Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Comments (Page 8,404)

Showing posts 168,061 - 168,080 of200,234
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192522
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Failure of mating behavior.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I didn't say the failure of procreation, I said the failure of mating behavior.
Exemplified by the question;
Why does a butch lesbian dress and act like a man to attract another lesbian?
Your posts only prove one thing... Once a liar, always a liar.
Snicker.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh!!! Everybody sit down and pay close attention to Kimare. SHHHH!!!
He's come up with a BRAND NEW scientific concept!!!
Now there will be an entire science dedicated to nothing but "the failure of mating behavior" in human beings!!(!!trumpets blaring!!)
NEVER in my WILDEST dreams did I think I would see such BRILLIANCE!!
Wait... I did see such brilliance once before. In fact, it was about an hour ago when I went "number two" in the toilet.
Terminal comprehension deficit from the Queen of Denial complaining about an abused sphincter muscle.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192523
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

sheesh wrote:
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Same-gender couples who adopt children undergo extreme scrutiny--more scrutiny, I'll bet, than opposite-gender couples. The love, support, discipline, and nurturing these kids receive are far superior to the environments they came from.
And I'd be willing to guarantee that many of these kids live in a happier, more stable home environment than you provided your own kids; what with whipping them from state to state, running from your own self-created demons.
You have said several times that you were victimized by a an insane person. That's why you left Hawaii. But I know that it takes two to play any game. You put your family through hell. You put your own wants and desires before their interests.
What a joke...
<quoted text>
Hogwash, child. I haven't read much for the last few days, however, if you've mentioned that you relocated your children from one place to another there is no slander in mentioning just how stressful relocations are for a child. You claim victimization by an insane person and VV mentions the one sided nature of your claim. In spite of your protest, it DOES take two to tango. You immersed yourself in a relationship with someone you claim was insane. Then you fled at your children's expense (relocation is stressful) yet you've got the nerve to blather on about gays providing less than desirable family environments for children. Quite a bit of the pot calling the kettle black on your part. And a bit of cry baby for attempting to call common sense slander. WhassamattahU, can't take it but can dish it out? 8485
The problem isn't that you don't read much, it is that you don't comprehend much.

That coupled with your hatred and bigotry would give my crazy person a run for his money...

Bazinga!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192526
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "sustained". Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "cross cultural".
Where is the historical evidence that societies around the globe, across time and place, recognized same sex marriage? There are a few examples, but clearly no indication this was cross cultural cross time practice.Certainly not in Western Civilization.
You seem to think that all of history has been recorded. You seem to think that historical data that has later been found to be objectionable has remained available for us to read and understand.
The truth of the matter is that even today we find examples attempts to erase "disagreeable" history.
Of course not all of history was recorded. But with no evidence at all, its speculation, plausible or not.
The Buddhas of Bamiyan, previously found in central Afghanistan, were built in 6th century. In 2001 the Taliban blew up the Buddhas because of their present day religious ideology viewed them as "idols".
A disgrace as well. A world treasure destroyed.
Do you think it's possible that over the centuries Christians could have acted similarly; expunging any records of same-sex marriages or unions?
I think it's more likely than not.
Perhaps, but you raise a good point. Not all recognized ss unions were considered marriage.
I believe this because gay people, just like straight people, want to be with someone--what to be bonded with someone long-term.
I'm not disagreeing.
The 20th century is not the first time gays attempted to force recognition of their relationships. That doesn't make sense.
Show me the money.... Point to any historical record of a sustained movement to have ss relationships recognized in any form, let alone as marriage.
2.) Boswell's book as been criticized by some and supported by some. The people who have criticized his work do so based on educated "opinion" and "belief".
[/QUOTE[
Religious brother bonding ceremonies.
[QUOTE]
Neither you nor I are qualified to know definitively whether or not Boswell is right.
However, for the reasons I explained above, I believe that this isn't the first time same-sex marriages/unions has come up across the eons of history.
Scattered historical examples only.
3.) We've talked about the word "conjugal" before. You incorrectly believe that the word only applies to heterosexual couples. It actually applies to all spouses. And in this country and around the world, there are many same-sex spouses.
"Conjugal", as in "husband and wife".
4.) If you're going to blame anyone for the "slippery slope" when it comes to marriage, you have no one to blame other than yourself. Your own marriage, and the marriages of hundreds of millions of people are the reasons that same-sex couples want to marry. We want the rights and protections.
Agreed, we fumbled the ball.....so to speak. Screwed up.
Crazy Chicken

