Calif. AG urges court to void gay marriage ban

We have a Republic in the United States of America.  No small group of individuals have the right to overturn the majority vote.

You have it exactly backwards.  A republic helps protect minorities from majority tyranny.  A majority doesn't need protection--they're the majority!

Long as we're talking about choices and lifestyles - religion is the most important one there is. Now please tell me why I should be forced to live the precepts of YOUR religion. 

Talk about pushing your lifestyle choice on people -good grief!

the argument of equality in the context of gay marriage is pretty narrow in relation for true equality.using the arguement put forth by the gay and lesbian community the basis for your intolerance towards those who disagree with the marriage agenda is selfish and contrary to the arguement that the gay community has utilized to this point.the demand for tolerance and acceptance has always been at the core of the gay communies agenda yet the same tolerance and acceptance is never given to those who disagree with their views.where is the practicing of what you preach?calling those who disagree homophobic and bigoted is exactly the same intolerance the gay community has continously used to promote their agenda.compromise is not a concept that the gay community chooses to pursue.why can't the term CIVIL UNION satisfy  the desire to recieve legal recognition.it affords civil recognition and all of the legal benifits of the term marriage.yet the thought of giving the same consideration to the hetrosexual community appears unacceptable to the gay community.most are tolerant of your right to pursue that which is important to you and many would suppurt your civil right to express your sexual preference.the fact that the gay community insists on being seen as equal in this regard is flawed.there are biological realities that cannot be ignored they are and always will be a reality in this arguement.procreation in the non-scientific realm is a physical reality that is always going to be a part of the equation.this is the element of marriage that cannot be compromised on-it is how nature has decreed that reproduction was to transpire.while many options have evolved in the past few decades they are not sufficient reason to disregard the view hetrosexuals hold regarding marriage.refesal of the gay community to compromise continues to show intolerance on  accepting others right to express and enjoy their civil rights.this gives the impression of intolerance and bigotry also

spiffle: Wrong. The very reason we have a House of Representatives, where representation is based on the population of a state, is to give states with larger populations (the majority of the national population) more power in voting. Our entire system of voting is based on capturing the will of the majority.

But the Founding Fathers were afraid - it almost borders on a phobia, it seems - of *anybody* having all the power. That's why our government is bicameral, and we have a Senate where state representation is equal, to offset the effects of some states having larger populations and to give smaller states equal voting powers. It's also why we have a judiciary to protect everyone - both minorities and the majority - from laws that violate the constitution.

The fundamental aim of the Founding Fathers was to put the power of the government into the hands of the people, and protect the people through the constitution. They then gave the keys of the kingdom to the people, by giving them the sole right (as exercised through their representatives in the legislative) to amend that constitution. They didn't give that right to the executive, and they didn't give that right to the judiciary; they gave that right to the people.

This move by the judiciary in California shows a great disdain for constitutional principles, and a dangerous level of arrogance. Every citizen in California ought to think carefully before supporting this approach to affecting constitutional change. You are giving up the power of the California constitution to protect you.

maddog-756501 and ChecksandBalances, I am truly impressed! Well put.

EJ

maddog-756501 and ChecksandBalances, I am truly impressed! Well put.

EJ

Well put? Perhaps, but completely 100% wrong. Both opinions fail basic American civics 101. We are not, repeat are not, a majority rule nation and if we had been we'd have completely collapsed long ago. Our court system was the most brilliant and inspired creation of the founding fathers. It provides for protection of minority groups fro the tyranny of the majority, just like they designed it too. No rational person really wants to live in a completely majority rule nation. Pure majority rule is mob rule and not a nation of right and wrong and rational laws. Our laws are based on the Constitution of the United States of America and the "will of the people" can never be allowed to over-rule that. Don't like it? Then try to call a Constitutional Convention and change it. Until then, too bad.

r donald

well said

seams the anti gay agenda (also know as the christian agenda) is alive and well. It is the same folks yapping about majority vote yadda yadda, by the people yadda, yadda that would be protesting in the streets if say a proposition banned their cult from existence and the same ones that had a need to shove their religious lifestyle down everyone's throats that speak about this thing called a gay agenda

All you people who talk about a gay agenda, please inform us where can we find this gay agenda, never seen one and only hear about it from anti-gay people

There is a christian agenda and can be found in many places

religion is a choice

bigotry is a choice

ignorance is a choice

the cure for all is education

Right on DBW - how DARE he uphold the constitution instead of the will of the people!  I guess he's just a maverick!

This is absolutely a civil rights issue.  It CAN AND SHOULD be compared to both racism and sexism.  These laws are widespread, systematic, legal discrimination against a specific group of people for the the expressed purpose of denying them the same rights everyone else gets automatically.  If thats not a civil rights issue, then I don't know what is.

Lets bring back the Jim Crow laws. A county by county vote, I know of several counties that it would pass.

The very reason we have a House of Representatives, where representation is based on the population of a state, is to give states with larger populations (the majority of the national population) more power in voting.

Only partly right, because that proportional to population representation is only present in one-half of one branch of government.  The founders recognized the importance of giving the people a voice, but it's not like that was the founding principle alone of their government.  All of the rest of the government relied on undemocratic means of election or appointment.  It seems silly to argue the founders were oh so committed to democracy when originally three of the four components of government were undemocratic.

This move by the judiciary in California shows a great disdain for constitutional principles, and a dangerous level of arrogance.

No, it doesn't.  You could really only say that if you had on idea what the legal argument was under consideration.  This is an argument of law in how initiatives qualify for the ballot.  It's a technical argument, not an argument about the merits of the initiative itself.  But technical arguments still need to be considered.

Let's use an analogy to the federal system.  One way that federal amendments can be proposed is if two-thirds (currently 34) of the states petition for an amendment.  Then if three-quarters of the states ratify said amendment, it is adopted.  Let's say that of the original 34 states that voted to propose the amendment, three were later found to have done so illegitimately, and they now refuse to re-pass the proposal.  If the process was illegitimate, then the outcome may be (not shall be, note the distinction) considered illegitimate, as well.

That's a fundamental concept in our system of law, that the process is important, too, along with the outcome.  That's what underlies the "fruit of a poisoned tree" concept in criminal jurisprudence, which excludes evidence derived from other evidence obtained by unconstitutional means (torture, entrapment, an illegal search, etc.). 

r.donald-if what you espouse is true that the majority  has to be prevented from trampling the rights of minorities then the constitutional amendent recognizing the rights of blacks which passed on december 6th 1865 was done with the majority pursuing the amended legislation.seems to contradict your version of civics 101.awfully convienient how distortion of fact is used to promote a specific agenda.that is 100% fact-it is documented in the very same constitutional amendments that you are distorting to support your baseless assertion.before you denigrate anothers assertions with emotional drivel you shoul know of what you speak

There is one big difference that you who would cry foul at the 'agenda' of non discrimination seem to leave out.....
Those who are calling for the banning of gay marriage are practicing discrimination. You are asking the government to preclude a certain sector of the population from enjoying the same freedom and liberty that the majority take for granted. By granting same sex priveleges, there is no harm done to your 'lifestyle'. There is no foul. However, the 'agenda' of discriminatory practice by the right wing does indeed stink of fascism and is in direct opposition to the basis of our free society and our Constitution. THAT is the difference between you asking for what you want and me asking for what I want.

Of course, the fact that you right wing bible thumpers wish to deny me my rights as an American citizen (not special rights, only equal rights), is not very surprising.....

"Beware Fascism in America. It will come waving the American flag with one hand and carrying the Bible in the other"

again with the venemous rhetoric-your right to pursue the lifestyle you choose is not being deprived of you.the insistance you demand is that those who disagree with you are "facist' is pretty slim.do you not currently enjoy the freedom to excercise your sexual preference.that is the basis of your irrational arguement.the real issue seems to be that since i do not agree with your opinion i am wrong,how nice of you to abridge my right to express my opinion.try to be a little more mature when defending your position as it will lead to healthier dialouge.it's the childlike response that bears little if any fact that shows your inability to discuss intelligently.you should practice the behavior that you expect to be treated with.its the same discrimination that you rant against others so hatefully. taunting and name calling is behavior that adults outgrew when they left grade school.bigotry & intolerance is not exclusive to people of faith-just go look in a mirror

The proposition is unconstitutional as the court has already ruled it is just that. It should have never made the ballot.

Wow Maddog you typed alot, didn't say much, but boy did you type.

Prop 8 yes vote states that only marriage between (XX) and (YY) is legal in California

Ummm...the correct sex chromosome letters are XX (genetic female) and XY (genetic male).

Extremely violent males often have an extra Y chromosome XYY. These guys tend to be in prison in solitary confinement for life or get a death sentence. There are other variations: XO meaning one sex chromosome is missing and another trisomy variant, XXY, which can be found in some with indistinct gender identification at birth. There are variants which occur between different types of cells in the same person. The variations are: XO+XY, XO+XX, for example. Depending on where the cell sample is taken from in the body, a single sex chromosome may be present rather than the usual 2.

DBW-382651, Let me guess...you failed biology?

No wonder you have such a hard time dealing with all these legislative issues, a government that is a Republic instead of a democracy, and civil rights ideas. It's just easier to swallow what they teach in religion class and forget all that hard stuff in science and math and civics. It's all bunk anyway, right? Who needs modern medicine and space travel? Who needs to know why apples fall down on your head instead of floating? Who needs to know that genetic research has shown differences between gays and straights? All that chemistry, biology and physics is irrelevant, right?

If that's what you think, please give up all the modern conveniences math and science have brought you, all the freedoms you enjoy by being an American, and go live in a cave. You'll have to give up your computer, too.

certianly nothing you understand-common sense does not seem to be something you should worry about.ignorance seems to be your stong point -stick with what works for you it can only get better

r.donald-if what you espouse is true that the majority  has to be prevented from trampling the rights of minorities then the constitutional amendent recognizing the rights of blacks which passed on december 6th 1865 was done with the majority pursuing the amended legislation.seems to contradict your version of civics 101

No contradiction at all. If you can get a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one women then more power to you. Then your version of marriage will be the law of the land and will be Constitutional. Until then it just ain't. The Supreme Court HAS to rule on cases according the current Constitution. Since the Supreme Cour has ruled (several times) that gays are a protected minority, it has no choice except to give them equal rights (including the right of marriage) under the CURRENT Constitution. Don't like it? Try your damnest to pass an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, but be aware that it has absolutely no chance of passing. Until then you are what is known as SOL.

Oh and I don't "espouse" it, the United States Constitution does.

you conviently failed to answer the inconsistentcy of your civics 101 remark.ignore the facts and continue to avoid to answer.it shows that a direct rebuttal which is factual is too difficult to respond to.changing the subject is worse than just not responding

maddog

seams from reading these posts you practice the tried and true method of putting your opinion as fact and look to others to prove their different opinion even when theirs is closer to fact

You somehow have the fundamental of the "fake christians" down when you say

that is the basis of your irrational arguement.the real issue seems to be that since i do not agree with your opinion i am wrong,how nice of you to abridge my right to express my opinion.try to be a little more mature when defending your position as it will lead to healthier dialouge.it's the childlike response that bears little if any fact that shows your inability to discuss intelligently.

You infer because someone differs on your opinion you are somehow not given the right to express your opinion... when it is more than obvious no one is stopping you from repeating, over and over your opinion

The issue I see is you continue to try to twist every one else opinion and when their opinion doesn't change you get all made like a 2 year old

You also do a lot of talking about fact yet conveniently have no facts in your writings... there is a huge difference between your opinion and fact

dialouge with differing viewpoints requires a response just like yours.if you don't care for anothers view you can respond as you see fit.insulting another with degatory rebuttal usually comes from ignorance and fear.trying to elevate the importance of your position by detracting others is as common as dirt.shows a lack of creativity  of such a limited arguement.

maddogg

nice spin

the quest to you is where is the proof that anything in your post is fact or is it just your opinion... did you somehow miss this?

you cry like a baby because someone doesn't share your view but still push your view as some kind of fact beyond the actual fact that it is nothing more than your view and the spin from the right wing

arguments/discussions can occur once you realize your opinion is just that your opinion and not fact

there is a cure for hate, intolerance,homophobia and bigotry it is called education

still waiting for that educated response to your civics 101 remark

R Donald - the argument has been that you can't in actuality even modify the constitution to take rights away from any group - that violates the whole of the constitution; it would take a revolution and a whole new (theocratic) constitution

GBW = the people selling prop 8 never considered it's constitutionality - what it actually did. They basically sold a hate crime - that you could take away someone's rights based on sexual orientation and the rest of the constitution says that you can not take away anyone's rights (equal protection)

Then they convinced people that Marriage had ever been anything you could discriminate against.

They spread the lie that this was something you could vote on.

They got millions of dollars from outside (basically) religious groups, especially the Mormon Church.

In other words they illegally sold a world view rather than a legal one in what was only a legal issue - discrimination in the rights to a government service (Marriage) and confused people by substituting "Marriage" when they meant "Matrimony" (the religious institution) - they actually hijacked the language and use of the word "Marriage", in order to deliberately harm a minority group.

This was an attempt at a legal hate crime - of generating hate in a specific area falsely (to that groups harm) - and getting away with it; violating the core of the constitution; it was an unconstitutional measure before anyone voted on it - but the court didn't take a stand (for whatever reason - perhaps hoping it would go away rather than have to explain again to people as they already did once, that you can't vote on people's rights.

Until someone is willing to step up and say that and people will listen to them; we will have discrimination

and if the elected officials would grow a set and do what they were elected to do there would be no reason to put propositions on a ballot for the public to vote on.the whole legislative process has been rendered useless as long as the people elected to office continue to avoid issues that are difficult to work on.the reason the public has to collect signatures and put these issues to a vote is due to the fact that the politicians refuse to do their jobs.the courts are supposed to interpet the law not create it.

 and if the elected officials would grow a set and do what they were elected to do there would be no reason to put propositions on a ballot for the public to vote on

 Passing unconstitutional laws wouldn't prove someone has balls, maddog.  It might suggest they have them instead of a brain, but that isn't the same thing.

Please don't plagiarize and respect the copyright of others.  

I think he did. At the top...

Citing the source is not respecting copyright.

"Please don't plagiarize and respect the copyright of others... Citing the source is not respecting copyright."

So, behind this larger perspective is really just a man who doesn't have a noteworthy rebuttal.

So, behind this larger perspective is really just a man who doesn't have a noteworthy rebuttal.

Honestly, once I determined it was a cut-and-paste job I didn't even bother reading it.  If the original commenter had such an original, noteworthy thought of his own, he wouldn't need to rip off the work of other people to make it.

Theft is wrong, and indefensible.  At least, it should be.

spiffie, he didn't rip it off.  He cited his source.  Get over it.

Why don't you try reading it, instead?

In the early days of colonization the colonialists murdered known homosexuals; they did not marry them. This article was written selectively to defend an individual position on a controversial topic and is not to be viewed as a testimont to the evoloution of society.

The United States is the product of the rebellion of the majority in response to the perverse abuses of the minority. Conversley; it is safe to conclude that the founding members of our nation - one nation under God - were obsessed with creating a form of government that would ensure the will of the people over the will of a corrupt and immoral minority.

"..a corrupt and immoral minority..."?

In my opinion, Randy, the corruption and immorality comes from the side that would deny a portion of our citizenry the same equal rights that the majority enjoy. Regardless of whether you or your 'god' think my life is 'immoral', denying me my fundamental rights gauranteed me under the Constitution is discrimination. Period.

The California Constitutions intent was redefined by Justices in a 4 to 3 ruling in opposition to the will of the people and in support of a special interest group that spent millions lobbying for support.

Attorney General Brown changed his "position' after it became clear that the existing 18000 speed bumps will become null and void thus eliminating the ability of the Attorney General to have the will of the people overturned at a later date. Brown was attempting to position himself so that he could claim the high ground for each battle so as to better position himself for a run at the Governorship.

Jerry Brown has now stated that he is violating his oath of office by petitioning the California Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people in opposition to his official responsibility of defending the will of the people - 18000 x 2 = 36000 / 33000000 = .1 percent of the population violating the will of the people.

I call support of .1 percent of the population at the expense of the other 99.9 percent of the population to be immoral and illegal. Th U.S. came to be when the Majority stood up against the abuses of the Minority and it is laughable that people would take the position that the Constitution was written to protect the Minority at the expense of the Majority when it was the abuses of the Minority that led to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in the first place.

The US Government and the Nation was designed by Free Masons a very secretive minority group. DAH!

The Masons believe themselves to be the descendants of the builders of King Solomon's temple. The belief follows that when the Church of Solomon is rebuilt the Christ will return and so will begin the 1000 years of peace - I have a Masonic ring and the Masonic Bible in my cabinet.

The Homosexual alliance refuse to acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution is based on Judea / Christian principals and values because these values recognize homosexuality as an abomination; an affront to God and country.

Right God is a myth and the Free Masons are a cult. Why so secret? The Masons should come out of the closet.

The free Masons were The Knights Templar, found something that scared the church so bad that they were systematical killed.

The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Yet there are no Red Lobster Amendments. The Bible says you shall not wear two different types of cloths at the same time. Yet there are no Propositions against cotton and wool combos.

