Solano supporters exalt in gay marriage ruling

Solano County supporters of gay marriage showed their enthusiasm Thursday on receiving the news that the California Supreme Court had ruled in their favor earlier in the day.

[disgusted]

How disgusting

I have a large closet and we can start stuffing the perverts back into it.

Oh that's right, they don't want me to use the word perversion for their unnatural sexual acts but what other word is there to describe the depravity these people have sunk to?

I feel sorry for the children that will now be exposed to this depraved sexual lifestyle and might never know the pure joy of love and sexual expression between a MAN and a WOMAN.

[Max]

I'm sure they do support homosexual marriage. Hey SEIU 1021, this could be your ticket. If your union supports this, you'll ultimately gain many new clients through the diseases these guy and gals collect which would require your services.

[What next]

Well let's see. Where do we stop? How long before a person can marry a brother or sister? Or hell...why not the family dog??
Equal rights!!

[Christine-Vacavi lle]

How long before people just learn to mind thier own business and not worry about what is going on in the privacy of ones' own home?

[Paul Domeier]

disgusted wrote:

How disgusting......I feel sorry for the children that will now be exposed to this depraved sexual lifestyle and might never know the pure joy of love and sexual expression between a MAN and a WOMAN.

If you are exposing children to "sexual expression," whether homo or heterosexual, then yes, that would be quite disgusting, not to mention disturbing and very much illegal.

Kindly drop a note to this forum before you have sex in front of children, so that we might contact the proper authorities and have you arrested in advance of your perverted crime.

Disgusting indeed.

PD
http://presstotest.blogspot.com/

[Christine-Vacavi lle]

disgusted wrote:

How disgusting
I have a large closet and we can start stuffing the perverts back into it.
Oh that's right, they don't want me to use the word perversion for their unnatural sexual acts but what other word is there to describe the depravity these people have sunk to?
I feel sorry for the children that will now be exposed to this depraved sexual lifestyle and might never know the pure joy of love and sexual expression between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Are you trying to say that it is OK for straight couples to expose children to "sexual expression"? You need help.

[Wane-Vaca]

The big winners in this decision is the blood sucking Family Law Attorneys. I bet they are just drooling all over themselves thinking about all the new business and plundering that will be heading their way in the near future.

[Debbie Bounds]

"How long before people just learn to mind thier own business and not worry about what is going on in the privacy of ones' own home?"

If it were just what was going on in their homes, you're right, it would be none of our business. But, the fact is that they have brought it outside of their homes and into the Public purview.

Since the inception of time, marriage has been between two different sex people - not the same. What purpose - other than to qualify for certain benefits and spousal rights - could two of the same sex people have for being married? Do they need a piece of paper or society's approval to be "married" - no, they do not. They just want it legal so that their entitlement to benefits and other Rights are protected.
What makes me that most angry is the fact that the court has negated the Will of the people - e.g. the Vote - in favor of a few.

[Paul Domeier]

Debbie Bounds wrote:

...Since the inception of time, marriage has been between two different sex people...

Um... You're not much for the study of history, eh?

PD
http://presstotest.blogspot.com/

[watching with intrigue]

Debbie Bounds wrote:

"How long before people just learn to mind thier own business and not worry about what is going on in the privacy of ones' own home?"
If it were just what was going on in their homes, you're right, it would be none of our business. But, the fact is that they have brought it outside of their homes and into the Public purview.
Since the inception of time, marriage has been between two different sex people - not the same. What purpose - other than to qualify for certain benefits and spousal rights - could two of the same sex people have for being married? Do they need a piece of paper or society's approval to be "married" - no, they do not. They just want it legal so that their entitlement to benefits and other Rights are protected.
What makes me that most angry is the fact that the court has negated the Will of the people - e.g. the Vote - in favor of a few.

First, sometimes negating the will of the people is called for in order to destroy bigotry, hate, and phobias. The US Congress never let the people vote to do what was right because they knew people in the south would never allow the black man equality.

In what way does allowing gay marriage take away from man-woman relationships? Is it because there are a few select passages espoused on by the radical christians in the great book of fairy-tales known as the bible (yes, little "b")? Religion and the ones who interpret the meanings are the greatest purveyors of all that is wrong and bad with humanity.