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192527
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Los Angeles and San Gabriel Valley Boy Scouts leaders and supporters gathered at 2333 Scout Way in Los Angeles May 18, 2013 Friday to protest the potential rule change that allows gays etc. to join the BSA.

Douglas Boyd of Glendora, California said that scouting could be “destroyed” with the inclusion of gays and could drive away most of its members by the droves.

Please send someone over and check Boyd's closet there might be evidence in there.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192528
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "sustained". Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "cross cultural".
You seem to think that all of history has been recorded. You seem to think that historical data that has later been found to be objectionable has remained available for us to read and understand.
The truth of the matter is that even today we find examples attempts to erase "disagreeable" history.
The Buddhas of Bamiyan, previously found in central Afghanistan, were built in 6th century. In 2001 the Taliban blew up the Buddhas because of their present day religious ideology viewed them as "idols".
Do you think it's possible that over the centuries Christians could have acted similarly; expunging any records of same-sex marriages or unions?
I think it's more likely than not.
I believe this because gay people, just like straight people, want to be with someone--what to be bonded with someone long-term. The 20th century is not the first time gays attempted to force recognition of their relationships. That doesn't make sense.
2.) Boswell's book as been criticized by some and supported by some. The people who have criticized his work do so based on educated "opinion" and "belief".
Neither you nor I are qualified to know definitively whether or not Boswell is right.
However, for the reasons I explained above, I believe that this isn't the first time same-sex marriages/unions has come up across the eons of history.
3.) We've talked about the word "conjugal" before. You incorrectly believe that the word only applies to heterosexual couples. It actually applies to all spouses. And in this country and around the world, there are many same-sex spouses.
4.) If you're going to blame anyone for the "slippery slope" when it comes to marriage, you have no one to blame other than yourself. Your own marriage, and the marriages of hundreds of millions of people are the reasons that same-sex couples want to marry. We want the rights and protections.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192529
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "sustained". Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "cross cultural".
You seem to think that all of history has been recorded. You seem to think that historical data that has later been found to be objectionable has remained available for us to read and understand.
The truth of the matter is that even today we find examples attempts to erase "disagreeable" history.
The Buddhas of Bamiyan, previously found in central Afghanistan, were built in 6th century. In 2001 the Taliban blew up the Buddhas because of their present day religious ideology viewed them as "idols".
Do you think it's possible that over the centuries Christians could have acted similarly; expunging any records of same-sex marriages or unions?
I think it's more likely than not.
I believe this because gay people, just like straight people, want to be with someone--what to be bonded with someone long-term. The 20th century is not the first time gays attempted to force recognition of their relationships. That doesn't make sense.
2.) Boswell's book as been criticized by some and supported by some. The people who have criticized his work do so based on educated "opinion" and "belief".
Neither you nor I are qualified to know definitively whether or not Boswell is right.
However, for the reasons I explained above, I believe that this isn't the first time same-sex marriages/unions has come up across the eons of history.
3.) We've talked about the word "conjugal" before. You incorrectly believe that the word only applies to heterosexual couples. It actually applies to all spouses. And in this country and around the world, there are many same-sex spouses.
4.) If you're going to blame anyone for the "slippery slope" when it comes to marriage, you have no one to blame other than yourself. Your own marriage, and the marriages of hundreds of millions of people are the reasons that same-sex couples want to marry. We want the rights and protections.
Opposite sex marriage has led to same sex marriage. The slippery slope is real. You cannot wish it away by lying. Deal with it honestly and intelligently. It's easy!