The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply. And they choose based on which outsider group they would like to hate next. First, they emphasized slavery in the Bible when they wanted to hate black people. Now, they emphasize the parts condemning homosexuality so they can hate gay people.

They are completely and utterly disingenuous. They don't mean a word of it. They don't give a damn what the Bible says. They just want to use it as an instrument of hate.

jane, it's not my job to teach copyright law to you, but if you want a quick primer, the US Office of Copyright has a primer on the standards of acceptable use, which is easily found via Google.  In brief, reproducing a work in full will almost never be an acceptable fair use of another person's work, irrespective and regardless of whether or not you cited the source of that work.  Simply copying a work in full is intellectual property theft.

Hey Spiffle:

Good thing you DON'T teach copyright law. If you follow this link (I used this one, but there are many more, too numerous to quote, http://www.myopenforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4189) that spell out what to do to use a previously-published work. I followed every recommendation.

But if you're so incensed by the post, then tell the Rev. Gomes I copied his work - and see if he sues me! Or tell the feds I'm guilty of "THEFT!"

But for crying out loud - GET OVER IT!!!

Guys, just because he quoted it doesn't mean he didn't violate the copyright law. That would be like making copies of a full page/article in NYTimes for example, and distributing it (even if it's not for monetary gain).

You know when you seed an article and then copy and paste as much as you can from the article in your summary? That is also copyright.

Spiffie was right. Also, what you did Randy was not only copyright, it was annoying. Try the link feature.

All right fine. Not really - but fine. But you have to admit - it generated controversy. If it was as annoying as you claim it to be, then why was it highly rated, as evidenced by the green star?

One does not necessarily need to be as prolific and thoughtful as the Dr. Rev. Gomes in order to want to have it read by as many people as possible. Seeding it would have meant many fewer people would have read it - whether they agreed with it or not.

So shoot me. Draw and quarter me. Beat me. Make me write bad checks - I don't care.

Randy from Maine.

You heard the man; end him and make it look like an accident

Okay, not exactly sure why some random website's guidelines for material posted at their site would be convincing to me.  "But, Judge, I totally followed the guidelines for MyOpenForum.com, so I clearly wasn't breaking the law!"  Uh, yeah.

Here you go, the guidelines for fair use as put forward by the US Copyright Office (yes, *gasp*, an actual governmental agency who might know a thing or two whereof they speak!)

I have trying to follow this. What the hell are you taking about?

OK - was this an "If/Then/Else" point-by-point? As a non-attorney, I could drive a truck through these guidelines. This is NOT a commercial enterprise - I'm not making any money out of this.

In any event, I claim this as "fair use" and as such, am entitled to use this work as long as I give it proper attribution - which I did. So sue me. Or not. Have you people call my people and we'll talk, OK???

Let's move on here...

But I still don't know what you are talking about

Randy K

want to point out in the early days the colonists murdered many folks for their ignorant reasons, some because they were witches others because the were presumed gay the reality was because in the early days there was hardly any educated people and they were full of fear of anybody anything that might be different from them... sort of like the same fear coming from the "religious right" today

I hear much interpretation of the founding father's intent this that and the other... utter nonsense and the supreme court showed any interpretation of what the founding fathers had is totally irrelevant when they ruled on the 2nd amendment for if you read the ruling and read the amendment they put zero effort into trying to determine what the founding fathers meant.

Nice that you dress up give secret handshakes but it does not mean your opinion of the US constitution is based on christian morals and values --- this is not fact and indeed your opinion although it be a wrong one -- trust me if this was based on christian anything we would see influence from the flawed document the christians call the bible and look as you may there is a nice absence of biblical mumbo jumbo in the constitution

Have you read your entire bible or just the normal highlighted chapter and verse? For there are hundreds and hundreds of contradictions, inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the bible not to mention all the stuff the bible thumpers don't bother to look at like eating of shell fish and wearing mixed fiber clothing and selling one's daughter into slavery -- so guess it is a good thing the constitution is not based on that flawed bible

have your worn your fez today?

I have read the entire Bible cover to cover and referenced different printings of the Bible to verify continuity. The motto for the U.S. is "In God We Trust" the Latin phrase on the Great Seal of the United States translates to "He approves our endeavors" - Paraphrased.

The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed in 1979 that the "United States is a Judea/Christian nation based on Judea/Christian principles and values." The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable, but you spawns of Satan will champion any lie that will offer you the excuse you can live with that will allow you to continue your pursuit of an immoral life.

The Bible never contradicts itself, but those seeking a free pass often claim inconsitencies as their accepted excuse for not allowing the Bible to show them the truth of it all.

The birth of Christ ended many of the limitations placed on man and this is duly noted in every Christian Bible I have read; the Torra has diffrent levels of responsibility to the adherence to the word of God that are dependent on your tribe, or station.

You do not tell the Bible what it meant to teach you; "Come to me as a child not knowing."

"The constitution was written for a moral and religious population and is wholly inappropriate for anyone else." John Adams

"It is the duty of the American population to elect Christians as the representatives of their Christian Nation." George Washington

First off, the Washington quote is a falsehood. He didn't say it. I've seen where people have claimed it was said during his farewell address, but nope. He didn't. Read it for yourself. I have it linked. Unless you can find the source for the actual quote, then I will be willing to entertain the thought.

There is one little thing that make your argument about the US being a "Christian Nation". It's called the Constitution.

The First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
 
Article VI, Section 3
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

So, if the US cannot make any laws establishing religion, then the US cannot be a Christian nation.

I will agree that the majority population at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was Christian, or at least Deist. But times have changed. And you cannot base national laws on religion. We do not live in a Theocracy.

Randy

The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply. And they choose based on which outsider group they would like to hate next. First, they emphasized slavery in the Bible when they wanted to hate black people. Now, they emphasize the parts condemning homosexuality so they can hate gay people.

They are completely and utterly disingenuous. They don't mean a word of it. They don't give a damn what the Bible says. They just want to use it as an instrument of hate.

The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Yet there are no Red Lobster Amendments. The Bible says you shall not wear two different types of cloths at the same time. Yet there are no Propositions against cotton and wool combos.

The Bible says you should leave your family and join Jesus Christ. The religious right pretends that Jesus was about family values. He wanted you to abandon your family. Read the Bible.

Wikepedia:

He said, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." George Washington

The limits on dietary requirements in the Bible are addressed in the New Testament where Jesus is asked of these limitations and Jesus tells his disciples that "I am here to fulfill these laws and remove dietary limitations." - paraphrased

The Article's regarding religion were placed to protect religion from the Government and not to protect the Government from religion. "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, endowed by their CREATOR..."

Wikipedia George Washington, or any of the brothers of the revolution and see for yourself; your lies will not change the truth of it all. Most every Latin phrase on every piece of currency, every official seal, and every Government building in the united states is a reference to our faith in the All Mighty. The great eye on our currency is the "Ever watching eye of God."

The Latin inscription on the Great Seal of the United States translates to "He approves our undertaking."

Name me one Nation built on Homosexual beliefs/morals - just one. Rome rededicated itself to include Homosexuality; which led to the fall of Rome. Homosexuals will raise up other Homosexuals to the determent of society if this is allowed to continue. Homosexual Judges champion Homosexual causes as do Homosexual politicians - Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Case in point:

U.S. Air experienced an abnormally high increase in the number of Male Homosexual Flight Attendants, so an internal investigation was performed and the investigators discovered that the head of Human Resources was a male Homosexual and he would only hire Male Homosexuals - the same thing is going on at Disney right now.

I went to a gay Wedding and Three of the Judges I met identified themselves as Homosexuals; these people are trying to force their will on the American population to the determent of the family just so you -explicit - can feel good about your lifestyle choice. The same thing happened in Rome...

http://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

These people? Who are these people? Americans?

Oh Your God You Have Indisputible Evidence Why Rome Fell? Good Gracious Man, Don't Just Stand There Run Run Tell Others Your therory.

U.S. Air experienced an abnormally high increase in the number of Male Homosexual Flight Attendants, so an internal investigation was performed and the investigators discovered that the head of Human Resources was a male Homosexual and he would only hire Male Homosexuals - the same thing is going on at Disney right now.

Ummm well more women are breaking the glass ceiling and moving on to jobs only thought to be for men. Wikipedia the Ebay and see who runs that.

Disney? You mean dancers?

Did you get kicked out of flight attendant school? Did you want to be a dancer in the parades at Disney World?

Randy I am so surprised you can hear me with you being way back in the 1940s

http://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

Randy????

You are an idot. There is nothing in here from this century AHAHAHA, Thats pretty funny. I think 1994 is the newest reference listed.

How is it back there in the 1940s

Utter jiberish; You can't argue against the facts because the answers always leads to the same conclusion - Homosexuality is Evil

No Randy you are evil. What facts did you present? An article from an anti gay web site? Which I might add has nothing listed in that article that is after 1994. And they use statistics that hold true for the hetero side of society.

Food For Thought

Since the 16th century, some have interpreted the relationship between Jesus and John the Apostle, the Disciple whom Jesus loved as an erotic, homosexual romance.

Aelred of Rievaulx, in his work Spiritual Friendship, referred to the relationship of Jesus and John as a "marriage" and held it out as an example sanctioning friendships between clerics.

The Homosexuals have claimed that everyone is Homosexual, or has Homosexual tendencies at one time or the other. Even John Wayne was claimed to be a Homosexual by the Gay and Lesbian propaganda machine - I live in Gay Long Beach and have seen this for myself.

Defamation, violence, and the screaming of obscenities are the weapons the Gay Union has chosen for their war on the Jewish, Christian, and Moslem religions.

Fact: The U.S. is a Judea/Christian Nation based on Judea Christian Principles and Values.

Fact: Every signer of the U.S. Constitution was a Christian

Fact: Every standing President of the United States has professed himself a Christian

Fact: The official Motto of the U.S. is "In God We Trust."

Fact: The Latin text on the Great Seal of the U.S. translates to "He approves are undertaking."

Fact: The Giant Eye on our notes is a reference to 'The ever watching eye of GOD"

Fact: Deity was taught by Jesus Christ

Wikipedia it for yourself; the answers are their; even the Homosexual community has access to the truth; they just don't like to acknowledge things that show their lives to be a lie.

RANDY K

first for you last post 8.33

you wrote

The Homosexuals have claimed that everyone is Homosexual, or has Homosexual tendencies at one time or the other. Even John Wayne was claimed to be a Homosexual by the Gay and Lesbian propaganda machine - I live in Gay Long Beach and have seen this for myself.

Perhaps some homosexuals have accused some individuals of being closet case gays, sometimes the accusations were correct and other cases we do not know the real answer. For the most part the machine you refer to as the gay and lesbian propaganda machines has done nothing but attempt to correct the rewriting of history by the "christian wing nuts"

Defamation, violence, and the screaming of obscenities are the weapons the Gay Union has chosen for their war on the Jewish, Christian, and Moslem religions.

here are the weapons of the various religious nut cases which can be confirmed by looking at many if not all gay bashings of recent time. The various religions spew hate, intolerance, bigotry and judgement from their pulpits which fans the flames of hate and intolerance of their minions who in turn take the hate speech as permission to commit atrocities of physical violence against gays and abortion clinics and use of suicide bombers all terrorists cowardly deeds performed in the name of their religion

Fact: The U.S. is a Judea/Christian Nation based on Judea Christian Principles and Values.

show any fact that this is anything more than your flawed opinion

Fact: Every signer of the U.S. Constitution was a Christian

you missed reality all together with this one do a tiny bit of research and you will see there were a few "christians" but the majority of signers were not christians so this is only fact in your fantasy world

Fact: Every standing President of the United States has professed himself a Christian

False several early presidents were not christian but diests again you have no grip on fact vs fiction in your mind

Fact: The official Motto of the U.S. is "In God We Trust."

sort of this motto placed on US currency was added in 1952 during the mcarthy dark ages... it was rammed though based on fear of communism and should be removed

Fact: The Latin text on the Great Seal of the U.S. translates to "He approves are undertaking."

yes He being some version or perhaps better put every ones version of a higher power

Fact: The Giant Eye on our notes is a reference to 'The ever watching eye of GOD"

the giant eye is totally a rip of from the free masons and is totally irrelevant to any discussion about us being somehow a "christian nation"

Fact: Deity was taught by Jesus Christ

this makes zero sense regarding your ridiculous claims about christianity and the us

Wikipedia it for yourself; the answers are their; even the Homosexual community has access to the truth; they just don't like to acknowledge things that show their lives to be a lie.

You are in some great need of education if you use wikipedia as any sort of factual database since everyone is able to add entries to wikipedia making it nothing more than a conglomerate of unrelated opinions with minimum fact content

And here I always thought the motto of the US was E Pluribus Unum. After all it is on the FRONT of the seal and has been since the country was formed. 

Maybe it's something we should think about more often. Out of Many, One. Sounds pretty inclusive.

RANDY K

now for your post 8.24

I have read the entire Bible cover to cover and referenced different printings of the Bible to verify continuity.

The Bible never contradicts itself, but those seeking a free pass often claim inconsitencies as their accepted excuse for not allowing the Bible to show them the truth of it all.

then you obviously only retain what you choose and ignore the hundreds and hundreds of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and contradictions in the bible. Here is a real fact for you following are but a tiny few of the hundreds and hundreds of the contradictions in the bible proving the bible nothing more than a flawed document... my quotes are exact and include chapter and vs, non of the randy k spin all real fact

1. The devil first took Jesus to the pinnacle, then to the mountain top. Mt.4:5-8.
   The devil first took Jesus to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle. Lk.4:5-9.
2. Satan tempted Jesus. Mt.4:1-10; Mk.1:13; Lk.4:1,2.
   Satan had no interest in Jesus. Jn.14:30.
3. The baptism of Jesus was with the "Holy Ghost". Mk.1:8; Jn.1:33.
   Fire was also added to the baptism. Mt.3:11; Lu.3:16.
4. John knew of Jesus before he baptized him. Mt.3:11-13; Jn.1:28,29.
   John knew nothing of Jesus at all. Mt.11:1-3.
5. Jesus begins his ministry after John's arrest. Mk.1:13,14.
   Jesus begins his ministry before John's arrest. Jn.3:22-24.
6. It is recorded that Jesus saw the spirit descending. Mt.3:16; Mk.1:10.
   It is recorded that John saw the spirit descending. Jn.1:32.
7. The heavenly voice addressed the gathering. Mt.3:17.
   The heavenly voice addressed Jesus. Mk.1:11; Lk.3:22.
8. Immediately after the baptism, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:1,2; Mk.1:12,13.
   Three days after the baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. Jn.2:1.
9. Jesus went to Bethphage and the Mt. of Olives, then left for Bethany. Mt.21:1,17.
   Jesus went to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mt. of Olives. Mk.11:1; Lk.19:29.
   Jesus went to Bethany and then Jerusalem. Jn.12:1,12.
10. Jesus and his disciples taught in Capernaum. Mk.1:20,21.
    Only Jesus taught in Capernaum. Lk.4:30,31.
11. Peter was chosen, with Andrew, by the Sea of Galilee. Mt.4:18-20; Mk.1:16-18.
    Peter was chosen, with James and John, by the lake of Gennesaret. Lk.5:2-11.
    Andrew chose Jesus and then got Peter to join. Jn.1:35-42.
12. Peter was to preach to the Jews. Mt.10:2,5,6; Gal.2:7.
    Peter was to preach to the Gentiles. Acts 15:7.
13. Jesus cured Simon Peter's mother-in-law after he cleansed the leper. Mt.8:1-15.
    Jesus cured Simon Peter's mother-in-law before he cleansed the leper. Mk.1:30-42; Lk.4:38 to 5:13.
14. Peter's mother-in-law was healed before Peter was called to be a disciple. Lu.4:38,39; 5:10.
    Peter's mother-in-law was healed after Peter was called to be a disciple. Mt.4:18,19; 8:14,15; Mk.1:16,17,30,31.
15. James and John were with Jesus when he healed Simon Peter's mother-in-law. Mk.1:29-31.
    James and John were not with Jesus when he healed Simon Peter's mother-in-law. Lu.4:38,39; 5:10,11.
16. Lebbaeus (Thaddaeus) was the name of an apostle - but no Judas, brother of James. Mt. 10:3.
    Judas, the brother of James, was an apostle, but no Thaddaeus. Lk.6:16; Acts 1:13.
17. The centurion's servant was healed in between the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. Mt.8:2-15.
    The centurion's servant was healed after the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. Lu.4:38,39; 5:12,13; 7:1-10.
18. The people were not impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Mk.6:52.
    The people were very impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Jn.6:14.
19. After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Gennesaret. Mk.6:53.
    After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Capernaum. Jn.6:14-17.

You do not tell the Bible what it meant to teach you; "Come to me as a child not knowing."

really then why do you not live to the literal teachings of the bible? did you eat shell fish? do you wear mixed fibers? do you stone the sinners? do you sell your daughter into slavery and on and on and on it goes what a HYPOCRITE to even think everything in the bible is fact unless you take it all as literal none of it should be taken as litteral , that is the starting point of one religion pushing fairy tales and hate against those who do not believe

The rest of your fantasy post not worth addressing

Try to get some facts into what you put out as anything more than your twisted view of reality

The books of the New Testament are accounts of Jesus as told by the individual disciples and are based on their individual viewpoints so as to stand in testament to the birth of Christ. The only contradictions are those of your own making, but your expressed ignorance of the books of the Bible are evidence enough of this.