[Debbie Bounds]

"Um... You're not much for the study of history, eh?"

Obviously you know something? Wanta share?

[Debbie Bounds]

"First, sometimes negating the will of the people is called for in order to destroy bigotry, hate, and phobias. The US Congress never let the people vote to do what was right because they knew people in the south would never allow the black man equality."

What the heck did this person just say? I need a translator! LOL!

[watching with intrigue]

Debbie Bounds wrote:

"First, sometimes negating the will of the people is called for in order to destroy bigotry, hate, and phobias. The US Congress never let the people vote to do what was right because they knew people in the south would never allow the black man equality."
What the heck did this person just say? I need a translator! LOL!

Oh, there I go again talking above a 7th grade reading level on a forum. My sincere apologies. I don't really have the time at the moment to restate what I said in more simplistic terms. I recommend you find a competent 5th or 6th grader to help you.

[Paul Domeier]

Debbie Bounds wrote:

"Um... You're not much for the study of history, eh?"
Obviously you know something? Wanta share?

Polygamy and sexual "use" of slaves and/or concubines is far more historically traditional than the monogamous wedding of one man to one woman.

If you're going to use human tradition as argument against gay marriage, you might first want to take a quick peek at human tradition.

Would you be be willing to allow your husband to keep a shack full of underage sex slaves in the back yard?

I mean... it's only traditional, after all.

PD
http://presstotest.blogspot.com/

[disgusted]

Christine-Vacaville wrote:

How long before people just learn to mind thier own business and not worry about what is going on in the privacy of ones' own home?

But they don't keep it private in their homes....they want to tell us how much they love each other and expect us to accept the perversion.

[disgusted]

Christine-Vacaville wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you trying to say that it is OK for straight couples to expose children to "sexual expression"? You need help.

You are stupid if you even think like I think you are thinking...we teach our children love between a man and a woman in a family setting dumbass not what you are implying....gawd you really are stupid

[Debbie Bounds]

"Oh, there I go again talking above a 7th grade reading level on a forum. My sincere apologies. I don't really have the time at the moment to restate what I said in more simplistic terms. I recommend you find a competent 5th or 6th grader to help you"

Why in the earth do people find it necessary to attack someone on a personal level when they don't agree with them? But, my turn, now! Here I go -YOU made it "past 7th grade" NOT;

You're too funny - if you had sufficient time to reply, then you had time to explain - oh, my goodness, what a novel thought - the only problem is that you could not explain your comment because it made no sense.

[Paul Domeier]

disgusted wrote:

...we teach our children love between a man and a woman in a family setting...

Jeez, dude - now you're talking about incest???

Gross. Sick. Pervo. Somebody call the cops.

PD
http://presstotest.blogspot.com/

[Debbie Bounds]

"Polygamy and sexual "use" of slaves and/or concubines is far more historically traditional than the monogamous wedding of one man to one woman."

Paul: This is what I said "Since the inception of time, marriage has been between two different sex people - not the same". Never did I say or imply that it was between "one man and one woman".

Polygamy - as I understand the term is the practice of having more than one WIFE at a time - not marriage between two of the same sex people and "sexual abuse of slaves" has nothing to do with marriage but I assume it could have something to do with the same sex behavior.

"Would you be be willing to allow your husband to keep a shack full of underage sex slaves in the back yard?"

Not if they were "underaged"! LOL (just kidding)

[watching with intrigue]

There was a time in some parts of the USA that a black person could not sit at a "whites only" lunch counter; if they wanted to ride on a bus they could not sit near the front, they had to go to the back of the bus; if a white woman and a black man were in a relationship, they were not allowed to be married if they loved one another; a black child was not allowed to go to a school close by his home, he had to go to a "black only" school with inferior books, desks, fewer pencils; A business did not have to hire a black man for a job even though his qualifications and experience was greater than other job applicants and the only reason was he is BLACK.

The

I could go on with dozens of other examples but people need to be keenly aware of where this country was in the not too distant past. History always repeats itself.

My reference to people in the south was that if put to a vote, the white majority would NEVER let the blacks attain the same equality in schools, housing, hiring, etc. It was up to the US Congress to make right what the majority would never approve of. That is why sometimes it takes the courts and government to supercede the will of the people no matter how popular an idea, law, or proposition is.