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192530
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A gay twirl lip wristed hissy fit with a serious comprehension deficit.
I didn't say animals engaged in homosexual behavior. I said scientists term it SSSB, because most often it is not based on sexual orientation.
Why homosexuality exists is important because that knowledge is required to term it normal or abnormal. Something you already claim to know...
Hence the article I posted that noted the lack of an answer stumped scientists, because it has remained unanswered for so long. Unless you accept the fact that it is an aberration of nature. A defect. A dead end mutation.
As a near senile old jack ass, even I can understand this. And you, the hulking queen continues to rule the kingdom of Denial.
Smile.
Oh please, Mary, I recognized your attempts to separate SSSB in animals from "homosexual" behavior in animals.

I did it to get your goat, you old goat.

You don't need to know the purpose of something in order to know if it is normal or abnormal. It exists in nature--it is normal.

Preferences and attractions have purpose--otherwise they would not exist.

Even certain types of murder have purpose. The over 300,000 direct war deaths in the Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan wars served some purpose in some (twisted) people's opinions.

Fortunately, the purpose of homosexuality cannot be related to something as brutal as war. Homosexuality results in a harmless attraction of one person to another person of the same gender.

Scientists have determined that homosexuality is a normal expression of attraction. It does not negatively impact society at large.

You can keep looking for a "purpose" or "function" of homosexuality. But you CANNOT call it abnormal simply because you do not understand the reasons that people are gay.

To do so continues to highlight the FACT that you are completely ignorant when it comes to the scientific method and science in general.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192532
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
From your article...

"Legal action A might not be that bad, for instance because giving same-sex couples marriage licenses doesn’t hurt anyone else. But taking 'action A' will increase the likelihood of legal 'action B', which would be worse—from the perspective of some observers—because it would interfere with the free choice of people or groups who oppose homosexuality."

----------

Exchange the words "giving same-sex couples marriage licenses" with the words "giving African Americans equal rights". Also exchange the words "groups who opposed homosexuality" with the words "groups who oppose equal rights for blacks".

Exchange these same sets of words with "giving women the rights to vote and own property" and "groups who oppose equal rights for women".

Certainly even you can see that refusing to give rights to minorities based on other's rights to oppose certain minorities, sets up a disastrous situation.

Everybody has the right to dislike others based on their own personal belief system. However, folks don't have the right to enforce laws based on those rights--especially when the minority group has NO ILL EFFECTS on greater society.

"Ill effects" or "damaging effects" are the only reasons that societies should be able to oppose certain groups.

Simply "not liking" a particular group is not an adequate reason for puffing unequal and discriminatory laws into place.

The KKK and White Power organizations can exists all they want. But in this country, their opinions about racial, religious, and sexual minorities ARE NOT a basis on which to create discriminatory laws.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192533
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The author of this OPINION post in Slate Magazine is Jillian Keenan--a heterosexual woman who studied Shakespeare at Stanford. She is a freelance writer. She IS NOT an attorney. She DID NOT argue any of the cases supporting same-sex marriage before ANY court.
She DOES NOT speak for the gay community. She speaks for HERSELF and for anyone foolish enough to support her idiotic nonsense.
You claimed that gay people who seek same-sex marriage want to end monogamy between heterosexual couples. And you HAVE NOT proven this to be the case.
You continue to try to scare people into believing that gays want to destroy families.
If you are a Christian person, you REALLY should know better than to outright lie.
If you want to take apart same-sex marriage point by point, then do so truthfully. When you resort to lying, then you have lost credibility in this discussion.
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192534
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax fruitloops we can post links back and forth all day long and you'd still be wrong.
The thing is any link I post you'll dismiss as lies and propaganda from "faux news" or a "right wing hate group".
the difference being my links will take you to scientific studies whereas your links will be to the ramblings of people like Mann Coulter, Sean Hannnity, Glen Beck etcc
14th country