And yes Jesus taught of a Deity as acknowledged in Thomas Jefferson's writings on the topic. Jefferson was obsessed with defining the true intent of Jesus as opposed to what Jefferson regarded as tainted interpretations of Christ's true intent.

You twist every word to glorify yourselves in an effort to create a world in your own imaginations that will allow your lifestyle choice to exist without question. You champion a group that refuses to acknowledge God and Gods place in the founding of this nation because the word of God  stands in opposition to the life you would like to live; a life where their is no God.

We each chose a side; your side says man can live without God; and the side for which I defend knows that man can not live without God.

Satan says man can live without God; Where as God says "he who believes in me shall  not die."

I give you fact after fact and you reply with LALALALALALALALALALALA; i'm not listening to you.

Ant the official motto of the U.S. is  In God We Trust and not E Pluribus Unum.

E Pluribus Unum was the motto of the United States well before In God We Trust. Though not codified by law, it was adopted in 1782 as being part of the Great Seal of the United State of America and was the de facto motto until the 1950s.

In God We Trust was made the "official" motto during the Cold War era when everyone was trying to differentiate themselves from the "godless" communists.

I'll keep E Pluribus Unum. It was there first.

Roosevelt put "In God We Trust" on money during the Great Depression.  It didn't come about during The Cold War!

Oops!  I don't know how that got posted!  They actually began imprinting "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins during the Civil War according to the U.S. Treasury.

You are correct Vincent, it was during the Civil War that the phrase first began appearing on money.

But it wasn't until the 1950's that "In God We Trust" became the motto when legislation was passed and signed by Eisenhower.

Before the Civil War era, money and other documents used E Pluribus Unum.

rbach - you forgot one of the most obvious. Adam and Eve had 3 male children; cain slew abel and then left to live with his ... WIFE? Where did she come from?

There is a non-canonized biblical book that explains that adam and eve had 9 children and cain married his younger sister?

So we cant have other religions in the us?

Not as far as I am concerned.

You come to this country because of the life of promise that comes from the Judea/Christian faith and what do you do with your God given gift of freedom; you demand that nobody should have access to that which gave you your freedom in the first place.

It's like wanting the water, but being offended by the faucet. You can't have the water if you do not have access to the source.

Oh well thats just crazy. So are you gonna bring back the days of the Spanish Inquisition?

My faith or die?

Did you know that your religion is not the right one Randy. Its only been around about 2000 and really does not have a good track record.

If that is what you believe Randy, I'll let my Pakistani neighbors know that they are not allowed to be here. They came here several years ago, all three of their boys were born here. They are throughly American. Oh, and they are Musim.

And I'll also have to let a former roommate of mine from Hong Kong that he is also no longer desired in the country since he is a Buddhist.

So, are only Christians allowed, or are Jews allowed also?

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all followers of the God of Abraham. Islam claims descendant of the first child of Abraham which was fathered outside of marriage where as Judaism claims ancestry to the first son of Abraham and his wife. According to my readings; God told Abraham that he and his wife will give birth to a son from witch the tribe of the covenant will spring fourth.

Christianity is the belief that Christ has come and the laws of Moses have been fulfilled; Judaism also believes in the prophecy of the Christ, but they do not believe Jesus was Christ which is what the founding fathers where referring to in many of their writings.

The Masons believe themselves desendants of the builders of King Solomons Temple; as the prophecy goes "When the Church of Solomon is rebuilt Christ will return and rein for 1000 years of peace..."

My Moslem friends assure me that they all supported Proposition 8 and that they were commanded by their spirtual leaders to cast their votes in support of Prop 8

You do not have any friends. Hey Randy what was the religion of the Native Americans? Was not Chriti-Insanity.

Eriq

Thanks for your addition of adam and eve and all that incest, I save that for other postings... when they get too flustered with the outright contradictions, inconsistencies and inaccuracies... then the incest and polygamy fun time begins

Bits and pieces out of context in an obvious attempt to make yourselves fill better. An entire series could be presented that clearly showed your lifestyle choice to be a crime against humanity and you two would focus your rants on the misuse of the word "is."

Randy its not a choice, Shut up. Get Over It! Its not a life style, its a life.

Hey Randy - would you kindly read, and spell-check your postings?  We might mistake you for some Neanderthal or something.  Or not.  Do you play one on TV?  Or is this the real you?

Randy from Maine.

Amen, Brother!

Money is not the root of evil...LOVE of money is.

Hey that's sneak!

Money is not the root of evil...LOVE of money is.

No, my ex-mother-in-law is...............

Bernard

good post

I would argue that there is another issue that exposes the utter HYPOCRISY of the "religious" and that is anti-choice they say it is pro-life but they demand the death penalty, don't fight against wars, do nothing to reduce the needles deaths of the poor in this country and on and on they go

How is an iniative voted in for the 2nd time after millions of dollar spent for  and against it ....... "sneaking"  something in?

rbach..  religous people dont "demand the death penalty"  majority of americans want the death penalty thats why we have it.

Death penalty has very little to with religion.

 Funny I dont remember the anti death penalty left  fighting to save Tim Mcveigh or the killers of Robert Byrd in texas.  The way they did   tookie williiams or ABu jumal.  Seems to me anti death penalty left very selective in who they try to save.

Also,  the vast majority of the so called religous right do fight in our wars and are not pacifists. 

Tis was not PASSED with the just the votes of the "religous" was passed with the votes of Majority of  voters in California...the VAST majority of who are not part of the religous right.

Why dont the vocal GAY minority go to Compton, or Sotheast LA and protest and harass  Black peiople as they go to church rather then go all the way to UTAH and NY to harass Mormons?

Could it be because they know the "boys in da hood" would not like it if their mothers and grand mothers were harassed by a bunch of west Hollywood gays  and would not be has "tolerant" as Mormons are?

Charger. If the Jim Crow Laws were still in effect Compton would be so nice, all them Uppity people put in their place, no not jail, they are already there.

chargerguy

as usual you try to twist what I said into something you want to hear for argument sake...

what I actually wrote

I would argue that there is another issue that exposes the utter HYPOCRISY of the "religious" and that is anti-choice they say it is pro-life but they demand the death penalty, don't fight against wars, do nothing to reduce the needles deaths of the poor in this country and on and on they go

And I will stick by it as accurate as written not how you twisted is so you see I did not say religious people demanded the death penalty... my post is very clear pointing to the utter hypocrisy of the anti-choice people.

The wing nuts put too many people to death for the anti-death penalty folks to keep up with so again stop trying to twist and turn and stick with what I wrote not with what you want to argue about

Again I did not say the religious right do not fight in wars , I did say the anti-choice people do not fight against the wars also where do you get your facts from... I doubt very much your idea that the vast majority of the religious right do fight in wars or are you attempting to say the majority of those fighting in war are from the religious right... either way some facts would be helpful

I said absolutely nothing about who voted for or against prop8 but you seam to have read into my post... something that just is not there

If you bothered to get educated on why the protests were focused on the mormon churches you would find out because they donated the lions share of money to push to remove civil rights from people. So again very hard to have a discussion when you make so mane things up

Money is not the root of evil...LOVE of money is.

Shucks! You are right, a bag full of money in and of itself is fine. We just have to find those people out there who happen to love money.... I wonder who those people are?

Hey that's sneak!    

Thank you! @#!^&$% spell checker!

Smokey, tom, tucker and mimi, you're comments are a perfect illustration of the intolerance and hatred that we face.  Thanks for making our point for us!

It does sometime amaze me that they protect this institution so vigorously. Unions that only 40% of the heterosexual community have been able to make work. Even the Catholic Church has had to admit they can no longer keep people from divorcing (altho they still dont like you coming back and asking them to 'do it again', please!)
Their arguments are shallow and have no factual basis other than their religious doctrines. Hiding behind the bible while denouncing and judging what their neighbors do. Shame. Shame on all of you that profess to know exactly what it is that your 'god' wants. Seems to me that 'free will' is the order of the day with your 'gods', and at the very least, he didnt put you holier than thou humans in charge of the judgement of your neighbors sex life.

bigdaddy

good post

something the minions of the religious right do not see is the big picture for there does exist the christian agenda it can be found all over, it includes the "christians" paying other "christians" to move to specific communities in the carolinas and taking over local government, then moving to the state government and once in control of the state amending the state's constitution to match their flawed document they call the bible... then on to another state some pretty scary stuff and I have found no evidence these "christians" are on a watch list but indeed should be , since they are more of a threat to US then Al Qeada for these folks are out to utterly destroy the constitution of this great country

de⋅vi⋅ant [dee-vee-uhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation  
–adjective 1.deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior. 

–noun 2.a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.

per⋅verse [per-vurs] Show IPA Pronunciation  
–adjective 1.willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.
2.characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood. 
3.wayward or cantankerous.
4.persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.
5.turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.

....two very different words, Bevy. And who are YOU, or any of us, to judge what is "deviant" or "perverse"?

And if homosexual sex is so wrong - if it is so horrible for my girlfriend and I to have a healthy, normal, sex life.....why do so many STRAIGHT couples engage in the SAME EXACT sexual acts?

"...straight couples engage in the same homosexual sex acts" - what exactly is that - glad u brought that up - because i have always wondered why is it lesbians use dildos if they dont want to have anything to do with the male species - why use an artificial penis - as far as i know that's what makes a male a male - and why in a homosexual relationship, one takes the role of a 'male' or 'female' why is that? why not just be two males, two females with no hint of the opposite sex being in the relationship - if anything, i would say that homosexuals imitate the sex acts of straight couples - and why is that?

Hahaha Dude straight woman use dildos. When the guy gets off he rolls over and goes to sleep leaving the woman unsatisfied.

Dude you are funny, why are you thinking about homosexual acts?

Wow, carg4evr. Just, wow. Are you 14? Are you sure you're allowed to use big kid words?

I mean, clearly you've not yet completed a physical science class. Do you live in one of those unforunate places where they have outlawed sex ed. in school? If you do, I'm truly sorry for my assumptions. If not - please, for the sake of all of us, go to your local library (you know, the place where books live?) and pick up a god damned book. Maybe that will teach you the difference between men and women.

Trust me, I do not identify as a lesbian because I "hate the penis". As for your question as to why "one takes the role of 'male' or 'female'.....I have no idea. I don't do that. As I previously stated, my girlfriend and I are both very, very happy with being women.

Women that just happen to love women.

I have never heard a lesbian claim to be gay because she "wants nothing to do with the male species". Also "Male" is not a species - it is a sex. I have nothing against men. My father is a man. My 4 brothers are men. Some of my very best friends are men. I was engaged to a man. Some of the greatest people I have had the pleasure of knowing have been men.

I don't hate men, I love women and if you cannot see the difference, I am certainly not the person to teach you.

Would somebody please draw carg4ver a picture please.

Randy from Maine.

What exactly are these "deviant" behaviors? Really, I'd like a list. 

Do straight couples not have sexual intercourse? Is that a deviant behavior?

Do straight couples not hold hands while walking through the park? Is that a deviant behavior?

Your logic is seriously flawed. Once the masses believed that the Earth was flat. Did that make it true?

Come on savingsymmetry - LOOK THE WORD UP!! Deviant or perverse is just that - perverse means - doing something that you KNOW is wrong ... deviant is "straying" from that which is the NORM in society - hence homosexual sex!

All the gay community wants is to have the chance to have the same boring slog through life that the rest of us have because we are heterosexual. It's not about what's fair, it's about what's right.

To all supporters of Prop 8, you clearly cling to the Bible, so cling to the Golden Rule. Do unto others...

Don't pick and choose your dogma. That would be blasphemy, no?

Jeez, frazser. If deviant behavior were outlawed in this country, what would you expend all that negative prejudicial and hatefilled energy on? If deviance was illegal, where would we find any politicians to run our government? If deviant behavior isnt the norm and cherished by most Americans, how was G W Bush able to spend 8 years in the White House?
Take your bigoted , prejudicial behavior somewhere it will be appreciated. Iran springs to mind.

DC Smith,

Isn't casting out bigots a little narrowminded and intollerant? Or are your conclusions and opinions the standard by which all others are measured?

Just wondering.

EJ

All the gay community wants is to have the chance to have the same boring slog through life that the rest of us have because we are heterosexual.

That's right! In most places right now a gay person can turn to his or her lover and say, "Geez hun, ya know I'd love to marry you babe, but it's not legal!". Well if I have to endure...er...enjoy marriage then so do they! Stop letting gay people have the excuse not to get married and make it legal for them too!

;-)

frazser - I don't care if you accept my "deviant" behavior or not.  I DO care when you try to deny me civil rights.

frazser ejdiaz

thanks for feeling that I would want your acceptance, but no not interested in your acceptance for anything I do

To me the practice of many self proclaimed "christians" is a deviant and perverse behavior that is chuck full of blatant hypocrisy they spew all this crap about not judging others, love they neighbor and on and on with all virtuous good quotes then they do the exact opposite and run into their respective tax payer funded churches to glean yet more hate and bigotry

I do not see anyone trying to strip rights away from the "christian" folks, they have their special rights already and no one is trying to take them away but the same "christians" are obsessed with making a group of people second class citizens and couch foisting their "christian lifestyle choice" onto others

Just so your clear, I do not accept your bigoted, hateful beliefs and still am not trying to remove your right to believe in your choice

hate is a choice

bigotry is a choice

intolerance is a choice

religion is a choice

the cure for all is education

rbach, I'm going to call you out on something. You cry about bigotry and then rail against people of faith. That makes you a bigot in my book. Can't hate it and use it at the same time.

rightof center

I have no issue with people of faith. I do have an issue with people who proclaim they have faith and spew hate, intolerance, bigotry and judgement on all who do not share their supposed faith.

I am intolerant of "christians" who use their bible which is a flawed document to bolster their hate, bigotry, intolerance and homophobia

So what can I hate and not use?

You are using Christians as scapegoats for your anger. Do you really believe that the majority of Californians are these hate filled Christians you blast? I'd be willing to bet a lot of the voters  have not seen the inside of a church in years. They just don't agree with you. You don't have to like it,but it is the law of the land now.

The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply. And they choose based on which outsider group they would like to hate next. First, they emphasized slavery in the Bible when they wanted to hate black people. Now, they emphasize the parts condemning homosexuality so they can hate gay people.

They are completely and utterly disingenuous. They don't mean a word of it. They don't give a damn what the Bible says. They just want to use it as an instrument of hate.

The Bible says you should leave your family and join Jesus Christ. The religious right pretends that Jesus was about family values. He wanted you to abandon your family. Read the Bible.

Now the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man. That is true. But it also says, in the same exact book, that adultery is an abomination. And the just punishment for this sin is execution. So, who will execute the first adulterer? Please step on up. May the one without any Biblical sin cast the first stone.

The religious right pretends that the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. But that is a bald faced lie. Have any of these people ever read the Bible? The Bible is full of men taking on second wives, servants, prostitutes and concubines. And all the while, God heartily approves. How many wives did King David have? Eight? Twelve? Let alone his possibly gay lover, Jonathan.

So, who will execute the first adulterer?

That'd include John McCain, wouldn't it?  He's admitted that he cheated on his first wife with his current wife, back when his first wife was disabled...

deviant is "straying" from that which is the NORM in society

Under that definition, society would be unchanging, frozen in time.  Birth control, interracial marriage, premarital sex, equal rights for women and more would still be illegal or unavailable.  Straying from the norm should be applauded, not condemmed.

rightof center

no I never even alluded to the majority in CA who voted for prop8 were the hate filled "christians" that I was talking about again people of your ilk read these posts as you read your bibles picking and choosing and interpreting to fit your narrow view of things

It was the hate filled, bigoted, homophobic, intolerant "christians" who used deceptive advertising to put fear into people to vote for prop8

pocketchange

look at the chapters and verses from the bible I posted and you can clearly see what I said is FACT just because it doesn't fit your beliefs doesn't change it from being fact.

If there is a heaven and it is filled with the likes of you I will gladly take the alternative for I have had more then enough of the self righteous, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, judgemental, hypocrite, homophobes all in the name of their "christianity"

de⋅vi⋅ant [dee-vee-uhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation  
–adjective 1.deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior. 

–noun 2.a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.

per⋅verse [per-vurs] Show IPA Pronunciation  
–adjective 1.willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.
2.characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood. 
3.wayward or cantankerous.
4.persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.
5.turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.

....two very different words, Bevy. And who are YOU, or any of us, to judge what is "deviant" or "perverse"?

And if homosexual sex is so wrong - if it is so horrible for my girlfriend and I to have a healthy, normal, sex life.....why do so many STRAIGHT couples engage in the SAME EXACT sexual acts?

Good point savingsymmetry: heterosexual couples (not all but a lot) partake in all, yes all, of the sexual practices homosexuals partake in. In other words, y'all do everything we do in bed.

