Great. Yet another religious screed about the dangers of homosexuality, by someone who considers being born gay "laughably irrelevant", and believes it all revolves around gaining "control of our bodies". In other words...a closet case.

It is so funny to watch these mindless stuck on man made christian values idiots fight over a word and the meaning to their """tradition.""""

LOL! Just too funny.

Go to Canada, get married and go back to california.

The state is loaded with idiot politicians and idiot mindless supporters but really didn't know what the prop. 8 said.

I guess Dan--if they choose the lifestyle--fine--but the right to marry anyone for any reason just came thru door.

Traids, polygamy, you name it--it's all lifestyle.

Yes they can all claim to love eachother--no doubt.

But why should the state or the gov't give those lifestyles the same preferences given to a marriage between one woman and one man?

-----

And there are many who comment on the environment versus the gay gene.

Its not a "lifestyle" Murphy. Its a life.

"Traids, polygamy, you name it--it's all lifestyle."

Get back to me when you've learned the first thing about contract law and superseding rights.

"why should the state or the gov't give those lifestyles the same preferences given to a marriage between one woman and one man?"

Because the government isn't in the business of deciding who gets treated equally.

You & your husband, my wife and I, each got over 1,000 rights the moment we said "I do". Since my Bible tells me to treat others as I would want to be treated, and I can't imagine someone else--even a majority--telling me what rights I can participate in, I can't, in good conscience, "do that unto others". That book also admonishes me not to judge, and informs me I'll be judged by the way I treat "the least of my brethren".

How does anyone get "gays should only be second-class citizens, without the rights I get to enjoy" out of that?!?

"Go to Canada, get married and go back to california."

What does that have to do with American rights?

I sincerely hope each state can set its own standard of morality without the feds jumping in. That said, let me ask something here.
All the people who call religious folk "morons" and such, mock those beliefs and want them unmentioned in government...are you the same ones who think gay marriage "rights" were somehow hidden in the Constitution by the founders so as to be obvious only now? "Tolerance" means agree with the nuts on the far left, intimidate the centerists and ridicule all others.
As a matter of law: what is in a constitution IS the law. Supreme Dorks can not override it. California voters (not elites and pundits) said no to gay marriage with a constitutional amendment voted upon by the citizens. End of story. Let them be. Move to Massachusetts if it bugs you.

"I sincerely hope each state can set its own standard of morality without the feds jumping in."

So one state allows abortion, and the neighbor state enforces the death penalty for it?

" End of story. Let them be. Move to Massachusetts if it bugs you."

Except it's NOT the end of the story. Even married couples in MA have to file as singles when it comes to the IRS, and still aren't eligible for their partner's SS. There's nowhere to move to get true equality.

"I sincerely hope each state can set its own standard of morality without the feds jumping in."

So if the states should be able to decide things like this for themselves, do you disapprove of court cases such as Brown and Loving, as well as the Civil Rights Act of '64?

So one state allows abortion, and the neighbor state enforces the death penalty for it?

#360 | Posted by Danforth

Or the days when one state had Jim Crow laws, and the next didn't. Or one state imposed poll taxes on Blacks, and the next didn't. Or the days when one state put you in jail for marrying out of your race, and the next didn't.

"Or the days ..."

Yupppp.....the good ole days!

This isn't about morality, it is about equal rights, and the fact your impetuous postings are not able to reflect such tells loads about your moral reasoning.

What does that have to do with American rights?

Nothing, but don't let a idiot state stop you from having the happiness you deserve.

"Nothing, but don't let a idiot state stop you from having the happiness you deserve."

Hell, you can go to the nearest Unity church for that...why would you need to go to Canada? The issue is equal rights; no ceremony in Canada is going to grant what the US government won't.

Murphy,

The fact that gay is beyond your mental understanding(for good reason) doesn't mean you should limit gays ability to have equal rights.

This clearly shows those who follow through lack of intelligence and those who should be leading.

When you are married, you are married and pur government can't take that away.

225 | Posted by CalifChris

CC - did you see my response (#210) to your earlier questions?

#227 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-26 04:32 PM

Sure did and I'm sorry for not acknowledging your answer earlier -- been up to my neck in paperwork and going over work contracts today.

What you said made sense. Guess society forced them into situations they would not have normally chosen for themselves had they had another choice. Thanks for shedding some light on it.