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192535
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Is that Carmel coated or just plain old Karma?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192536
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
From your article...
"Legal action A might not be that bad, for instance because giving same-sex couples marriage licenses doesn’t hurt anyone else. But taking 'action A' will increase the likelihood of legal 'action B', which would be worse—from the perspective of some observers—because it would interfere with the free choice of people or groups who oppose homosexuality."
----------
Exchange the words "giving same-sex couples marriage licenses" with the words "giving African Americans equal rights". Also exchange the words "groups who opposed homosexuality" with the words "groups who oppose equal rights for blacks".
Exchange these same sets of words with "giving women the rights to vote and own property" and "groups who oppose equal rights for women".
Certainly even you can see that refusing to give rights to minorities based on other's rights to oppose certain minorities, sets up a disastrous situation.
Everybody has the right to dislike others based on their own personal belief system. However, folks don't have the right to enforce laws based on those rights--especially when the minority group has NO ILL EFFECTS on greater society.
"Ill effects" or "damaging effects" are the only reasons that societies should be able to oppose certain groups.
Simply "not liking" a particular group is not an adequate reason for puffing unequal and discriminatory laws into place.
The KKK and White Power organizations can exists all they want. But in this country, their opinions about racial, religious, and sexual minorities ARE NOT a basis on which to create discriminatory laws.
I'm trying to tell you the slippery slope is REAL but no detriment to allowing same sex marriage. If you weren't so angry, you would use that information wisely.

When you dismiss a real argument as not real, and act emotionally instead of countering it intelligently and with facts, you lose all credibility.

People against SSM are not stupid like you think. They are just wary of this tremendous social change and rightly so. Convince them SSM is good, don't try to convince them that they are stupid. Never underestimate your opponents' intelligence even if it's justified.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192537
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
the difference being my links will take you to scientific studies whereas your links will be to the ramblings of people like Mann Coulter, Sean Hannnity, Glen Beck etcc
http://www.secularhumanism.org/...

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf

Those are my links- One to a paper by a UCLA professor of law, one to the Council for Secular Humanism. None to Ann Coulter et al. You are stupid and you are a liar.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192538
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the historical evidence that societies around the globe, across time and place, recognized same sex marriage? There are a few examples, but clearly no indication this was cross cultural cross time practice.Certainly not in Western Civilization.
<quoted text>
Of course not all of history was recorded. But with no evidence at all, its speculation, plausible or not.
<quoted text>
A disgrace as well. A world treasure destroyed.
<quoted text>
Perhaps, but you raise a good point. Not all recognized ss unions were considered marriage.
<quoted text>
I'm not disagreeing.
<quoted text>
Show me the money.... Point to any historical record of a sustained movement to have ss relationships recognized in any form, let alone as marriage.
<quoted text>
Scattered historical examples only.
<quoted text>
"Conjugal", as in "husband and wife".
<quoted text>
Agreed, we fumbled the ball.....so to speak. Screwed up.
1.) Let me prove it by saying that same-sex unions/marriages would not need to be outlawed if the they weren't taking place on a wide scale basis.

What I am suggesting is that same-sex unions "existed and continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed."

"(In) Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated."

The Mesopotamian empire lasted around 4800 years.

Is that a long enough time frame for you?

Western Civilization is said to have began around the 8th century BC. The Roman Empire started long before that time. Same-sex unions were a part of their society until it was outlawed in 342 AD.--a period of roughly 350 years.

So, there is adequate proof that the Western Civilization, by way of the Romans, accepted same-sex unions/marriages for a long period of time.

You might say that until Christianity became a dominant religion, same-sex behavior and unions/marriages were common. And since widespread Christianity is only about 1700 years old--a drop in the bucket compared to the history of mankind--the notion of same-sex behavior and/or same-sex unions/marriages being abhorrent is relatively new.

