Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Why is that? If the state allows same sex marriage, then surly it meets the requirements of marriage. Thus the reality is, its a marriage.
In all the other states that allow same sex marriage, where thier legislators ignorant as well?

If a state officially declares an apple an orange, does it meet the requirements for an orange?

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course it's the other way around. You are scared to talk of poly.
How many same sex marriages have you been to fruitcake?
How many of the people you love are homosexuals?
Have you served in the Coast Guard with a brave gay man and kept his sexuality a secret because of the tremendous bigotry in the military in the sixties?
I have the right to be proud of my very low level of bigotry. You, probably not so much.

You were a Coastie, paisan? Semper Paratus

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh sure it is..... after all there are just as many races as there are genders. Its not like interracial marriage was never legal prior to the ban.
<quoted text>
A women should have the right to use a urinal just as a man does. Equality demands every public women's rest room have the same number of urinals as every public men's room.

LOL. You are so dumb.
I doubt there are any laws against women using urinals.
And you are missing the point.
I'm talking about equal rights WRT marriage.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL. You are so dumb.
I doubt there are any laws against women using urinals.
And you are missing the point.
I'm talking about equal rights WRT marriage.

I made ya laugh....I made Rose laugh..nah..nah..nih nah nah.

Anyway....sounds pretty dumb to demand in the name of "Equality" to have all women's rest rooms equipped with urinals, as it would to have tampon dispensing vending machines in the men's room. But that's just the point. Society can make distinction for obvious reasons. Marriage is no different. All the "equality" in the world, doesn't change biology.

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Hi can I as a question. Should two people, 1 male and 1 female , both aged 80 be allowed to marry?
Lets face it thier days of Mating have passed.
Should a woman who is barren be allowed to marry a man?
Smile

Suppose in that example, one is gay, the other not. They've been close friends for years, love each other dearly, and would like to spend thier remaining time together married to each other.

Should they be allowed to marry, or should they be legally barred from marrying outside their orientation?

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
It's voluntary, and women have already been in combat - in harm's way - without the ability to have the same titles or ability for advancement as the men.
Now, if they can make the grade - THEY can choose.
It's THEIR choice - not yours.

Not this woman on the front line. All you have to say is foot in any language if I got behind enemy lines I am given up all the info

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

I am sorry if I have hurt anyone because I am a homophobic bigot. I don't have any friends except for my dog. I ran out of peanut butter last week now he does not even lick, err I mean like me.
I hate gay people and lesbians scare the shit out of me.

Hey guy,
We Just Love You, stench, stare, limpid lipid you dear. Yeah. Just Come On Down To The Dyke Dive In Your Burg and Let Yourself Be Loved.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
I made ya laugh....I made Rose laugh..nah..nah..nih nah nah.
Anyway....sounds pretty dumb to demand in the name of "Equality" to have all women's rest rooms equipped with urinals, as it would to have tampon dispensing vending machines in the men's room. But that's just the point. Society can make distinction for obvious reasons. Marriage is no different. All the "equality" in the world, doesn't change biology.

Stupid, the issue is equal protection under the law.
AFAIK, there is no law against putting urinals in women's restrooms, nor installing tampon vending machines in men's rooms.(Don't know why they bother, it's not like they ever work.)

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I wonder if we can get a two-fer, I want to see him propose to his sister too

I'm in. Maybe then it will be enough evidence to convince the sister to have Frankie probated. It's pretty obvious there's brain damage. At first I thought he was just being contrary... then I realized he really is just plain stupid. Unteachable.

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Are you stuck on stupid?

You have to ask? He can't even determine the topic of this thread.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh sure it is..... after all there are just as many races as there are genders.

You're kidding me.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Its not like interracial marriage was never legal prior to the ban.

Your profound ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
If a state officially declares an apple an orange, does it meet the requirements for an orange?

<shakes head>

...and how likely is that to happen? You make up a ridiculous hypothetical and somehow you think it's a valid analogy? I bet you don't even know enough to be embarrassed for that.

George wrote:

All queers please report to the incinerator chamber immediately.

All males report to the testing center.

Didn't know there was a test, did ya?

Big D wrote:

Women have already been fighting and dying on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it is time we recognized them.

No, women weren't assigned to combat units, they've been assigned to support units. There are no women combat infantry troops because they can't pass the training tests.

.

Big D wrote:

Your assumptions are totally wrong, there are women who are qualified, who already have shown their bravery and commitment and have given their lives in defense of our nation.

Many male support troops have died too, that doesn't mean they are qualified for combat.

.

Big D wrote:

We are not asking them too, they chose the military, volunteers, and I am proud of them.

When you change the standards, to put women in front line combat troops, you change the conditions everyone knew when they volunteered, and create a different standard, they didn't volunteer for.

Putting women in combat troops will cause more death and injuries for all our troops, that's why I oppose gender equality in our armed forces.

Gender equality is ersatz equality, since no man can bear a child and no women can fertilize an ovum.

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are asserting that all government legislation is sane and legal?
All the states originally disallowed calling gay couples married. Were they ignorant as well?
Or, how about every culture in history?
Smile.

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Making ASSumptions again? Woefully ignorant.

You might want to look up the definitions of 'question' and 'assumption'...

How old are you?

Smirk.

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are asserting that all government legislation is sane and legal?
All the states originally disallowed calling gay couples married. Were they ignorant as well?
Or, how about every culture in history?
Smile.

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Every culture in all of HISTORY, really? Stop and think about that.

Clearly you tried to stop and think. You failed, but I appreciate the effort...

You are confusing the action by an element of a culture (a legislative or legal body) with the culture as a whole. That also usually encompasses the whole history of that culture from start to end.

I simply noted that while marriage has been practiced and accepted from start to finish in every single culture in human history. Gay couples being acknowledged as such has yet to have that acceptance in a SINGLE culture in all of human history.

Snicker.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>No, women weren't assigned to combat units, they've been assigned to support units. There are no women combat infantry troops because they can't pass the training tests.
.
.

Here is some information you obviously do not know about

http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/1...

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, women weren't assigned to combat units, they've been assigned to support units. There are no women combat infantry troops because they can't pass the training tests.
.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is some information you obviously do not know about
http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/1...

Here is some more information you obviously don't know about;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/mili...

Add to this the new element of homosexual orientation, and you have a perfect storm of sexual issues injected into the military.

A perfect example of PC idiocy.

Nothing less than treason.

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are asserting that all government legislation is sane and legal?
All the states originally disallowed calling gay couples married. Were they ignorant as well?
Or, how about every culture in history?
Smile.
<quoted text>
Clearly you tried to stop and think. You failed, but I appreciate the effort...
You are confusing the action by an element of a culture (a legislative or legal body) with the culture as a whole. That also usually encompasses the whole history of that culture from start to end.
I simply noted that while marriage has been practiced and accepted from start to finish in every single culture in human history. Gay couples being acknowledged as such has yet to have that acceptance in a SINGLE culture in all of human history.
Snicker.

http://www.google.com/url...

read this