A reason "homosexuality" was condemned in the Bible is it was associated with idol worship and pagan religious rights (worshiping Baal). Sex, including homosexual sex, was almost always used in ancient pagan religions as a worship practice. To get people to stop being pagan and enjoying all that unbridled sex, society had to have some very cruel laws against anything that resembled the old religion. Men did all the worshiping.

There was no concept of love in relationships. Marriages were arranged. It was a father's duty to find wives for his sons and husbands for his daughters. If he died before he could do that, the responsibility fell to the mother until her oldest son came of age. Then he became the man of the family and made the arrangements from then on. It was also his responsibility to take care of his mother.

That's why it was so necessary for a woman to have a son. If her husband died without leaving her a son, it was the husband's family's duty to provide her with his son. His brothers had to have sex with her until she bore a son. The only other option was for one of the dead husband's brothers to be given to his brother's widow as a husband. She need not be his only wife, but she had a lot of marital rights over other wives until she had a son.

Remember, most everyone (male and female) was married before age 16 at a time when physical maturity wasn't complete until age 14-15 because of poor nutrition. Girls were sold to husbands for a bride price (girls were property of their fathers until they became property of their husbands). A man could hardly commit adultery under Mosaic law unless he had sex with a woman who was married to another man (used someone else's property without permission).

There is nothing in the Bible forbidding women from having sex with each other. It's never mentioned.

The Bible's history didn't take place in a vacuum. There is a lot of history surrounding Mosaic culture and Judaism, and many practices were invented to deal with life the way it was then. It doesn't mean life is still the same way now nor does it mean we should live as though it were.

And the whole thing about one man and one woman? Not in our Bible. Men usually had multiple wives. The Bible is a book of faith, not an instruction manual nor a precedent for life today. I'm sure none of us would like to go back to being chattle to our husbands and fathers.

Defend the laws and constitution of the state - I BET that was in the "Oath of Office" that he took - with his right hand raised and his left on a Bible ... So much for OATHS!!

I agree with you JS!

He is defending the constitution of CA. Article 1.

"Activist judges"?

Right-wing tool, you are.

Jerry Brown swore to uphold the Constitution of the State of California.  From the vantage point of this California attorney, he's clearly doing just that by asking the Supreme Court to apply the state Constitution to this case.

I have read the California State Constitution and find no reference to a "right to marry" anywhere in the document. 

Prop 8 CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.

This is the only reference to mariage that I can find, other than a definition of separate property in a mariage.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18  AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION
SEC. 3.  The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

This section confirmas that the initiative was constitutional and is binding on the State Supreme Court.  The AG should resign his position, since it is his job to be knowlegable about the Calif. Constitution (which he does not seem to be), and his job is to defend the State (i.e. the people of CA) in any and all litigation.  Since Prop 8 passed by a majority (52%) it becomes his job to defend that position.  He has let his political ambitions to dictate his actions and should remove himself from the office of AG.

JS & Bevy

you both need to educate yourselves on the duties of the attorney general. The office does not exist to represent the people the job is to uphold the state's constitution and laws which is exactly what he is doing, he is not changing the law he is looking to the CA supreme court to make their ruling

Bruce

and you are an expert on constitutional law ... really?

seams an awful lot of bigotry and hate couched in self righteous indignation

Bruce-361175-

In the marriage cases decided by the California Supreme Court this past summer, the Court concluded that the right to marry a person of your choice, same sex or otherwise, was a fundamental right embodied in the state constitution. Since the CA Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of what the state constitution means, that is the law of the land. Try reading the opinion. You can find links to it on Google.

Now you have Proposition 8. The legal question presented is whether the voting public can strip a minority group of a fundamental constitutional right.  I suggest that the answer to that question is a resounding "no" and that Jerry Brown has boldly and bravely made the right decision to reject Proposition 8.

Prop 8 as it is written is in conflict with the California constitution.  That is why it must be struck down.  The Supreme Court should strike it down because it's more than just an amendment, it fundamentally alters the constitution.  In order to change the constitution it needs to go through the Ca. legislature and it has to pass by a far greater margin than just 50% + 1.

This isn't the first time a law has failed because it was poorly written and not properly put into law.  If Prop 8 supporters really want this law, let them take the correct route to doing so. 

rednecklawyer

exactly ... good post

Janeinthisworld

good point  also and just like the facts presented in your post and rednecklawyer, the anti-gay/anti-civil rights people will totally ignore the rules and continue to yell foul since they do not agree with any court or constitutional ruling unless it supports their belief

"I have read the California State Constitution and find no reference to a "right to marry" anywhere in the document. "

A quick read of the Supreme Court decision would have saved you time and trouble.  The equal protection clause of the California State Constitution was not addressed by Proposition 8.  Therefore, on the face of it, we have two clauses in apparent conflict.  Ordinarily, the overall equal protection would appear to override the more specific, discriminatory exception.  In any event, this is exactly the sort of issue that courts are designed to address.

Proposition 8 was clearly not written by lawyers with any sophistication.  Of course, on the other hand, had they tried to amend equal protection out of the California Constitution, I think they would have been laughed out of the state.  Their only shot at passage was trickery, manipulation, and hope that nobody would notice the "slight flaw" in their application of state constitutional law.   Stay tuned.

alec_wisner:

Common grammar usage would be single quotes inside of double ones.

A quick read of the Supreme Court decision would have saved you time and trouble. The equal protection clause of the California State Constitution was not addressed by Proposition 8. Therefore, on the face of it, we have two clauses in apparent conflict. Ordinarily, the overall equal protection would appear to override the more specific, discriminatory exception. In any event, this is exactly the sort of issue that courts are designed to address.

Proposition 8 was clearly not written by lawyers with any sophistication. Of course, on the other hand, had they tried to amend equal protection out of the California Constitution, I think they would have been laughed out of the state. Their only shot at passage was trickery, manipulation, and hope that nobody would notice the "slight flaw" in their application of state constitutional law. Stay tuned.

"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

"[T]he constitution is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens." -- Frederick Douglass citing and agreeing with ex-Vice President Dallas in "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?" (1852)

There's nothing saying gays can't marry. It's just that marriage is between a man and a woman. I think the constitution said that even before Proposition 8 passed. Moreover, amendments are what gives us our rights, and Proposition 8 protects people's rights further because it properly defines marriage.

In my Supreme Court and Constitutional Law class I took over a decade ago, marriage as continuing the cycle was the issue, not bothersome slippery-slope arguments that say anything and that people can and have easily discerned as the worst of the sides between genderless marriage and marriage.

"There's nothing saying gays can't marry."

Marriage is not a constitutional right in California.  It is certainly not a Federal right.  Traditionally, marriage has been a religious rite, and, I think, if left there, wouldn't be at issue.  The problem arose when governments appropriated the term "marriage" in the first place, in an era when the persecution of gays and other disfavored minorities was so severe that, assuming that the minority in question was not enslaved or imprisoned, the minority was completely secretive about its existence.

Well, times have changed and the governments still use the term "marriage."  It's about time we address the mistake and bring the law into the 21st century.  Let's leave marriage and divorce to the religions.  We can abolish civil marriage and divorce.  Entirely.  Replace it universally with civil union and civil dissolution, available to all adults over the legal age of consent, presumably up to each state. 

As far as I'm concerned, I really have no objection to multiple marriages or anything else that someone might imagine.  I'm sure that will aggravate the hell out of the IRS, insurance companies and other institutions, but, eventually, the dust will settle and we'll move on.  That way, everyone can be equal under the law, and the religious institutions can discriminate away.

Marriage is not a constitutional right in California...

The professor taught otherwise in the Supreme Court and Constitutional Law class I took in the mid 1990s.

The problem arose when governments appropriated the term "marriage" in the first place, in an era when the persecution of gays and other disfavored minorities was so severe that, assuming that the minority in question was not enslaved or imprisoned, the minority was completely secretive about its existence.

Same-sex marriage would make men "quasi slaves" of the state through child support, at least according to a Mens News Daily article entitled "Analysis: Why Same-Sex Marriage Bans Succeeded While Republicans Lost" I cite often about this topic. Moreover, it would be further government protection of lesbians, further violation of men's rights, if it were legal in California. What about justice?

Please tell me you are joking. You are blaming women for same-sex marriage? Men would become slaves? After how many thousands of years of women being treated as chattel, you are now complaining because two lesbians may be able to get married?

Are you fraking serious?

???? Ever heard the saying, "Don't shoot the messenger"? However, I guess I've been at the forefront of rights on the basis of sex. Read the article linked to in #20.12.

Any site which displays Warner Todd Huston's (nutty guy who couldn't even hack it at Newsvine) face as valued contributor is pretty much prima facie suspicious.  That apparently includes MND.

LOL that MND discredits itself with commenting that Obama and Congress were swept by "radical liberalism."

Wait a minute...  Vincent...  Your argument is that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because, IF it's allowed, women will all marry each other, leaving all men single, child-support paying slaves?

Seriously, you BELIEVE this? 

You honestly think that, given the choice, women would, every one, turn their backs on men, toss their husbands out, and swap 'em for each other?

While I'll grant that there are men who DO deserve to be left, let me reassure you, there's at least one woman here who will not be leaving her husband when gay marriage is permitted in her state.

That argument REALLY reeks of desperation.  Honestly.

Hey, it's what the article argues. I agree with it. You don't? Why not?

While I'll grant that there are men who DO deserve to be left, let me reassure you, there's at least one woman here who will not be leaving her husband when gay marriage is permitted in her state.

Not everyone's married already here, and genderless marriag interferes with people's right to marry. Same-sex marriage supporters show their usual lack of ethics in not acknowledging comments about it.

What the hell are you talking about?

Vince you talk in riddles.

At least I do more than ask questions. #20.19 argues a lack of literacy persuades people, not to mention exemplifies the lack of ethics shown by same-sex-marriage-supporters' arguments. Get over it; same-sex "marriage" won't happen in California, and I would imagine once Massachusetts and Connecticut get over their imoral prejudice allowing it, like polygamy/bigamy, marriage to a close relation, even a law requiring a rich person to marry the first poor-type person who asks, it wil not exist in the United States.

"Gay" used to mean "happy," but "marriage" should never become an oxymoron. LOL!

Right now, many genderless "marriage" supporters act like children having a temper-tantrum for a stupid reason. If I looked for a monarchy-like, eternal generation-to-generation torch of life in our republic, marriage could also provide that institution, but it hasn't in my lifetime like it should. Let's correct the problem rather than make it worse.

I hope I'm not going off on a worthless tangent because I want to manage the situation well, use argument to do what I can to improve marriage, an institution that already has not worked properly in my eyes. Again, to spell it out, genderless "marriage" again puts the wrong foot forward for the postwar and Baby Boom generations, and it adds later generations in a new, bent and evil, Brown Shirt/SA march towards oblivion.

genderless marriag interferes with people's right to marry

How?

Explain, in detail, with linked support if you've got it, how permitting gays to marry each other interferes with the right of straights to marry each other.

even a law requiring a rich person to marry the first poor-type person who asks

Lets see this is a couple of laws you my like to hear of

South Carolina : By law, if a man promises to marry an unmarried woman, the marriage must take place.

Rhode Island : Any marriage where either of the parties is an idiot or lunatic is null and void.

You said nothing about divorce, dead beat and absentee dads, and welfare moms with oh I don't know 7 to 8 kids living off the state.

What ethics do you speak of that the same sex supporters lack that the other side also lacks?

You do seem to be on a tangent, Marriage for al is alive and well here in Massachussets and has been so since 2004. And guess what the sun still rises and the sky did not fall.

Vincent can you tell me how many marriages end in Divorce in the United States? Well if you can't I will, its about 52%.

So what is going on here bub, You have your panties in a wad saying marriage for all will break heterosexual marriage. DUDE its already Broke.

Marriage will be available for all in California, Don't you worry. Just keep an eye on your own marriage,

• Divorce rate in America after first marriage is from 41% to 50%.
• US divorce rate after second marriage is from 60% to 67%
• After 3 marriages the US divorce rate is from 73% to 74%

Rainkiss:

genderless marriag interferes with people's right to marry

How? Explain, in detail, with linked support if you've got it, how permitting gays to marry each other interferes with the right of straights to marry each other.

Reconsider more: I already complained about the lack of ethics.  Again, for one, read the article I linked to in #20.19.  You can also read #20.20.

NotSanta:

So what is going on here bub, You have your panties in a wad saying marriage for all will break heterosexual marriage. DUDE its already Broke.

WTF!?! If this kind of attack continues, I'll start by not responding, then set you to ignore, and more egregious the response the likelihood of the latter. #20.22 also just plain ignores #20.20.

Second request.

Explain, in detail, with linked support if you've got it, how permitting gays to marry each other interferes with the right of straights to marry each other.

I assure you, there are still heterosexual marriages going on in Massachusetts, where homosexuals are marrying.  And, I note, the divorce rate in Massachusetts is the lowest in the country, which suggests they're doing something right.

Ya Vince I still do not get what you are saying then. You say equal marriage will break heterosexual marriage, but when I show you the rates of divorce you skirt the issue.

Can you dumb it down for me?

Rainkiss:

I've already repeated myself twice in #20.20 and #20.23 to read #20.19, and to repeat what I specifically said to you #20.23, read numbers 20.19 & 20.20.

Again, for starters, as the article states, most same-sex marriages in Massachusetts are women marrying other women.  This makes it like polygamy in reducing the number of available partners of the opposite sex.  The article further describes genderless marriage as a product of feminism, and it makes men effectively slaves with bias against them with child support and other matters.

Vince:

So what is going on here bub, You have your panties in a wad saying marriage for all will break heterosexual marriage. DUDE its already Broke.

WTF!?! If this kind of attack continues, I'll start by not responding, then set you to ignore, and more egregious the response the likelihood of the latter. #20.22 also just plain ignores #20.20.

A comment and a question (which I don't expect an answer to, but I am always curious).  First, ignoring #20.20 was the kindest thing one could do.  You can't support your statement that "genderless marriag interferes with people's right to marry" because the statement doesn't even make sense.  "lack of ethics" (presumably based on the factoid that you believe gay marriage is immoral) doesn't stop heterosexuals from getting married either.  As far as I know, pretty much NOTHING stops heterosexuals from getting married.  I've tried just saying no, and even I am one of the people marriage should actually be protected from.

And the question:  I almost assumed that you were one of those really whine-y relgious right folks who is determined that you are a martyr for your faith (because someone says you have no right to force your religious views on the rest of us by legislation) when you referred to "...this kind of attack...".  But I really hate to make assumptions--so is it possible you think it is an attack when someone responds "don't get your panties in a twist", or that you were referring to an egregious "attack on marriage" because NotSanta said it was already broken?

I promise not to laugh out loud (or respond rudely) no matter what it is if you want to tell me--I really am curious :)

Merry Chrismas!

What? That is your argument? Reducing the number of available partners of the opposite sex. Ok that is just silly, try match.com if you can't get a date.

And you call it Polygamy?

Can you please describe what you believe polygamy to be?

Polygamy a Greek word meaning "the practice of multiple marriage, Umm this happens already in the US

• Divorce rate in America after first marriage is from 41% to 50%.
• US divorce rate after second marriage is from 60% to 67%
• After 3 marriages the US divorce rate is from 73% to 74%

NotSanta:

Yeah, well, you can call it "equal marriage," but remember that the former East Germany called itself the German Democratic Republic.

Dissolutions began quickly with the effective legalization of same-sex "marriages" in Massachusetts in 2004. A 2006 article also describes the divorce of the lesbian couple whose 2003 lawsuit led to allowing two people of the same sex to marry in the Commonwealth. I'll dumb it down further if you want. Let me know.

Yes please dumb it down more please. A 4 Year Old News Story From FIX News Ain't Gonna Do it.

Tell Me Since 2004 how many other divorces have there been? I have not heard of any. FIX news would have harped all over that? So how many same sex divorce in MA and How many hetero divorces in MA.

BTW Germany also said this.

Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.
Proceedings for annulment may be initiated only by the Public Prosecutor.

Germany Banned Marriage between 2 consenting adults. So you are comparing the US to 1939 Germany?

Vincent, I read, and re-read your posts, and your linked article.  You're missing one crucial point.

Lesbians, for the most part, DON'T WANT TO MARRY MEN.  Some do, and every one of those relationships I've heard of has ended badly.  If you have 100 women, and 10 are lesbians, you have 90 available women for men to marry, whether the 10 lesbians are permitted to marry each other or not.

The fact that one lesbian couple has separated adds no merit to your argument.  Straight couples divorce every day.  However, the article you link DOES illustrate some critical arguments in FAVOR of gay marriage.  First, the half of the couple who was not hospitalized when their child was born was not permitted to visit her significant other, nor the child.  And, now that they're married, that child's best interests will be looked after.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that your sole source is a blog.  The statistics you're quoting are not documented, for all we know, the author of the blog pulled those numbers out of the air.  And your author...  David R. Usher, Coalition for Fathers and Children.  Some more of his articles:

Arguing that the laws for restraining orders need to be overturned:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/24/restraining-orders-unconstitutional-in-new-jersey/

His argument?

Upholding Crespo predicts decreases in domestic violence and better service for women who have been abused. Abuse of restraining orders injects tremendous conflict into spousal relationships. For this reason, the vast majority of domestic violence occurs after issuance of a restraining order. Women’s abuse centers and courts are clogged with thousands of cases filed for strategic purposes. Truly abused women fall through the cracks.

