Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh like the voters of California? They voted in 2000, prop 22, to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Apparently their votes didn't count. So they voted again. Still their votes don't count. Where is the justice for them Big D? You speak of the values of the country, yet ignore the voters? So much for patriotic Americans exercising their right to vote. The People's Republic of California does not care.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do I keep having to explain to you that we are not an Athenian style democracy, we are a republic as well, a nation of law
A majority of brown eyes people could vote to deny the right to vote for the minority of blue eyed people and that too would be found unconstitutional
Don’t worry if the Supreme court gets it wrong, they will vote again, and Prop 8 will fall like a brick
But I don’t expect them to get it wrong

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh Madone! They voted on a definition of marriage as a union of one MAN AND one WOMAN. That's it. Where is your patriotism on that? So the voters of California who voted TWICE to define marriage as it was understood in the state, and you argue "we are not an Athenian style democracy"? Patriotic Americans went to the polls and declared legal marriage to be a....... are you ready for this radical idea? A union of husband and wife! Where the heck did they get such a crazy idea. Before ya know it some tofu eating tree hugger will claim sex between men and women makes babies.

Mathew629 wrote:

I think it's a sad day when a "Judge" can over take a majority vote, but still have swear before GOD to tell the truth. Are they not trying to be on both sides of the fence. Maybe there the ones in closet? Why does are money say in GOD we trust? Why is it every court room? HMMMMMM Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Steve? But it does say that Homosexual activity is an ABOMINATION. Just word up for you confused people out there that want have sex with your brother or sister...I know, how about we make it legal to have 20 wives, marry my mother and sleep with Dad...just as stupid

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh Madone! They voted on a definition of marriage as a union of one MAN AND one WOMAN. That's it. Where is your patriotism on that? So the voters of California who voted TWICE to define marriage as it was understood in the state, and you argue "we are not an Athenian style democracy"? Patriotic Americans went to the polls and declared legal marriage to be a....... are you ready for this radical idea? A union of husband and wife! Where the heck did they get such a crazy idea. Before ya know it some tofu eating tree hugger will claim sex between men and women makes babies.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You are truly insufferable.

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
What's radical is the belief that the majority thinks it gets to deny rights to the minority.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I think there was one out of the 5 so far that didnt agree... but I am not keeping count
I take holidays off, Saturnalia is one of my favorite holidays, you know the holiday they took over when they moved the birthdate because they could not stop people from decorating trees in their house and giving gifts for saturnalia. If you can’t beat em, join em I suppose.
Yes thousands, they do preform the ceremonies, but want them as legally valid as the other marriages they perform.

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell us again how you are FOR gay marriage..........
We believe you..... sure we do....

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
Ministers/rabbis/pastors/pries ts can ONLY marry with the blessings of the State. They can't pronounce you "married" unless you have a license/certificate from the State. That is one reason why the word 'marriage' is important. Marriage is a LEGAL contract. A so-called 'religious marriage' is just a ceremony.... and they aren't called marriages. They're called "commitment ceremonies" or "spiritual unions." Besides, in the eyes of the 'God of the buybull,' if you have sex with someone, you are then married to them.

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>TESTIFY! Is there a whole new generation of people that are completely clueless as to how our system works? Ah..... the consequences of hom skooling.

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
What's radical is the belief that the majority thinks it gets to deny rights to the minority.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
1.) Good God, where are your reasoning skills? Did you ever take a basic philosophy class? Have you had any exposure to scientific reasoning?
The author of the piece that you cited gave several possible explanations for the presence of homosexuality in our society. None of them are conclusive.
Try to find out why it is that some people have blonde hair while others ...rtain of the purpose of hair color, should we assume that anyone with blonde or red hair is a defective aberration?
You cannot arrive at this conclusion.
2.) Gays have been identified in over 130 Native American and Canadian First Nations communities. They were called "berdaches" by some. We know them today as "Two Spirits". Their roles included:
--healers or medicine persons
--conveyors of oral traditions and songs (Yuki)
--foretellers of the future (Winnebago, Oglala Lakota)
--conferrers of lucky names on children or adults (Oglala Lakota, Tohono O'odham)
--nurses during war expeditions
--potters (Zuni, Navajo, Tohono O'odham)
--matchmakers (Cheyenne, Omaha, Oglala Lakota)
--makers of feather regalia for dances (Maidu)
--special role players in the Sun Dance (Crow, Hidatsa, Oglala Lakota)
"In the ancient Assyrian society, if a man were to have sex with another man of equal status or a cult prostitute, it was thought that trouble will leave him and he will have good fortune. Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships. Freely pictured art of anal intercourse, practiced as part of a religious ritual, dated from the 3rd millennium B.C and onwards. Homosexuality was an integral part of temple life in parts of Mesopotamia."
"Homosexuality in China, known as the passions of the cut peach and various other euphemisms has been recorded since approximately 600 BCE. Homosexuality was mentioned in many famous works of Chinese literature.
Homosexuality has been acknowledged in China since ancient times. Scholar Pan Guangdan came to the conclusion that nearly every emperor in the Han Dynasty had one or more male sex partners."
"According to Aristotle, although most "belligerent nations" were strongly influenced by their women, the Celts were unusual because their men openly preferred male lovers."
"In many societies of Melanesia, especially in Papua New Guinea, same-sex relationships were, until the middle of the last century, an integral part of the culture. The Etoro and Marind-anim for example, even viewed heterosexuality as sinful and celebrated homosexuality instead."
-------
And don't get me started on homosexuality in modern culture. Obviously homosexuality is considered by scientists to be a normal orientation along the continuum of human sexual expression.
Finally, your link is broken... I attempted to read whatever article you placed in your post, but I reached an "error page".
Try again...

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh Madone! They voted on a definition of marriage as a union of one MAN AND one WOMAN. That's it. Where is your patriotism on that? So the voters of California who voted TWICE to define marriage as it was understood in the state, and you argue "we are not an Athenian style democracy"? Patriotic Americans went to the polls and declared legal marriage to be a....... are you ready for this radical idea? A union of husband and wife! Where the heck did they get such a crazy idea. Before ya know it some tofu eating tree hugger will claim sex between men and women makes babies.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
1. The article cites OLD ideas that science has discounted. It concludes with the observation that an answer should have been found long ago. Instead, no purpose for homosexuality has been found. That means the most likely answer is a defect. Something epi-genetics is asserting.
2. We've been down this road before. I've posted the earliest records of berdaches and read them. Aside from roles you listed that have no roots in history, the others are one time notes or rumors that history records. However, the most often role of Indian transvestites is as the term denotes, male prostitutes. They were most often passed around, abused and mocked. You only confirm what I noted. Societal rejection of homosexuality is cross cultural.
3. The assertion you made was that gay marriage was prevalent. You simply noted the presence of homosexuality. Again, the actual record of gay 'marriages' can be counted on one hand.
Smile.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Today the number of same sex marrages would have to be counted on thousands of hands :)

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Logic? You mean like this?
Rose_NoHo wrote: "If one could doesn't spawn humanity will die out?"
What a dope.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Logic? You mean like this?
Rose_NoHo wrote: "If one could doesn't spawn humanity will die out?"
What a dope.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
1. I said nothing about changing homosexuality. I simply exposed your lie, science can still find no valid reason for homosexuality, leaving it a defective sexual aberration.
2. You denied that homosexuality is a recognized defect in cultures across human history. I simply asked you to name one where that is not so.
In fact, here is an interesting expose
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-presi... -
of-apa-says-organization-contr olled-by-gay-rights-movement/
Smile.