If we as Americans are SUPPOSED to consider each one of us part of this great Family called America and Americana doesn't the denial of Rights to one segment of the Family unit effectively deny them for EVERYBODY?? Isn't it saying that some of our family emembers aren't worthy of what the majority of the family have. Seems to me when the bigotted and or Homophobics piss upon their Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters they are in actuality pissing upon themselves as well??

Larry

"""So anyone who disagrees with whether homosexual behavior should be codified into law through legal marriages are like..."""

Change homosexual marriage to "a marriage between a white woman and a black man" and look at the issue again. The past does serve certain lessons, yet some still fail to understand.#124 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-05-26 02:21 PM | Reply

You're sooo close, stick with me....

Homosexual BEHAVIOUR, which is a CHOICE

Compared to skin color, which is NOT a choice

If you don't understand the difference, you don't want to understand.

And Larry, just because you want any and all legitimate reasons opposing gay marriage to go away, doesn't mean they will.

No homophobia, just concerned citizen love.

"But seriously. In the eyes of the Lord Jesus Christ, only men and women are sanctioned for marriage."

Seriously...where, exactly, did Jesus say that?

As an aside, I'm sure Jesus is thrilled you've turned his whole "do unto others" bromide upside down.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-05-26 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female,' 5 and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19

OzarkAggie

...But you have to have complete trust, and there's a reason I haven't had a joint account since 1976. LOL

#260 | Posted by OzarkAggie at 2009-05-26 05:41 PM

You are so right. And once someone does something to lose the trust you once placed in them, it's hard to ever really trust that person ever again.

Homosexual BEHAVIOUR, which is a CHOICE

#372 | Posted by kirk

Ah, I see the spokesman for all science and scientists has arrived on scene.

Homosexual BEHAVIOUR, which is a CHOICE

Compared to skin color, which is NOT a choice

If you don't understand the difference, you don't want to understand.

And Larry, just because you want any and all legitimate reasons opposing gay marriage to go away, doesn't mean they will.

No homophobia, just concerned citizen love.

Posted by kirk at 2009-05-26 11:33 PM | Reply

So when did YOU make the choice to be Heterosexual?? Oh and if Homosexuality is a behavior choice then too is the Heterosexuality. Oh and there is no legit reason to deny same sex couples their equal rights. None whatsoever. So Yes indeed it comes down to bigotry and or homophobia.

Larry

So one state allows abortion, and the neighbor state enforces the death penalty for it?

Posted by Danforth

If that's what the voters of a state want yes. There are no one-size-fits-all fixes on issues like homosexual marriage and abortion.

Let the individual states decide through their voters.

Larry,
Glad you used the pissing analogy.

Opposition to gay marriage is based upon gay BEHAVIOR, not hatred of gay people.

I don't hate you.
However, I do have a right to vote my conscience regarding the laws of my city, state and nation....just like you can vote that I can't drive a big-ass SUV, or vote not to have the government pay for my church to help crackheads put down the crackpipe.

Opposition to gay marriage is based upon gay BEHAVIOR, not hatred of gay people.

I don't hate you.
However, I do have a right to vote my conscience regarding the laws of my city, state and nation....just like you can vote that I can't drive a big-ass SUV, or vote not to have the government pay for my church to help crackheads put down the crackpipe.

Posted by kirk at 2009-05-26 11:41 PM | Reply

What is the difference between Heterosexual Behavior and Homosexual behavior?? none whatsoever. It's the sharing of physical intimacy with the one that You love. Since there is no Fundamental right to drive that cuts down one of Your strawmen and the Separation of church and state cuts the other strawman down.

Larry

Oh and since when do You have a right to vote against someones CIVIL RIGHTS??

Homosexual BEHAVIOUR, which is a CHOICE

#372 | Posted by kirk

That is an unfounded opinion.

But assuming just for the moment that homosexuality is a choice, why would a woman or a man choose to be homosexual?

Oh and since when do You have a right to vote against someones CIVIL RIGHTS??

#380 | Posted by LarryMohr

Well, Larry, unfortunately in this case they do. And we have the right to fight like hell to make sure those kinds of decisions ultimately get overturned.

As I posted before, this isn't the first time California passed an amendment to get around civil rights issues. It didn't hold up in the US Supreme Court before, and it won't this time.