Prevent domestic abuse by preventing women from filing restraining orders.  Charming.

And, then, of course, he believes that women leaving one marriage should be forced to remarry to support their children, and the fathers of those children shouldn't have to support them.

Certainly, we should help the poor bridge from one marriage to another, as a temporary tithe. However, the practice of permanently entitling non-marriage via billions in benefits and huge inflexible child support entitlements must end.

About 70% of poverty is actually single mothers and children, the vast majority of which would rise out of poverty simply by marrying. Marriage is impossible when the majority of poor men are unmarriageable because they cannot afford to pay imputed child support obligations, which are what led weak-willed women to have children out of wedlock in the first place.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/usher/080909

Sorry, Vincent, I can't take the views of this kind of on-the-record hater of most of womankind terribly seriously.  Did you actually have a legitimate argument?

NotSanta:

Germany Banned Marriage between 2 consenting adults. So you are comparing the US to 1939 Germany?

I don't recognize the exact problem though as the article I link to in #20.19 calls it something like radical feminism, or it could be just plain false analogies. Brothers and sisters could be two consenting adults, but, like two people of the same sex, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either; neither should a parent and his or her child. I don't see what I want about having to explain it to you. Is it common sense?

Brothers and sisters could be two consenting adults

Way to play down the Holocaust

Well marrying your brother or sister as I glanced over Prop 8 is ok, Marriage is that of only a man and a woman, Dah brother and sister, father daughter, mother son Blah blah blah. Vincent can we vote on your marriage?

For the fourth time you never mention divorce.

Still no legitimate argument, Vincent? 

Third and final request, before I toss you on the ol' ignore pile.

Explain, in detail, with linked support if you've got it, how permitting gays to marry each other interferes with the right of straights to marry each other.

How come people don't get the proper information? Anyway, I want to add to #20.20 that the institution of marriage and arguments for it also have the mortal-like vulnerability that every human life has, and most if not all arguments for same-sex marriage show contempt and lack of respect and appreciation, lack of patience even, what I've called "temper tantrums," for this sanctity. How come I have to repeat myself so much besides?

Rainkiss:

As I said in #20.26 to you specifically:

I've already repeated myself twice in #20.20 and #20.23 to read #20.19, and to repeat what I specifically said to you #20.23, read numbers 20.19 & 20.20.

Again, for starters, as the article states, most same-sex marriages in Massachusetts are women marrying other women. This makes it like polygamy in reducing the number of available partners of the opposite sex. The article further describes genderless marriage as a product of feminism, and it makes men effectively slaves with bias against them with child support and other matters.

Your responses keep asking me to repeat myself besides.

Ok Ok I get it. The Article you refer to is 4 years old, it is from fox news and it is BS.

Ok its almost 2009, I have not heard of a rush of gay divorces. The only one you can reference is from 2004. And Don't you worry about women marrying woman. Seem like no one will. High rate of single moms in MA and the US. Lots of Deadbeat dads too.

So to surmise. Your reference is from 2004, saying that 8 months after a couple was married they wanted a divorce. Thats 8 months and 72 hours longer than Britney Spears 1st marriage.

Also you may want to know if you have not picked up a book in a while, things get updated you know. The World Is Round.

So did your worries come true? 4 years later, Are there less partners for the opposite sex?

And how does it make it like polgamy???

This makes it like polygamy in reducing the number of available partners

Polygamy is having more than one wife!!!

NotSanta:

Are you really for marriage, spying on the same-sex-marriage supporters? Marriage between a man and a woman in other words?

Ok its almost 2009, I have not heard of a rush of gay divorces. The only one you can reference is from 2004. And Don't you worry about women marrying woman. Seem like no one will. High rate of single moms in MA and the US. Lots of Deadbeat dads too.

So to surmise. Your reference is from 2004, saying that 8 months after a couple was married they wanted a divorce. Thats 8 months and 72 hours longer than Britney Spears 1st marriage.

I cite two articles in #20.29. It has two links. The first one deals with divorces, not anullments, divorces. The second one, from 2006, not 2004, regards the dissolution of the "marriage" of the two women whose lawsuit led to allowing same-sex marriages in Massachusetts.

And how does it make it like polgamy???

This makes it like polygamy in reducing the number of available partners

Polygamy is having more than one wife!!!

You have more than one wife when lesbians are allowed to "marry" too.

P.S. I imagine you're angry, and I'm not trying to make you so. We have limited abilities on NV, e.g. editing and forsight can and should only go so far because we're talking about current events, not writing an opinion in the newspaper: Articles we write are more like opinions in a newspaper than comment posts here. However, please forgive me if my posts upset you.

Sorry, Vincent, your arguments don't hold water.  There haven't been a rush of divorces between gays.  If there had been, Massachusetts wouldn't have the lowest divorce rate in the country. 

Gay marriage does NOT reduce the number of available marriage partners.  Gays, for the most part, do not marry, and those who do marry straights have a much higher rate of divorce than straight couples.

I can't speak for NotSanta, of course, but I can say that you don't make me angry.  You make me sad.  You seem an intelligent person, but a closed mind is a terrible thing.  "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Rainkiss:

We'd better reapply our pity or something.  Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country? Besides not citing any sources, your post quickly slip-slides down to my having a closed mind. What does an overall divorce rate have to do with same-sex "marriage"? Who are you to judge me as having a closed mind?  My comments cite specific articles about the rush of divorces of gays and lesbians in Massachusetts, not some moon-beamed nonsense like #20.39, though I LOL about calling it that.

I completed a sequence in human sexuality at San Francisco State in the 2007-2008 academic year. Though I could contemplate reverse discrimination based on sexual orientation and on federal bases such as age and sex, I still technically got a 3.5 in the series from professors SFSU hired, and the series included a lot about homosexuality, movies, lectures, speeches, projects, only stuff San Francisco can provide, e.g. a presentation from the head of the city's civil-rights commission who had a sex-change operation.  Let's see some good posts, or quit being hypocritical about my having a closed mind yourself and admit I'm right.

Well, here is a newspaper article from the Boston Globe this last November on the affect of same sex marriage in Massachusetts.

P.S. I think your posts hide behind a psuedonym besides.

Ok an article from 2006 now. A gay separation, I don't know if they are divorced I do not trust FIX news. But Julie and Hillary Goodridge, subsequently amicably separated in July 2006.

Ok No when 2 women marry they do not have 2 wives. My brain hurts trying to think of the semantics of that.

Vince - like many you employ circular logic - something has to be the way you say it is because you say it is .....

Anyway; there is no sanctity to marriage, there is sanctity to matrimony. Marriage has nothing to do with religion, does not require participation by any religious figures, it only requires a license

get a clue

All you had to do was ask for a source.  Thank you LadySaidy, per your linked article:

Massachusetts has yet to become, as former governor Mitt Romney predicted, the "Las Vegas of same-sex marriage." Gay marriage rates leveled off at about 1,500 a year - about 4 percent of all state marriages - in 2006 and 2007. The divorce rate in Massachusetts has remained the same - and the lowest in the country.

Then there's:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

I found this particularly interesting:

Variation in divorce rates by religion:

Religion
% have been divorced

Jews
30%

Born-again Christians
27%

Other Christians
24%

Atheists, Agnostics
21%

I was a bit surprised by that one, atheists have a lower percentage divorce rate than Christians.  Go figure.  The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt,

The Associated Press analyzed divorce statistics from the US Census Bureau. They found that Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the U.S. at 2.4 per 1,000 population. Texas had the highest rate at 4.1 per 1,000. They found that the highest divorce rates are found in the "Bible Belt."

According to the Boston Globe:

"The AP report stated that 'the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people.' The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont."

Your posts which "cite a rush in divorces..."  Actually, they cite a few divorces, and, as these links show, the divorce rate in Mass remains the lowest in the country. 

Rainkiss:

It appears #20.45 responds to me. Your comments implied same-sex marriage lowered the divorce rate in Massachusetts. However, the sources you state don't say that: They say that Massachusetts continues to have the lowest divorce rates in the country as it did before the court decision led to this type of "marriage," and IMHO it's still too early to tell the effects of it.

I know my sister there got divorced or had her marriage anulled. My mother lives in Barney Frank's district.

Personally, I don't think he's a good Congressman becuase he never responded to a letter I wrote, though I probably voted for him before. My mother used to talk about how he went door-to-door to politic back when he first got elected.

NotSanta: BTW, the article describes:

Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, who were among the first gay and lesbian couples to wed here ... introduce themselves as wife and wife...

P.S. One thing for sure:  Men there have a lot fewer available partners with women comprising 80% of those who marry others of the same sex there.  It's sad and affects me because I have close family there, but so does other unfairness in marriage, such as my younger siblings marrying before me, other injustice, and I suppose we can be grateful to both those arguing for and against what would totally chage the institution of marriage for the opportunity to discuss it.

One thing for sure:  Men there have a lot fewer available partners with women comprising 80% of those who marry others of the same sex there. 

I think its already been pointed out to you that LESBIAN women are NOT necessarily "available partners" for straight men, whether they are able to marry other women or not. 

It's sad and affects me because I have close family there, but so does other unfairness in marriage, such as my younger siblings marrying before me, other injustice...

Men are not entitled to marry women who are not attracted to men.  They aren't even entitled to marry women who are attracted to men.  This is your idea of injustice or unfairness???

Dharma Girl:

I thought I was going to have to add that my gratitude regarding those who argue for and against same-sex marriage was something akin to the victors being grateful to Hitler for losing the war: I wouldn't grateful to either group if the institution got warped into allowing same-sex "marriage" for one reason because it would violate my civil rights and the rights of others.

Your post attacks me. Men and women are different, and laws apply to them differently right now. About 90% of those in prison are men. Personally, I've had a woman force sex on me, but there was nothing I could do whereas I get paranoid about what I can do with a woman, and I've heard many acquaintances from other countries criticize our sexual-harassment laws, so it's common sense to argue against the claim a woman wouldn't marry a different partner because she's a lesbian.

One thing for sure: Men there have a lot fewer available partners with women comprising 80% of those who marry others of the same sex there.

I think its already been pointed out to you that LESBIAN women are NOT necessarily "available partners" for straight men, whether they are able to marry other women or not.

This shows an argument against same-sex marriage for reasons that appear connected, at least at first glance. First, it shows the feminism and fundamental difference between same-sex "marriage" and marriages that produce families. Second, very visible lesbians in the past have married.

As to the first reason, there's a fundamental difference between marriage and same-sex "marriage" because you would probably not see someone who argues for polygamy even begin to claim that a woman wouldn't marry a man other than one she would marry if there were polygamy. Arguing makes the feminism involved apparent, and the claim that women women wouldn't marry another partner, let alone a partner of the opposite sex, is an argument I've seen same-sex "marriage" proponents argue so far.

As to the second reasons that's connected, very visible lesbians have changed their sexual orientation in the past to marry a male partner, e.g. Anne Heche. Homosexuality as a group is a 20th-century concept. We don't even know if it's a good concept at the federal level at least. Now it could preclude people from marrying more and lead to the violation of the rights of those who don't claim to be homosexuals to having fewer partners, not to mention the rights of those who claim to be from having a marriage because marriage involves two different things: salt and pepper could be a marriage, but salt and salt are just more salt. Bitch and bitch are just more bitches, not bitchier. LOL!

You also say "not necessarily available" here, so unlike others, you're arguing that it's possible that they could be partners. I believe men get cowed from going after women by society, and proponents of men's rights have claimed that sexual harassment's the government's protections of lesbians already. Therefore, same-sex marriage furthers lesbians rights in violation of men's rights because not only would men be prohibited from partners, but with same-sex marriage, they would be more permanently prohibited from them whereas you're saying it's a natural (or environmental) prohibition whereas I say that it's often societal (or nurture).

Other reasons against same-sex "marriage" exist, and I can't remember one I had right now.

It's sad and affects me because I have close family there, but so does other unfairness in marriage, such as my younger siblings marrying before me, other injustice...

Men are not entitled to marry women who are not attracted to men. They aren't even entitled to marry women who are attracted to men. This is your idea of injustice or unfairness???

Don't same-sex "marriage" proponents talk about love being the reason they should "marry" even? People have the right to marry, and often they just want to win without being right. A power play violating people's rights or a person's childishness shouldn't warp marriage to the point that genderless-marriage supporters argue it should: marriage is between a man and a woman, different, opposite sexes. Again, salt and salt make more salt whereas salt and pepper would more aptly apply to a "marriage" of two things.

My position makes me defensive, but I'm trying to argue against same-sex "marriage" in a comment, and the goal of getting justice also makes me defensive: I may further modify my arguments as you have aptly pointed out ("its [sic] already been pointed out to you") here falling back to lesbian women are "NOT necessarily 'available partners'" for marriage rather than definitely not being partners in marriage between a man and woman as others have argued. I comment here on opinion, don't write an article on my opinon here that is, don't spend the time or use the method I would on it, and I forget some important claims and arguments that if I were writing an editorial or opinion piece, I should include.

Well they need to ban divorce. It is affecting me. WTF should I have to live next to a welfare mom with 7 kids with 7 diferent fathers.

Thats against my civil rights, thats against my beliefs that brings down my property value, raises my taxes to feed her bastard children, it goes against my religion, Blah Blah Blah

Wow I never thought that there are bigger issues out there

P.S. Couples used to say "bread and butter" when someone went in between them, not "bread and bread." Everyone's very different, but two very different pieces of bread do not make bread and butter. LOL!

NotSanta:

Divorce isn't marriage. You response changes the subject for one. Brown's not violating the law and arguing against divorce and/or and welfare moms or other topics that he claims violate people's civil rights: he's violating the law and arguing for same sex "marriage" according to the seeded article.

Shut up I am venting, WTF cant they force this broad to get married and make them baby daddies pay for them kids!

Brown is doing his job, intrepreting and upholding the constitution.

Vincent

you do a lot of posting claiming same sex marriage somehow hurts your civil rights yet have not given a single instance where same sex marriage would do anything to you except maybe hurt your feeling because you believe it should stay illegal...

newsflash we do not have the right to no hurt feelings

Would be nice if you could stop the claims of hurting your civil rights unless you could give one example

Geez NS.  Didn't WE get up on the wrong side of the bed, eh. WTF?  Vincent, you'll have to excuse NS - idiots make him crazy AND cranky.  Rbach has a very good point (NS does too, he just has trouble this early in the morning).

If you did post how your rights are being violated by our getting same rights, would you mind terribly reposting them?  Our attention spans are not what they are at other times of the day.

Randy from Maine.

I was doing the Devils advocate thing. I like mixing it, wrong side of the bed heck no, it is such a beautiful day.

He never has, rbach, other than to spout something about there being fewer women available for HIM to marry (between complaining that all of his younger siblings have married before he could). 

Reminds me some of a guy I used to know, back in college...  This guy was utterly hopeless with women, had a way of managing to offend them within the first fifteen minutes of conversation.  (Mostly, I think, it was the attitude that, just based on gender, they were inferior to him in many ways, including mentally.)  He was always upset that everyone around him was pairing off, but the women were avoiding him in droves.  Any time a new female started to hang out with us, if she wasn't attached (or if her significant other wasn't immediately visible) he made the assumpting that she was "for him."  (He stated it within my hearing at least twice that I recall.)  Of course, when he approached her with that attitude, she either shot him down in flames, disappeared quietly, or quickly paired off with one of the other available guys, just to get him away from her. 

I know for a fact that a couple of the guys, at different times, tried to explain to this guy what he was doing wrong, but he was utterly convinced that we were all deliberately working to keep any of the females around him from liking him, and nothing that we said would convince him otherwise.  He eventually took off in a snit (owing several people money, as I recall...  Perpetual student, guy'd been in college over ten years, living off financial aid, couldn't seem to hold a job for more than three months at a time), actually saying to other people that we "all hated him, anyway."

It's truly a sad thing when someone blames their own failings on somebody or something else.

rain

yes I even reread all the posts from vincent, thinking I must have missed the rights he is being denied or how gays getting married would otherwise hurt him and the only thing I see is hurt feelings and cannot find anywhere in constitution were a person's feeling fall under equal rights... jeez at that rate I would have a case for my hurt feelings many times over

Ah, well, if he does come out with anything, I'll miss it.  Better for my blood pressure if he's on ignore.

NS is on ignore; rbach and Randy are close behind.  Rainkiss, you get to violate others' rights with impunity and even justify it? I've had girlfriends before besides, not just acquaintances.  One of my best friends is a woman, platonic though.

rbach: Learn to read!  At least Rainkiss's post had the ethics yours lacked.

Yes vincent

I reread and if you actually read my post you would have seen where I said that so you continue to ignore every facet of truth and stick with your ridiculous nonsense about your rights being somehow harmed if gay marriage is approved or should I say when gay marriage becomes legal impinges on your rights, you have yet to be able to answer that so must be the factual answer is none of mr vincent's rights would be impinged on when gay marriage is legal

click ignore would not hurt my feelings at all and doesn't even come close to impinging on my rights

oh yes mr vincent learn how to answer questions with some facts

Oh please, Mr. Vincent - don't IGNORE me.  You'd no longer benefit from my witty comments nor could I regale you with my funny observations.  Think about it.  You NEED me!  You know you do.