Thankfully, modern man has started to question early Christian teachings and beliefs about same-sex attractions.

We are no longer shackled to ancient belief systems based on ancient religious ideas.

As with many other current social ideas and values that we embrace, such as the eradication of slavery, racial inequality, and gender inequality, we base our notions of equality on contemporary science and ideas--not religious dogma.

Bottom line, we do not need to rely on how Christian history has treated homosexuals to determine how we treat homosexuals today.

2.) Conjugal relations refer to sexual relations between spouses. In the states and countries that recognize same-sex marriage, a conjugal relation refers to sexual relationships between a married man and a woman, a married man and a man or a married woman and a woman.

3.) The only way to have equal legal rights and protections of marriage to same-sex couples is to DENY them to all married couples or EXTEND them to all married couples--be they opposite-gender or same-gender couples.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192539
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm trying to tell you the slippery slope is REAL but no detriment to allowing same sex marriage. If you weren't so angry, you would use that information wisely.
When you dismiss a real argument as not real, and act emotionally instead of countering it intelligently and with facts, you lose all credibility.
People against SSM are not stupid like you think. They are just wary of this tremendous social change and rightly so. Convince them SSM is good, don't try to convince them that they are stupid. Never underestimate your opponents' intelligence even if it's justified.
No one is questioning your intelligence. We are questioning your logic.

As I pointed out to your earlier, 46 years ago a Virginia lawmaker argued in the Supreme Court that interracial marriage would lead to polygamy.

In nearly half a century it has not.

Why would we believe that same-sex marriage; an act that joins only two people together, would be the basis for joining more than two people together.

Since the Loving v. Virginia trial, I can't find one case that has been brought before any court in which a plaintiff has sued on behalf of polygamy.

Loving v. Virginia didn't bring out the polygamists and neither will same-sex marriage cases.

Again, the primary reason that polygamy WILL NOT ride the coattails of same-sex marriage is because same-sex marriage continues the definition of marriage as being between TWO people.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192540
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm trying to tell you the slippery slope is REAL but no detriment to allowing same sex marriage. If you weren't so angry, you would use that information wisely.
When you dismiss a real argument as not real, and act emotionally instead of countering it intelligently and with facts, you lose all credibility.
People against SSM are not stupid like you think. They are just wary of this tremendous social change and rightly so. Convince them SSM is good, don't try to convince them that they are stupid. Never underestimate your opponents' intelligence even if it's justified.
1. people often complain about homosexuals being promiscuous, allowing them to enter into marriage would bring some stability into their lives.

2. we allow heterosexuals into monogamous marriages, why not homosexuals. we are just opening up a legal commitment/contract that heterosexuals enjoy to homosexuals. a woman who lived with her married partner for decades got hit with a 400,000+ tax bill from the IRS after her partner died because the IRS (FED) doesn't recognize same sex marriages, something a heterosexual couple wouldn't face...is that fair?

we are not talking about allowing gays into polygamous marriages, just as we don't allow hetero-sexual couples either

as for the other end of slippery slopes, pedophiles, bestiality...
children can not give consent
animals can not give consent

as for marrying siblings/cousins..there are plenty of scientific reasons for that dealing with genetic defects...a case study of Russian Tsarist ruling families is a prime example of that.

Just as there are scientific studies providing justification for outlawing marriage between close relatives, there are plenty of sociological studies detailing the harmful effects of polygamous marriages, besides the legal issues concerning inheritance, property distribution etc
14th country

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192541
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Is that Carmel coated or just plain old Karma? Soft or hard center?