Homosexual BEHAVIOUR, which is a CHOICE#372 | Posted by kirkAh, I see the spokesman for all science and scientists has arrived on scene.#375 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-26 11:37 PM | Reply |

First of all, you and Larry better learn how to fight this "war of words" and express your ideas convincingly in the free market of ideas, because your guys worldview isn't exactly winning in at the ballot boxes.

And SanAntone, if you'd like to show me how science says that homosexuals are FORCED into behavior, I'm all ears. And DO bring all the sc and scientists you can.

Larry,
I chose EVERY DAY what I do and do not do with my genitals, my relationships and my mouse.

It's part of my personal and civic responsibility--so YES, I choose what I do with my heterosexuality.

Well, Larry, unfortunately in this case they do. And we have the right to fight like hell to make sure those kinds of decisions ultimately get overturned.

As I posted before, this isn't the first time California passed an amendment to get around civil rights issues. It didn't hold up in the US Supreme Court before, and it won't this time.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-26 11:51 PM | Reply

Let's hope like hell the SCOTUS overturns this whole shebang once and for all. RIO

Larry

But assuming just for the moment that homosexuality is a choice, why would a woman or a man choose to be homosexual?

#381 | Posted by ZOT

And even given the silly argument that it is currently chic, that would hardly explain why people have "chosen" to be gay throughout history, in times where you could be killed or tortured for it at any time.

"First of all, you and Larry better learn how to fight this "war of words" and express your ideas convincingly in the free market of ideas, because your guys worldview isn't exactly winning in at the ballot boxes."

I beg to differ. Tremendous progress has been made and opinion trends have moved steadily in one direction for quite a few years now. Nobody ever claimed there won't be setbacks.

I chose EVERY DAY what I do and do not do with my genitals, my relationships and my mouse.

It's part of my personal and civic responsibility--so YES, I choose what I do with my heterosexuality.

Posted by kirk at 2009-05-26 11:52 PM | Reply

Boy I thought when Heterosexuals got Married they were clothed?? You mean they have naked orgy sex Marriages now?? WOW boy I am stupified.

Larry

"And SanAntone, if you'd like to show me how science says that homosexuals are FORCED into behavior"

I have no idea what that means.

""4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female,' 5 and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19"

#373 | Posted by MACV1972

If you are going to quote something, such as the Bible, make damn sure you include the entire context:

' Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" '

The question and the response have nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality.

Quite disingenuous of you.

The question and the response have nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality.

#389 | Posted by ZOT

But I DO believe Jesus was VERY clear on the subject of divorce.

I'm at a loss to understand why there are no movements afoot or amendments afloat to make sure divorce is made illegal for everyone in the Constitution.

Larry,

There are inherent differences between homosexual relationships and behavior and hterosexual relationships and behavior.

But you really don't care to have those delineated and enumerated.

And there's no constitutional right to marry, so my analogies are just as valid.

And, for the record, "conservatives" and Christians and whoever else that fights for the "sanctity of marriage" and doesn't act like it ARE more concerning to me than if gay marriage were legal. I'm no hypocrite. Those above types need to put up (and act the way they should) or shut up!

For all those who claim that homosexuality is a choice... go to www.redtube.com it's a fairly decent porn site with a diverse selection. Everything from run-of-the-mill missionary to Japanese robotic penetration machines and Brazillian Fart Porn.

Find a video featuing women. Preferrably lesbians or masturbation... no cock. Just to keep it controlled. Time how long it takes you to get a boner. Do not masturbate.

Turn off the video once you have a boner, let it go away, and do something else to clear your mind for a bit. Some laundry. Whatever.

Go back and look in the gay section. Find a video with no women in it and try to see how long it takes you to get a boner. Don't worry, if you're uncomfortable with your sexual identity, remember you're doing this for science. It doesn't make you gay. Once again, do not masturbate.

Ideally you should repeat this a several more times with different videos to get a decent amount of data.

Now a bit of musing... Did you have to decide to get a woody when you looked at the women? Did you have to try not to get a stiffy when watching the men? Think on that one for a second.

I forgot... you shoudl throw in a man-on-woman group as well. Follow the same instructions.

But assuming just for the moment that homosexuality is a choice, why would a woman or a man choose to be homosexual?