Randy from Maine.

Holy crap, where do I begin, and is there any point?

Vincent: 

Your post attacks me.

That seems to be your position whenever someone tells you that you aren't entitled to whatever it is that you want.  Since your position, as far as I can tell, is that you have some sort of civil right to a large pool of females from which to choose a mate, and any disposition of women according to their own wishes rather than yours is depriving you of that imaginary right, you are going to find the Vine a savage place.

You are not entitled to ANY woman, whether she might marry some male, someday, or whether she never would. Women are not a civil right that men "have".  The rest of the stuff that you posted is like word salad, and I will not respond to it.  I am sorry for your pain, but there is no help for it in made-up civil rights. Please feel free to put me on Ignore as well.  I'll be in very good company, there. 

I know I am way late on this conversation, but I do have something to say...

Vincent:

Men and women are different, and laws apply to them differently right now.

Men and women are far more alike than you think. There are no significant laws (and none if any) that are actually enforced that make them unequal. 

About 90% of those in prison are men. Personally, I've had a woman force sex on me, but there was nothing I could do whereas I get paranoid about what I can do with a woman, and I've heard many acquaintances from other countries criticize our sexual-harassment laws,

The problem isn't with our laws. Our laws are equal. The problem is with our perception of the laws. Men don't perceive advancements (jokes, etc.) from women as offensive, whereas women do because as you stated, more men are in prison because of rape than women. But not because you think--it's not a biological thing, it's a social thing.

so it's common sense to argue against the claim a woman wouldn't marry a different partner because she's a lesbian. 

Based off what? Just because you claim you are a lesbian, you may still fall in love with a man and get married. I am confused here.

As to the second reasons that's connected, very visible lesbians have changed their sexual orientation in the past to marry a male partner, e.g. Anne Heche. Homosexuality as a group is a 20th-century concept. We don't even know if it's a good concept at the federal level at least.

It is absolutely not a 20th century concept. There have been claims of homosexuality back into the era of the Romans (yes, BC). The concept of homosexuality is defined by the government or else we wouldn't have hate crimes against them. Also, anyone is able to marry whomever they choose. You can be straight and marry another straight, and then turn out to be gay, too. There are many shades of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Think of it more as a spectrum than as a black and white deal.

Now it could preclude people from marrying more and lead to the violation of the rights of those who don't claim to be homosexuals to having fewer partners, not to mention the rights of those who claim to be from having a marriage because marriage involves two different things: salt and pepper could be a marriage, but salt and salt are just more salt. @!$%# and @!$%# are just more @!$%#es, not @!$%#ier. LOL!

Another definition of marriage for you: any close or intimate association or union. Also, if you are bringing two DIFFERENT people together (regardless of how they enjoy sex) that is a marriage. There is nothing different between salt from one jar, and salt from another, but there is a difference between each and every human being.

I believe men get cowed from going after women by society, and proponents of men's rights have claimed that sexual harassment's the government's protections of lesbians already. Therefore, same-sex marriage furthers lesbians rights in violation of men's rights because not only would men be prohibited from partners, but with same-sex marriage, they would be more permanently prohibited from them whereas you're saying it's a natural (or environmental) prohibition whereas I say that it's often societal (or nurture).

OK 1) women don't have to take your advances, straight or gay. 2) There are just as many lesbians as there are gay men, so they cancel each other out, as far as who is available in the pool of potential dating partners. 3) Violating a woman's right to marry another women will not give you more women to date--she is still a lesbian, marriage or not.

However, there are more women than men in society, so obviously we are not all meant to have our one true love.

Vincent, you may or may not find your love one day, but don't take away the rights of the gays and lesbians because you cannot find love.

Come on guys go easy on mr vincent you are probably taking his right to not have his feelings hurt away from him

dharma girl you especially be nice to poor no love mr vincent ;-)

brkfstclblvr great post feel free to drop in late anytime

 dharma girl you especially be nice to poor no love mr vincent ;-)

 I was ever so nice to Mr. Vincent, my dear.  When I have to explain to a male more than once that he is not entitled to a female--any female--and that this lack of entitlement does not violate his "rights"--I often feel called to speculate (calmly and judiciously, of course) on the number of firing brain cells he has access to, the state of his mental health and common decency, and sometimes even the chance that he would ever enjoy any kind of female companionship without his mythical entitlement requiring it of some poor put-upon woman...I don't think I did any of that, this time.

The truth is, I don't usually want anyone's feelings to be hurt (except, perhaps, fleetingly when someone is deliberately getting on my last nerve).  But I am not under the impression that I can save everyone from that sad state.  I've really found the Ignore click a great tool for avoiding the temptation to overshare with people who are simply incapable of having a reasonable discussion or letting it go when that becomes clear.  I encourage anyone who finds me so lacking to use it, too.  Reasonable people can disagree on a great many things, and discuss them--no point wasting much time on unreasonable people, whether that is me or that guy over there :)

brkfstclblvr:  I'm with rbach--I always appreciate your posts.

rbach:

People can read contrary to what your comments seem to say.  They're not really happening in a vacuum.  From your entrance to the conversation at #20.54 on, they've seemed to say, "John Q. Public's a fool, so he doesn't care what I say."  Read (or re-read as you claim you already did) #20.18, #20.20, #20.23, #20.26, #20.29, #20.32, #20.35, #20.37, #20.38, #20.40, #20.42, and #20.46.  I conveniently placed a link for you to #20.18 in the last sentence.

Are you the same person as Rainkiss? You're asking the same questions, and it's the same tactic I complain about.  I've already provided some arguments as to why it affects people who want to marry: less partners of the opposite sex available for one.  The comments I list in the first paragraph regard an article about it and the same conversation again. 

DG:

Though the seeder's been a good moderator so far, I don't think this provides the best forum as he claims he supports same-sex marriage and Jerry Brown's criminal act.  Therefore, I would like to take the debate about this to a better forum as soon as possible.

In response to #20.63: 

That seems to be your position whenever someone tells you that you aren't entitled to whatever it is that you want.  Since your position, as far as I can tell, is that you have some sort of civil right to a large pool of females from which to choose a mate, and any disposition of women according to their own wishes rather than yours is depriving you of that imaginary right, you are going to find the Vine a savage place. 

No need to single me out further DG, and I've got not only a lot more seniority and vineacity here on NV than you, but I've even bothered to have my E-mail address confirmed.  The USA has many single people.  I guess I should not be grateful for the topic after all? 

You are not entitled to ANY woman, whether she might marry some male, someday, or whether she never would. Women are not a civil right that men "have".  The rest of the stuff that you posted is like word salad, and I will not respond to it.  I am sorry for your pain, but there is no help for it in made-up civil rights. Please feel free to put me on Ignore as well.  I'll be in very good company, there. 

????  Is that your position, or are you just getting emotional?  Explain your stance better or something.  #20.66 certainly reverts to ad hominems, personal attacks.

I've already provided some arguments as to why it affects people who want to marry: less partners of the opposite sex available for one.

Vincent, these people are gay whether they get married or NOT! They are not going to change teams because they can't marry each other. This is the absolute most illogical argument I've heard on this issue so far!

brkfstclblvr:

#20.64 does seem to contradict itself.  In says, "Men and women are far more alike than you think. There are no significant laws (and none if any) that are actually enforced that make them unequal."  It says men and women are alike at first, then goes on to say:

Also, if you are bringing two DIFFERENT people together (regardless of how they enjoy sex) that is a marriage. There is nothing different between salt from one jar, and salt from another, but there is a difference between each and every human being.

It contradicts itself, at first saying men and women are alike but then that everyone's very different. Men and women are different sexes, period.

As to the second reasons that's connected, very visible lesbians have changed their sexual orientation in the past to marry a male partner, e.g. Anne Heche. Homosexuality as a group is a 20th-century concept. We don't even know if it's a good concept at the federal level at least.

It is absolutely not a 20th century concept. There have been claims of homosexuality back into the era of the Romans (yes, BC). The concept of homosexuality is defined by the government or else we wouldn't have hate crimes against them. Also, anyone is able to marry whomever they choose. You can be straight and marry another straight, and then turn out to be gay, too. There are many shades of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Think of it more as a spectrum than as a black and white deal.

The concept of homosexuality and the group or class of homosexuality are two very different things. However, even the word "homosexual" originated in 1892 according the the Webser's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary Yes, the concept of homosexuality has been around since ancient times (but not the term), but placing someone in a group because of his or her homosexual behavior(s) first occurred in the 20th century, at least that's what I learned in my upper-division human-sexuality G.E. series at SFSU.

Vincent

for some unknown reason you feel I did not read your post or missed something, that is not so I read and even reread to see you have not one single answer to the question of how gay marriage would possibly impact you personally

Your utter ridiculous claim of lees of a pool of females for you to choose from is the best you can muster and this nonsense has already been explained to you be several folks and yet you still don't change your point to anything but regurgitating the same non-point

plain and simply put you have not given any explanation to you being personally impacted if gays are allowed to be married

so none of your rights would be taken away by giving others equal civil rights

I suggest you do the re-reading and thinking about what you claim to be somehow anything being impinged on regarding your rights

You seam to think people keep asking the same questions because you have yet to answer any of the questions so how is this supposed to be a discussion if you simply keep restating your initial claim that has been shown to not have anything to do with this thread???????????

brkfstclblvr wait wait wait,

This is the absolute most illogical argument I've heard on this issue so far!

Have you not read my pillow logic argument?

Pillow Fight

Girl vs Guy = Cool

Girl vs Girl = Gay

Guy vs Guy = Awesome

Guy vs Pillow = Crazy

Pillow vs Pillow = Crazy Awesome

Now that is illogical!!!!

brkfstclblvr:

I guess you wrote #20.69 as I responded to your other comments. Anyway, I already addressed this in #20.49 in response to Dharma Girl or DG.

Read my comment in the link, but I basically say arguments like this show the difference between different sexes marrying and the feminism behind the concept of same-sex marriage. Moreover, I provide an example of a famous lesbian who married and began a family.

People can say pretty much what they want on NV, and I'd mention temper tantrums more, but I don't have a problem with your comments so far, just others'.

Vincent -

As a female, allow me to agree with brkfstclblvr's statement about:

I've already provided some arguments as to why it affects people who want to marry: less partners of the opposite sex available for one. 

It has got to be one of the most asnine things I have ever read.

People, such as Anne Heche, could more properly be classified (if you must classify people) as bisexual.

According to Census 2000, 281.4 million people were counted in the United States — 143.4 million of whom were female and 138.1 million male. I'm pretty sure you would be able to find a mate if your really tried hard enough. But you are not going to attract a Lesbian.

You are a very sad individual Vincent. I would encourage you to get some help, and soon.

Better yet, join an online dating service. Maybe you'll be able to find yourself a wife. And I can guarantee she won't be a lesbian. They usually look for other women.

rbach:

It was a whole bleeding article claiming statistics of same-sex marriage skew available partners in Massachussets, as I keep telling you. It also claims the concept of this type of "marriage" is dead like the ERA and came from the same kind of group.

You read the article and all those comments in under 15 minutes? No way! I listed an article and 12 comments, not to mention the dozens in between mine so that you could get an understanding.

Actually, my first link to the article's in #20.12.

Lady Saidy:

Another person working for a dating service? More personal attacks like that, in violation of the COH, and I'll not only report them, but set you on ignore. Some in here say they like the members of the group I have set on ignore.

Ok I am ignoring Vincent. Please tell him what here refers to as an article is still the same old tripe from 2004. And it has lots of spam on it.

I live in Massachusetts and have yet to see this phenomenon. Please ask Vincent to post something new to support his case. ITS THE SAME 2004 Article he has been peddling.

It appers to be a kind of weak fear mongering if it was not so stupid.

VINCENT

You continue to suggest I am not reading your insane, inane spewing of you having less partners to choose from is a TOTAL waste of my time or anyone else time. Your point is absolute nonsense since if a lesbian does not get married it does not add a female to any pool you think you have to choose from

So because I do get your point and believe your point is utter nonsense, you telling me to reread your nonsense does not change the fact your entire point is NONSENSE

Vincent - I wasn't attacking you. I was stating an opinion and giving you an option. I don't work for a dating service, but if you are so concerned about a lack of available females where you live, that may be an option for you.

You are quite welcome to report me, ignore me, or whatever.

I have read your article, and since I am quite capable of comprehending what I am reading, I was able to form an opinion about what you have written, and I shared that opinion. If you are not able to handle the opinion of a mere female, that is not my problem.

I hope you have a very nice day, and a Happy New Year.

Lady Saidy:

You're not the only female in the world, let alone person. I have one female friend who thinks homosexuality should be illegal, or something to that effect. She may just be saying it though without believing it, and she was born in San Francisco besides.

rbach:

You're close to ignore.  Singling me out without referring to the article?  Criticizing me as writing "insane... spewing" rather than the article? Your comment resorts to the same lack of ethics tactics I complain about so frequently in this thread -- or worse!

Why don't your comments use truth sometimes, even honesty?  They could persuade me a bit if they did.  Instead, you are saying you think the rest of the people are unwashed, lowly ones whereas you and your group deserve special privileges, the rest of the people's, a majority of voters in California's, rights, common sense, decency and the sanctity they value be damned!

P.S. rbach, you're also being closed minded, ignoring what the article and I say.  This "shot in the dark" approach by same-sex marriage proponents uses the wrong tool to get the job done.  They should be developing some real arguments that persuade people about what appears to me to stand the world on its end, allowing people of the same gender to marry, not these arrogant, Brown Shirt, feminazi tactics, and rely on lies and the abuse of power.

Vincent:

20.74:

I am not contradicting myself. You are misunderstanding me.

Are you the same as your dad, as your brother, as your guy friends, your guy teachers, are you the same as any guy you know? Are you the same as any girl you know? I mean, THE SAME. Absolutely no differences? Maybe akin to a twin, but really this concept doesn't exist among human beings. This would be salt and salt.

All human beings are different, and when you bring two together, that is a marriage, or a union, or whatever you want to call it. That is salt and pepper.

No offense, either, but the salt and pepper are a bad example. Think of each person as a different spice. Completely made up of different chemicals, etc. Do not think of all females as salt, and all males as pepper, otherwise you will never really understand either one. Especially since there are so many other varieties of spices, and many don't like salt, or pepper. Doesn't make them abnormal.

Also, I really don't understand how bringing up homosexuality as a "class" or a "group" has any relevance? So we are now classifying them? Why should they/need to be classified other than to disclude them, such as in races, religions, etc. The only reason people classify is to divide and label. These concepts are part of the reason people don't see homosexuality as an equal "group" these days, and it is a sad concept.

Listen, I have a two gay cousins, a gay aunt, and my best friend from high school is gay, and one of my friends from college is also gay. They are gay, have always been gay, and will likely never be anything but gay. Anne Heche represented a very small population of people who choose to love human beings, rather than "men" or "women." I wish more people would be like this. It is illogical, IMO, to love someone simply because they are male or female.

Also, Anne Heche could have married Ellen in Vermont at the time if she had chosen, but she didn't, so it is not right to say that because she couldn't get married that she decided to go straight. That's what I'm taking from what you're saying.

And for everyone else defending this issue, I appreciate your help--not that you're all doin' it for me.  =)

VINCENT

what are you talking about? You were asked a very simple question which was

How are you /your rights impacted is gays are allowed to be married, you point to articles that support your view that somehow if lesbians get married to other lesbians the pool of females you have to choose from for a partner is reduced. That view has been shown to be flawed and nonsensical, but you continue to just refer back the the same starting point... what gives are you that hard headed you refuse to see anything others say and simply become a broken record with reiterating the very same article and arguments and claim we do not read them.

The point if your only answer is if lesbians marry other lesbians the pool of female mates for you is reduced then you have not shown you are impacted in any way if gays are allowed to get married

What about this are you missing? Or what do you think I am missing

ps your continual threat of ignore means nothing more than a childish view of agree with me or I will hold my breath

His argument is from a 2004 article that started on FIX news web site, then was re posted on a right wing radical web site with its twist on it.

rbach:

And I was going to talk about what looks like tempertantrums in your comments!  Being "childish" and "or I will hold my breath" has nothing to do with the personal attacks in your posts.

brkfstclblvr:

Again, even the word "homosexual" didn't come around till 1892.  Moreover, sexual animals need someone of a different sex to reproduce; otherwise, they'd be asexual.

The concept of a group or class led the California Supreme Court to claim their own version of the state's constitution in making same-sex marriage legal in California for 4 months.  Four activist justices basically wrote their own interpretation of it, something Californians were clearly against, in spite of the propaganda in the media over it.  They had passed Proposition 22 in 2000, and the justices couldn't wait to see what they would do with Proposition 8, which voters passed even with the misinterpretation of the constitution. 

It also appears unlikely to be nullified because one of the 4 justices whose vote made same-sex "marriage" legal in Caifornia didn't even want to hear the case against Proposition 8, thought it improper to question a legal amendment to the state's constitution passed by a majority of voters.  Moreover, Brown thinks the vote legal but still argues against the proposition, and he argues for a class or group, not a behavior, a "suspect class " in legal terms.