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192542
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf
Those are my links- One to a paper by a UCLA professor of law, one to the Council for Secular Humanism. None to Ann Coulter et al. You are stupid and you are a liar.
relax footloops

my reply wasn't to the subject of same sex marriage but the difference of how conservatives and liberals think

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
here is your evidence of such assertions.
Actually studies have shown that Liberals are more likely to process new data and make decisions on facts as opposed to conservatives who once they make up their mind, they are less likely to process new facts/data and change their position
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci ...
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
"Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.
Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03 ...
" Researchers also noted that Democrats had larger anterior cingulate cortexes, which are associated with tolerance to uncertainty, while Republicans had larger right amygdalas, which are associated with sensitivity to fear."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/ ...

Relax fruitloops we can post links back and forth all day long and you'd still be wrong.

The thing is any link I post you'll dismiss as lies and propaganda from "faux news" or a "right wing hate group".

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192543
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Let me prove it by saying that same-sex unions/marriages would not need to be outlawed if the they weren't taking place on a wide scale basis.
What I am suggesting is that same-sex unions "existed and continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed."
"(In) Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated."
The Mesopotamian empire lasted around 4800 years.
Is that a long enough time frame for you?
Western Civilization is said to have began around the 8th century BC. The Roman Empire started long before that time. Same-sex unions were a part of their society until it was outlawed in 342 AD.--a period of roughly 350 years.
So, there is adequate proof that the Western Civilization, by way of the Romans, accepted same-sex unions/marriages for a long period of time.
You might say that until Christianity became a dominant religion, same-sex behavior and unions/marriages were common. And since widespread Christianity is only about 1700 years old--a drop in the bucket compared to the history of mankind--the notion of same-sex behavior and/or same-sex unions/marriages being abhorrent is relatively new.
Thankfully, modern man has started to question early Christian teachings and beliefs about same-sex attractions.
We are no longer shackled to ancient belief systems based on ancient religious ideas.
As with many other current social ideas and values that we embrace, such as the eradication of slavery, racial inequality, and gender inequality, we base our notions of equality on contemporary science and ideas--not religious dogma.
Bottom line, we do not need to rely on how Christian history has treated homosexuals to determine how we treat homosexuals today.
2.) Conjugal relations refer to sexual relations between spouses. In the states and countries that recognize same-sex marriage, a conjugal relation refers to sexual relationships between a married man and a woman, a married man and a man or a married woman and a woman.
3.) The only way to have equal legal rights and protections of marriage to same-sex couples is to DENY them to all married couples or EXTEND them to all married couples--be they opposite-gender or same-gender couples.
there is also evidence that same sex marriage was legal in medieval Europe too

http://www.livescience.com/7344-gay-civil-uni...

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-m...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192544
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is questioning your intelligence. We are questioning your logic.
As I pointed out to your earlier, 46 years ago a Virginia lawmaker argued in the Supreme Court that interracial marriage would lead to polygamy.
In nearly half a century it has not.
Why would we believe that same-sex marriage; an act that joins only two people together, would be the basis for joining more than two people together.
Since the Loving v. Virginia trial, I can't find one case that has been brought before any court in which a plaintiff has sued on behalf of polygamy.
Loving v. Virginia didn't bring out the polygamists and neither will same-sex marriage cases.
Again, the primary reason that polygamy WILL NOT ride the coattails of same-sex marriage is because same-sex marriage continues the definition of marriage as being between TWO people.
You have exposed your hypocrisy. I knew it.

What harm would a loving marriage of three consenting adult men cause you or anyone else?

Marriage. There is NO ONE RIGHT WAY.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 168,061 - 168,080 of200,234
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Indio Discussions

Search the Indio Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 2 hr paddyomalley 7,820
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 3 hr all doned in 4,864
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) 18 hr Big Juciey Pussie 630
City of Bell wants to house immigration detainees 21 hr Ragnar Destroys Democrats 1
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Sat The right is wrong 2,225
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Jul 11 This topics peaked 15,911
Touch Of Class Consignments, Cathedral City, ca. (Aug '13) Jul 6 Sandy 118
•••
•••
•••
•••

Indio Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Indio People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Indio News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Indio
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••