Anyway, they saying goes "Sugar and spice and everything nice.  That's what little girls are made of."  Boys are made up of something different.  You claim we should view it otherwise?  I say that is bad.  Just because someone's gay or lesbian doesn't make it right.  People from Lesbos in Greece still complain women who prefer women "sexually" took their island's name.  This article claims they're even fighting back for it in court.  Homosexuals also had thier position on the wrong side of morality with the Brown Shirts and Ernst Roehm.

P.S. 20.74 was Lady Saidy's comment, and Vermont has never had same-sex "marriages," so Anne Heche and Ellen could not have "married" there.  However, the state's had civil unions, just like California has, and it's something I seem to have changed my mind about.  However, if I were against civil unions, which also benefit seniors for example BTW, something your side often argues "separate but equal," it would be because like Sarah Palin said in I believe the first debate against Biden, same-sex-marriage proponents use these type of relationships, civil unions, as an excuse for genderless "marriage."

Vincent,

I'm afraid you've now lost me. You are assuming you know what is in the hearts of the voters, and of the judges, and I just do not listen to that rubbish. You do not know if they were activist judges, you do not know whether the voters were swayed either way (in either year) by propaganda. You do not know these things...you can't possibly. You also misunderstood Palin's point of view on marriage, and it was not their first debate, it was their ONLY debate. And many wouldn't even call it a debate.

Also, using a childhood rhyme to define gender makes me wonder how much of that education you used.

Thank you for the talk, but I must bow out now as all logic has left this conversation.

Luckily the voters saw through another case of America's press not doing the job it's free to do.  Reportedly scientific polls claimed all along the proposition would lose in 2008, and most editorials by reporters and newspapers came out in opposition of Proposition 8.  It's common knowledge.

I would say it's a lulliby more than a childhood rhyme, and it's a better analogy than yours.  Your comment began that the sexes aren't that different but that people are.  I agree people are different, but so are the sexes, and you categorize someone based on his sex as well.  It's part of the person.

Several people who have commented supporting same-sex marriage even base their opinon on their sex such as Lady Saidy does in #20.74.  Try not to skew things to fit your position.

You still haven't answered the main question everyone has been asking you.

How does allowing two lesbians to marry affect the number of available potential partners for you? The two women that are marrying were never available as a potential partner for the simple fact they are lesbians.

Please just answer that one simple question.

And yes, I gave my gender, not that you couldn't have figured it out by the name. The reason is you seem to be very fixated on the number of potential women available to you. I was giving you a females point of view.

It seems like the right time to "exit, stage left" on this thread like the rest of the winning side of Proposition 8, leave you proponents of an oxymoron that's against all logic and common sense to yourselves.  Again, your post's unethical like the others.  Don't expect me to respond any further to comments in this thread unless other opponents of  genderless "marriage" return and comment first.  Thank you, and Happy New Year to you all!

Of course. You are asked a simple question, yet you don't answer it? And I'm being unethical?

Whatever.

I hope you have a very Happy New Year, also.

Vincent is referring back to that Usher article again to attempt to validate his point?  I did this once, somewhere, but okay...

David R. Usher wrote that piece of tripe.  He's the same man who brought us such literary gems as "Radio Announcers and Fat Lesbians" protesting the firing of a radio announcer for calling a candidate for the governor of the state a "fat lesbian."  In "How To Stop Homosexual Activism in the Episcopal Church," he makes the cowardly suggestion that people leave fliers under the windshield wipers of cars in church parking lots, protesting anyone in the church hierarchy who supports gay marriage (and claims it has worked for him).  The man is a rabid misogynist, ranting in article after article about how the feminists and lesbians are out to get rid of men completely, enslaving them as baby-makers and child-support-payers for the remaining days of humanity.  A sample:

It is clear there is little left of feminism that is moral, equalitarian, pro-social, or pro-economic. In fact, the greatest social problems we face, and even our national debt, exist because the feminist Inquisition was so successful.

If you've got the stomach for it, some of his blogs:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/davidA.htm

If anybody's still conversing with Vincent, you might want to ask him what qualifications this guy has to do ANY kind of scientific study.  The only claim to any kind of credibility this guy makes is that he was a an officer of The Coalition for Fathers and Children, and co-founder of one of their branches.

[Back for an encore:]

How does allowing two lesbians to marry affect the number of available potential partners for you? The two women that are marrying were never available as a potential partner for the simple fact they are lesbians.

-- Lady Saidy Question in 20.89

Are you trying to say there's a double standard by any measure? Homosexuals always like to talk about homosexual tendencies in everyone, and they try to pick up on heterosexuals besides. Many prominent homosexauls came out later in life after long being heterosexual, at least in gay-rights vernacular. It's not like it shouldn't at least work both ways. Nature has intended there be different sexes at least.

[Curtain makes its final close after sanding ovation (LOL!).]

Or whatever toots your horn, or whatever stuffs your turkey.

Ok ok lets go with this, what if every male chose to be a catholic priest? Thats along the same lines of thinking. And I know its not a choice, its a calling.

That would leave no men to marry woman

What exactly is your problem with gay people? And you clearly do not live in CA, so what do you care about our laws so much for?

CA is very enjoyable -- you should visit sometime.

As far as conservatives rioting, they have had no need to, considering how centrist Obama is proving to be.

Lastly, are you seriously calling for the conservative movement, which is comprised primarily of middle to senior-aged white folks, to RIOT?!

Are you daft? They would have a collective aneurysm twenty paces into the march.

The personal freedoms of the right are not being dismantled. They are not being discriminated against. Perhaps when they are, then you will se the truly ugly side come out. Not that we havnt already seen their ugly side , spewing hatred and bigotry and prejudice.

bevy, bevy, bevy

to throw your flawed bible out as some sort of confirmation that your view is correct... I will include some chapters and verse at the end so you can check them out to see just how inaccurate, inconsistent and contradictory your bible is

IF you indeed are a "christian" why are you being so judgemental? Why are you being so hateful? Why are you so prejudice? Aren't each of these against the teaching's of Christ?

Here are but a tiny few of the hundreds of inconsistencies, inaccuracies, contradictions in the bible which makes it a flawed document that cannot be used to prove anything

Check them out for yourself and if you want more proof I can give your hundreds more of the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and contradictions

1. The people were not impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Mk.6:52.
   The people were very impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Jn.6:14.
2. After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Gennesaret. Mk.6:53.
   After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Capernaum. Jn.6:14-17.
3. A demon cries out that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Mk.1:23,24.
   Everyone who confesses that Jesus came in the flesh is of God. 1 Jn.4:2.
4. Jesus cursed the fig tree so that it would not bear fruit. Mt.21:19; Mk.11:14.
   It wasn't time for the fig tree to bear fruit. Mk.11:13.
5. The fig tree withers immediately, and the disciples are amazed. Mt.21:19,20.
   The disciples first notice the withered tree the next day. Mk.11:20,21.
6. Jesus is the mediator of the "Father". 1 Tim.2:5; 1 Jn.2:1.
   Jesus sits on "his" right hand. Mk. 16:19.
   Jesus and the "Father" are one in the same. Jn.10:30.
7. There is one "God". 1 Tim.2:5; Jms.2:19.
   There are three. 1 Jn.5:7.
8. Jesus said to honor your father and mother. Mt.15:4; Mt.19:19; Mk.7:10; Mk.10:19; Lk.18:20.
   Jesus said that he came to set people against their parents. Mt.10:35-37; Lk.12:51-53; Lk.14:26.
   Jesus said to call no man father. Mt.23:9.
9. Jesus/God said, "You fool…". Lk.12:20; Mt.23:17.
   Paul calls people fools. 1 Cor.15:36.
   Call someone a fool and you go to hell. Mt.5:22.
10. Anger by itself is a sin. Mt.5:22.
    But not necessarily. Eph.4:26.
11. Ask and it shall be given. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened to you. Mt.7:7,8; Lk.11:9,10.
    Ask and you shall be refused. Seek and you won't find. Knock and you will be refused entrance. Lk.13:24-27.
12. Do not judge. Mt.7:1,2.
    Unless it is necessary, of course. 1 Jn.4:1-3.
13. Jesus is thankful that some things are hidden. Mt.11:25; Mk.4:11,12.
    Jesus said that all things should be made known. Mk.4:22.
14. Jesus said that no sign would be given. Mk.8:12.
    Jesus said that no sign would be given except for that of Jonas. Mt.12:39; Lk.11:29.
    Jesus showed many signs. Jn.20:30; Acts 2:22.
15. Jesus stated that the law was until heaven and earth ended. Mt. 5:17-19.
    Jesus stated that the law was only until the time of John. Lk.16:16.
16. The "Sermon on the Mount" took place on the mountain. Mt.5:1.
    The "Sermon on the Mount" took place on a plain. Lu.6:17.

Hey Rbach:

Do you mind if I cut and paste your passages above and store them away for another day, to answer some other bigot who throws their interpretation of the bible at me as justification for their narrow-minded view?

Thanks!

Randy from Maine.

randy207

feel free to pass along hopefully educating people along the was

I have many more quotes if you need more

Hope you had a great Holiday

"...compare or equate current same sex marriage issues with those of the civil rights movement of the 1960's and to current struggles by africian american's to achieve or strive towards Dr. Kings Dream..."

Sorry but it is quite easy to compare the two. There is discrimination. There is a lack of equality for a minority. There is a lack of freedom for a select group. There is the danger of losing a job simply based on sexual identity. There is a lack of laws protecting the rights of a portion of the population to not be afraid of eviction or obtaining the housing of ones choice. It is discrimination. It was discrimination. I find it a shame and quite perplexing that more people dont see the similarities between the two struggles.

all4him

No "christians" are not haters, bigots, homophobic just because they that marriage should be defined or held to one man and one woman.  

But "christians" are haters, bigots, homophobic when they work to remove equal rights for gays and couch their hatred, bigotry, homophobia in "religious" beliefs

your wrote

It's a shame as a christian and an afrcian american that those in favor of the gay or same sex marriage would compare or equate current same sex marriage issues with those of the civil rights movement of the 1960's and to current struggles by africian american's to achieve or strive towards Dr. Kings Dream.

just why as a "christian", does comparing/equating one groups struggle for civil rights to another groups struggle for civil rights become shameful? Is there some terminology I am missing?

remember hate is a choice, bigotry is a choice, religion is a choice, homophobia is a choice and the cure for all is education

Happy Holidays

It was not a large majority.  52% to 48%  is not a large majority.  And support for gay marriage has increased considerably in the last several years.

Just wait, in a few more years there will be a majority in support of gay marriage.  These laws WILL be undone. 

And, again, it IS a civil rights issue.  You have one group engaging in widespread, systematic legal discrimination against a specific group of people for the express purpose of denying them the basic rights that everyone else gets automatically.

0

all4him

   I agree with you about Jerry Brown jumping on the bes ship for him and asperations.  The only thing that you missed saying was that Jerry Brown screwed the State of CA. up when he was Govenor and now he is doing the same thing as the AG.  I think someone needs to tell him to get a different job because he has screwed this State up enough already so find a job maybe as a Street Sweeper or picking up trash along side of the Freeway.  At least then we would know he is not going to be around screw up anything else.

gay has nothing to do with race, you cannot change your blackness as you can suddenly decide you are no longer gay. being gay means that you are telling society that you are different i.e you prefer a partner of the same sex as you. so how can you ever be seen as the same?

Celebrate your difference and stop perpetuating a lie that the difference is somehow not a difference, but is a difference because you're telling us that you are 'gay' and not heterosexual

People do not choose to be gay any more then they choose their race. They are what they are born to be.

vote

so based on you putting your view as fact, please tell us your qualifications/proof of your statement

I can argue that hatred has nothing to do with religion, bigotry has nothing to do with religion, intolerance has nothing to do with religion, homophobia has nothing to do with religion but I can be proved wrong they all are choices and education is the cure

R. Donald has hit the nail on the head. Ultimately, this is simply a matter of education. A cursory review of the comments on this threat and the many similar threads on this topic that have come before reveals that there are basically two camps: (1) those who believe that homosexuality is a choice, and (2) those who believe that homosexuality is something you are born with and is not a choice.

I am not homosexual, but I have known many as family members, in-laws, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances. I do not know a single one who has said they "chose" to be homosexual. It is simply what they were.  Although my informal "poll" is not scientifically conclusive, I believe that science will (if it has not already) determine that homosexual tendencies are determined genetically and not environmentally. I believe there are studies that have shown that a child raised by same sex parents does not have any greater chance to become homosexual than a child raised by opposite sex parents.

People who believe homosexuality is a choice will never accept same-sex marriage or anti-gay discrimination laws because they will not view gays as a minority group entitled to special protection under the law. What we need to do is educate people to the fact that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice but is simply a different way of being which was not chosen, but genetically determined, and which does not make them "inferior" or "deviant."  The California Supreme Court understood that when it held that same sex couples had a fundamental right to marry under the state constitution. We cannot let an ignorant majority take away those rights by mob rule.

I would like to add this about being born gay or choosing to be gay or it being a environmental influence.  For some, it doesn't matter if it is genetic or environmental.  They will always see it as a "sin" or "immoral" and demand that it can be changed through prayer, fasting, and a ferverant belief that God will change them.  Scientific studies have shown that a child will conclude that religious belief they were brought up with is set by ages 3-5.  Even if they change their religon, they will remember and likely hold to some form of tradition set in that time frame.  I remember my first reference to homosexuality at age 5.  I was told they were disgusting, vile creatures that were haters of Christ.  As I grew up and realized I liked boys, I cried to God to change me.  I didn't want to hate Jesus and be vile.  I could not look in the mirror, for all I saw was a "demon".  Sadly, when I was 11 years old, I tried killing myself because I knew that nothing good would come of my life as a homosexual.  I had heard a sermon that it was better to be dead than to commit a sin.  I failed, obviously, but kept praying to God to change me.  When I became older, I would fast and pray and even asked that the church pray for me.  I can tell you that as a child, I went before God with the most earnest of hearts begging God to change me.  When I was 13, I had sex with a girl for the first time.  Why?  I had heard that if gays would have sex with an opposite sex partner, it would cure them, they would see the way.  But, now I had a new sin, premarital sex.  But it seemed less than that of being a homosexual.  After 3 more years of fighting having homosexual feelings and having sex with girls, I gave up and attempted suicide again at age 16, to which, I still have medical problems because of it.  Fast forward through adolescent years filled with sex and self loathing to age 19.  I went back to church to cleanse myself.  I met a woman and she knew all about me.  We became friends and we were married some time after that.  We had a child and I was overjoyed.  I wanted a family more than anything.  I still struggled with my feelings and asked my wife to pray with me.  After two years she told me that I was never going to loose my desires and left me and took my child away, far away.  Because, in that time, being gay was the death knell to a parent, I have not seen my child since he was 2.  Why?  Because I am gay.  I now have a very good life, I am happy with myself, and am no longer shamed over who I am.  But, I went through a tremendous amount of shame and pain.  I have come to the conclusion of, it doesn't matter if it is genetic or environmental, I am who I am.  The struggle to "change" almost cost me my life and has cost me a relationship with my child.  So, when I hear people question the "cause" of being gay, I say, it's not important.  When religious belief causes a child to question the value of their own life and the appropriateness of taking their own life, I have to question the belief.  Gay and lesbian children are more likely to attempt or succeed in suicide because of the belief that they are vile and do not deserve to live.  Do not tell me it's a choice.  I made the "choice" to be with women.  I made the "choice" to deny who I was to follow a principle that was taught to me as a child.  I am not telling my story because I want a pity response.  I am not looking for a "poor you" response.  I am saying this so maybe, just maybe, people might realize that their good intentions are having the opposite affect on children, whom they proclaim they want to protect.  The bible says that I am made in the image of God and that all who seek Jesus are saved.  But, even without the bible, no child should suffer and struggle with self loathing because of a belief system.  Please realize that your comments and actions have consequences.  And if you are a young gay boy or girl, your life IS worth living. 

RossJ, you are the reason I continue to support the rights of GLBT.  I worked in public education for 20 years and I knew many young people such as yourself.  Bright, talented beautiful young people who hated themselves and found no worth in their abilities and accomplishments all because they were gay!  There was nothing wrong with them!  But they let the limited narrowminded judgement of others shape their own opinions of themselves. 

There are far more supporters of gay rights than all the closed-minded people would like to believe.  We are here, we are not going to go away, we are not going to be quiet.   In fact, many of the Pro-8 crowd have actually encouraged people like me to become more active.  Tonight I will attend a Prop 8 Candlelight Protest March in opposition to this law.  It WILL be undone.

RossJ,

Thank you for sharing, I know it must have been painful to go through typing all of this.

Your situation, exactly, is the issue I have with a faith shoving its nose into the issue.  As I've posted elsewhere, I've yet to see any potential good to banning gay marriage that can come close to balancing against the sort of pain that you and those like you have gone through.

ross

thank you for your thoughtful post

Very well put. Saying that being homosexual is a "choice" that people make is one of the most asinine things that I have ever heard! I respect your CHOICE to finally deny society their control over you and be who you are. My love and respect go out to you! One day this country will get over their prejudices and realize that EVERYONE is created in God's image and that there is a purpose for EVERYONE on this earth. Be it part of the world's grand design or to just change one person's life. You have changed mine, your story has made me ever MORE a firm believer that homosexuality is  not something to be ashamed of, but a part of someone's life that should be even more embraced because it is SUCH a taboo in America. People need to educate themselves and stop this hatred. God speed

Who knows...  maybe God put homosexuals on the Earth to test His followers, and how well they follow His command to "love thy neighbor," and "hate the sinner, not the sin."

Wonder just how disappointed He is.

Gee Rainkiss that didnt come out right. Is it not hate the sin not the sinner?

Just seeing if anybody was paying attention.  ;D

(Okay, it was a typo.)

but I can be proved wrong they all are choices and education is the cure

Unless you use "proof" from an anti-gay or religious website you can not prove that someone who is gay can stop being gay. You can prove that they can be stopped from living a gay life, but they can not be changed no matter how much prayer and "education" (brainwashing) someone throws at them. They will always be attracted to members of their own sex. If you are gay, you are gay. If you are straight, you are straight. Nothing changes that. Of course there are a few crackpots out there running "re-education" programs, but they're no different then the re-education camps of the old communist regimes and have just as poor results.

This last post may have been mis-directed. If so, I apologize.

no problem

I like that it brought out a post of the pray-the-gay-away camps you know like the one that cured Ted Hagard ;-)

I caught a TV show awhile back, I've mentioned it before...  "The Making of Me," this episode starred John Barrowman, who is an openly gay actor (Captain Jack, Torchwood and Doctor Who) exploring why he is gay.

He had an interview with a man who went to one of those "cure the gay" programs.  What he described had John literally in tears.  (If I remember right, they were using electroshock therapy.)  The man left the program, and later went to a gay bar... and saw the "therapist" from the program there picking up men.

You've got no shot.  Keep in mind recent polls that show that Prop 8 would fail today.  The general resentment toward the religious groups and their misrepresentations will protect the six out of seven Republican Supreme Court Justices.

Please note that Prop 8 is not up for re-vote!  The voters voted last month, "you know who the voters are right?" ;  and it passed again......! 

This time let's begin the re-call proceedings

BTW, Is Moon Beam looking at the Gov's seat again?

Please note that Prop 8 is not up for re-vote! 

Not right this moment. But if the court doesn't over-rule it it'll be back on the ballot in 2010 or in a special election next year and it'll flop big time. Legal gay marriage is as inevitable as the next sunrise. It's going to happen and there is nothing it opponents can do to stop it. You might as well try to change the tides.

Very sad, up for a vote or not, our votes don't matter

Hornady Can me and a bunch of friends vote on you retaining your citizenship? You can vote to, but the majority will rule.

PEOPLE DONT GET IT! THERE ARE THINGS THAT SHOULD NOT BE VOTED ON.

Hey! I've got an idea! Lets put a resolution on the ballot throwing Christians to the lions! Then if it passes they can scream to the supposed "activist judges" for help.

Oooo! R.DonaldSnyder, I like that idea. And we can have some good, old fashioned Roman crusifictions, too, and maybe use a few Bible thumpers impaled on spears as torches to light the parks at night.

R donald

where do we register to vote?

I could care less if your gay and if you want to have a relationship on a formal basis with another man then fine. Just don't call it marriage. Marriage was instituted by God for a man and a women. Gays are the ones obsessed with this issue by insisting on formalizing your relationships as "marriage". It's not. Call it something else. The institution of marriage is very important to us just as your "civil rights" to have formalized relationships is important to you. Go for it, but just as i will not insult you by calling you a fag or a queer, don't insult me by calling your legalized relationships marriage. You want respect for your lifestyle,then give us respect for ours...........

Proud

good post

vesey wrong, wrong, wrong just how wrong your are... marriage is a civil institution licensed by the government and the government allows churches to perform them

You are truly hateful and bigoted by couching your insults in your writing

Go for it, but just as i will not insult you by calling you a fag or a queer, don't insult me by calling your legalized relationships marriage. You want respect for your lifestyle,then give us respect for ours...........

how very clever of you... I will return the favor

Vesey I will not insult you by calling you a hateful, bigoted, homophobic, judgemental moron, so don't insult me by calling marriage as owned by you and your ilk

I have zero respect for people who jam their religious lifestyle choice onto others

Happy Holidays

Vesey, Since you COULD care less about my relationship with my partner, then that means that you DO care! If you DIDN'T care then you COULDN'T care less! Semantics aside, people on both sides of this issue need to get over it! Personally my partner and I DON'T want it called marriage! Why would we want to saddle ourselves with a word that carries so much baggage anyway! We're more than happy to call it civil unions, entwined or some other appropriate word. All we want is to have our relationship legally recognized on both the state AND federal level, with all of the legal rights and responsibilities that heterosexual married couples have. You can keep your religious ceremonies and call them marriage, I COULDN'T care less!

rbach, and I have zero respect for people who try to jam their deviant sexual lifestyle choice into acceptance by others

lostyankee

thanks for sharing and I will let you know I could not care less about what you had respect for

No one is asking you for acceptance we are asking you to refrain from stepping on other peoples civil rights

vesey...Your 'lifestyle' is not under attack. You will lose nothing by the institution of gay marriage recognition. Or are your heterosexual relationships so fragile and faulty that my marrying another man would cause your marriage to crumble? If so, I would suggest you concentrate more on your own relationships than mine.
And, LostYankee....I force nothing on you other than a radical idea of equality for all. You have njo respect for anyone let alone homosexuals. Dont try to limit your bigotry to just one sector of society. I would be willing to bet that you are equally disrespectful of many societies that are different than your own.

Can someone, ANYONE, please explain to me how permitting gays to marry will harm their own marriage?  Anybody?

Unless your spouse is gay and will decide to run off and leave you for a gay lover, I got nothing...

Dah!! You know that gay people make straight people watch them have sex once they are married.

Once gay people are married they can go into straight peoples houses and eat their food and not do the dishes

Once gay people are married they can make straight people watch Ugly Betty

Gee I tried, I cant see how my marriage will affect anyone else besides the person I am married to.

rbach & DC, your not asking for acceptance yet go crazy when proposition 8 doesn't go in your favor. Sounds like that's exactly what your asking for.

lostyankee

indeed you must be lost and cannot see the point

prop8 has nothing to do with acceptance and everything to do with equal civil rights so perhaps your entire opposition to gay marriage is founded on the wrong issue

LYankee What the hell are you talking about?

vote

you have quite the slant on this issue, you have a wonderful ability to ignore facts and twist everything to fit with your opinion then you try to put your opinion out as fact...

the debate on this has been covered many times but people of your opinion continue to ignore facts

the fact is marriage is a civil (government) institution and grant over 1000 rights and benefits to married couples - these benefits and rights are not granted to same sex couples. The exclusion of these 1000 + rights and benefits make this all about civil/equal rights

Another fact for you and your definition of marriage, there are currently several countries that allow for same sex marriage Spain, Canada and Netherlands for a few. So marriage has already been redefined

Another fact for you the constitution does not guarantee equal wealth but does guarantee everyone to have the same rights to pursue their life, liberty and happiness

As for you twisting this somehow into a morality issue... where do you get this from? Because you have a narrow consept of what others should and should not be able to do does not equate this to a morality issue

Sorry but it is quite easy to compare the two. There is discrimination. There is a lack of equality for a minority. There is a lack of freedom for a select group. There is the danger of losing a job simply based on sexual identity. There is a lack of laws protecting the rights of a portion of the population to not be afraid of eviction or obtaining the housing of ones choice. It is discrimination. It was discrimination. I find it a shame and quite perplexing that more people dont see the similarities between the two struggles.

ejdiaz

This IS a human/civil/equal rights issue

wow what a good argument that is

Its a social equality issue

I'll keep saying it:  widespread systematic legalized discrimination against a specific group for the express purpose of denying them the same basic right that everyone else gets automatically.  It certainly is a human right issue. 

Upholding morality is neither offensive or dispassionate. It's not the threat but the insult to God the creator of marriage. Our opposition is gays calling their relationships "marriage" which is an institution established by God. Most of us don't object to whether they have any or all civil rights. Gays and those supporting gay marriages don't accept Biblical morality and institutions as a guiding principle, so be it. But don't expect the rest of us to accept your principles. Just as calling a gay person a fag or queer is offensive to them so is calling their relationships marriage offensive to us. Try respecting our rights.

Geezer

ah that's just what the Anti-gay/Anti-civil rights folks want people to believe. They want everyone to believe they are tolerant and accepting by framing their anti-gay/anti-civil rights argument in a ridiculous "redefining marriage" ... by framing it as such their judgemental, bigotry and intolerance can be camouflaged into at least not being so blatant. If the government were to remove marriage from the books and call it something else for both heterosexual and homosexual couples the anti-gay/anti-civil rights folks would not stop their fight, guaranteed and shown by posts by vesey...

Vesey

couching your judgemental, bigotry and homophobia in your morality argument makes an assumption that every one has the same beliefs as you, which is wrong. You confuse the civil marriage with the religious matrimony to somehow prove your point but it doesn't. You are absolutely correct in saying not everyone accepts the bible as a guiding principal... there are many such books for many different religions. I do not accept your principal of calling the bible somehow a factual document for it contains hundreds of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and down right contradictions which prove it to be a flawed document. I will include just a tiny few of the inconsistencies, contradictions and inaccuracies complete with chapter and verse for you to check for yourself.

Again you just think you are so clever to get your hate speach out framed in a self righteous statement... and again let me return the favor... just calling a "christian" as someone who believes in fiction a judgemental, hateful, homophobic bigot is offensive to them so is calling us fag and queer offensive to us. No one is touching your rights, you are free to believe whatever you choose so try and respect our rights by getting your religious beliefs out of my government

here are some inconsistencies, inaccuracies, contradictions from your bible complete with chapter and verse for you to see it is a flawed document and should not be used to prove anything.... I have hundreds more if you like

1. The people were not impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Mk.6:52.
   The people were very impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Jn.6:14.
2. After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Gennesaret. Mk.6:53.
   After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Capernaum. Jn.6:14-17.
3. A demon cries out that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Mk.1:23,24.
   Everyone who confesses that Jesus came in the flesh is of God. 1 Jn.4:2.
4. Jesus cursed the fig tree so that it would not bear fruit. Mt.21:19; Mk.11:14.
   It wasn't time for the fig tree to bear fruit. Mk.11:13.
5. The fig tree withers immediately, and the disciples are amazed. Mt.21:19,20.
   The disciples first notice the withered tree the next day. Mk.11:20,21.
6. Jesus is the mediator of the "Father". 1 Tim.2:5; 1 Jn.2:1.
   Jesus sits on "his" right hand. Mk. 16:19.
   Jesus and the "Father" are one in the same. Jn.10:30.
7. There is one "God". 1 Tim.2:5; Jms.2:19.
   There are three. 1 Jn.5:7.
8. Jesus said to honor your father and mother. Mt.15:4; Mt.19:19; Mk.7:10; Mk.10:19; Lk.18:20.
   Jesus said that he came to set people against their parents. Mt.10:35-37; Lk.12:51-53; Lk.14:26.
   Jesus said to call no man father. Mt.23:9.
9. Jesus/God said, "You fool…". Lk.12:20; Mt.23:17.
   Paul calls people fools. 1 Cor.15:36.
   Call someone a fool and you go to hell. Mt.5:22.
10. Anger by itself is a sin. Mt.5:22.
    But not necessarily. Eph.4:26.
11. Ask and it shall be given. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened to you. Mt.7:7,8; Lk.11:9,10.
    Ask and you shall be refused. Seek and you won't find. Knock and you will be refused entrance. Lk.13:24-27.
12. Do not judge. Mt.7:1,2.
    Unless it is necessary, of course. 1 Jn.4:1-3.
13. Jesus is thankful that some things are hidden. Mt.11:25; Mk.4:11,12.
    Jesus said that all things should be made known. Mk.4:22.
14. Jesus said that no sign would be given. Mk.8:12.
    Jesus said that no sign would be given except for that of Jonas. Mt.12:39; Lk.11:29.
    Jesus showed many signs. Jn.20:30; Acts 2:22.
15. Jesus stated that the law was until heaven and earth ended. Mt. 5:17-19.
    Jesus stated that the law was only until the time of John. Lk.16:16.
16. The "Sermon on the Mount" took place on the mountain. Mt.5:1.
    The "Sermon on the Mount" took place on a plain. Lu.6:17.

God did not create marriage. Some people don't believe in god, respect their rights.

that door swings both ways notsanta try walking the walk instead of talking it

Oh I walk the walk. I'm expected to serve Jury Duty, Pay Property Taxes, Sign up for Selective Service, I should expect the same social equality and not have a religious fodder bogging up my rights as a US citizen.

The religious right pretends that the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. But that is a bald faced lie. Have any of these people ever read the Bible? The Bible is full of men taking on second wives, servants, prostitutes and concubines. And all the while, God heartily approves. How many wives did King David have? Eight? Twelve? Let alone his possibly gay lover, Jonathan.

vessey

before African American people were viewed as such, PEOPLE, it was considered immoral and deviant for a Caucasian to have a romantic relationship with an African American person. Wanting to marry the person that you LOVE has NOTHING to do with deviance, religion, procreation........

I am a HAPPILY UNWED, BY CHOICE, mother of 2.... should I be considered wrong because I actually CHOOSE to stay unwed? I am going against the Bible right?  Marriage is not an institution mandated by God but by government? What about people that choose to wed and not have children? What about infertile women and men? should they be cast away as lepers?

Marriage is an institute between ONE man and ONE woman? what about the divorce rate in America? If marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman shouldn't we uphold that statement to the fullest? It's imbicilic! LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE! Let people live their adult CONSENTING lives the way that they want and let God sort out the rest. the ONLY one that can judge ANYONE is God.

behaving towards others as you expet others to behave towards you is clearly a concept that eludes your grasp.resorting to name calling and diviseveness shows your inability to present a sensible opinion.it's also the primary method ingnorant and intolerant folks resort to when common sense and logic are incapable of being used.now say something directly responding to this comment without dragging irrelevant hysteria into your arguement.....if you can exercise self control and maturity that is

maddog

a major flaw in your post

It is not the pro gay marriage folks that are trying to take anything away from the anti-gay agenda folks

So no matter how politely people lay out their bigotry, judgemental, intolerance does not change the fact the anti-gay-marriage folks are working feverishly to reduce  a group of people to second class citizenship and that action should not be tolerated or accepted by any person

Maddog are you really mad or is that just a front you put on so we all wont know that you are really just a cuddly push over?

MadDog,

We just LOVE how you accuse the other side of name-calling and of being divisive - and then go on to do just that. Do you own a mirror? If so, I suggest you take a good long LOOK!

Randy from Maine.

guy's this is almost as easy as fishing with dynamite.the lack of direct response is laughable but there does not appear to be too many opposing views for you to engage so it makes perfect sense that my views would cause such a ruckus.anyway i think we can all agree that the current economic nightmare we all face is much more pressing to all of us irregardless of what opinion we have on this issue.may all of you enjoy the holidays with as much love and peace that we can find in these troubling times

Hey maddog.

A Christmas riddle (riddled with much love and peace).

What's the difference between the word regardless and "irregardless" (sic)?

Uh, duh, there's no such word. Speak the King's English please.

Randy from Maine.

dunno maybe the same as the term "ignoranus" which is now included in the english lexicon,keep picking that flys hit from the pepper it shows great determination and persistance

maddogg

guess it is nice living in your fantasy land and ignore every point showing your post as nothing but your opinion and you over look every other post that does not agree and spin nonsense about name calling and claiming there is no direct response because the response goes against your opinion... I hear fix news could use someone of your low caliber

Happy Holidays

merry christmas!

Happy Tet

merry christmas!

vesey:

Our opposition is gays calling their relationships "marriage" which is an institution established by God.

"Marriage" is a civil institution involving a contract between the state and two people.  No gods involved, unless the two people party to the contract choose to invite one (or more.)  You can be as offended as you want; that's your right.  You don't own marriage; that is NOT your right.

Try respecting our rights.

No problem.  But your rights aren't just whatever the hell you want.  Try respecting the facts and the Constitution.  Or at least the Constitution.

This semantics stuff reminds me of the confusion of the pronoun for the third-person singular, "he."  Moreover for God, we capitalize it, "He," not really meaning a gender I don't think but universal.

One reason I can see it clearly is that humans are sexual rather t han asexual.  My great-grandmother worked with one-celled, asexual animals, and you refer to them as daughter cells.  The work also helps me see why we refer to humans who are sexual rather than asexual, with the proper third-person singular of "he" when speaking of someone in general, either male or female.

Other English speaking countries don't have stupid, blind feminism messing up their language like we do in the United States.  Moreover, it's not all women who cause the problem for sure.  E.g., my great grandmother also made it into a book called _The Great Men of American Science_.

Spanish often has to use context for meaning, like the sex of the person referred to in a general conversation, though it can get confusing as in English, and hence I also can see a reason why we could clarify it with "he or she."  In Spanish you often don't even use the pronoun, just the conjugated verb

People who speak English get also confused with the two forms of "to be" it has: "ser" and "estar".  On the other hand, for example, people who speak Spanish get confused with the two forms of "hacer" we have: "to do" and "to make."