Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Karma is a_______]

TheVoiceofReason wrote:

<quoted text>
I can agree with this, as long as religions are left to do with what they please........meaning, just because one religion does not does not mean others should be pressured by the Gay Community to do it......
If the Baptist want to acknowledge Gay marriage and you are Catholic, then become a Baptist, don't pressure the Catholics to change.....

wow, you and I are exactly on the same page!!

Religions should be left to do what they please, with two consenting adults, as far as marriage is concerned.

right now that is not the case.

[TheVoiceofReason]

Karma is a_______ wrote:

<quoted text>
wow, you and I are exactly on the same page!!
Religions should be left to do what they please, with two consenting adults, as far as marriage is concerned.
right now that is not the case.

I think most of us are on the same page. The problem is no one wants to come to come together an actually talk about it. It would be such an easy fix that in 100 years people would be laughing about this non sense.

[RiccardoFire]

TheVoiceofReason wrote:

<quoted text>
My own opinion and personal beliefs.
And how exactly is it "bigotry"? I have not ince said Gays shouldnt be allowed to have the same rights as a straight couple. You're confused and responding with emotions instead of reading what is posted.

just remember if you don't agree with Cheyenne, that alone means you are a bigot. You are not allowed to have a different opinion here if u don't agree with the gay agenda. Gays will change the world here in topix.

[not gay]

Your going to mess up your prostate.

[Jonah1]

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Hypocritical bigotry. Just as expected.

Only an idiot would think that demonstrating how two entities are completely unrelated would consider that "bigotry"!!

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
But I expected many more words! Why the brevity?

Because they weren't needed.

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You didn't even call me "kumquat"!

Were you able to recognize that all my your little lonesome, or did you mom point it out for you?

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Very disappointing response.

Yet acurate.

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh well, maybe later when you get more angry and frustrated. Can't wait!
YUK!YUK!YUK

I haven't been angry or frustrated yet. You morons don't have anything to warrant an emotional response.

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
P.S. Get Spellcheck so your spelling will be good even when you are spitting mad. Seriously.

No, I'll stick to poor spelling yet understanding what words mean over not understanding word meanings and proper spelling like you. When public forums become spelling bees I'll worry about it then.

[thisGuy]

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. We've had the ability to accurately and affordably test people's $exuality in a lab setting since the 1950s. And in all that time, not one person has ever been able to show that their $exuality changed during the course of their lifetime. Not from gay to straight, not from straight to gay, not even from gay to bi$exual. Not through theraputic means and not through religious means. Also, there have been tons of studies done on homo$exuality - if it was a choice there would be precursors to that choice leading someone to want to be attracted to the same gender or leading them to actually having attraction for the same gender - yet not one study has ever found any precursor or cause.
By all means though. Let's hear how you "chose" your sexuality.

"We've had the ability to accurately and affordably test people's $exuality in a lab setting since the 1950s."
-Really? What is it? The butt test? How are you going to test those who are pedophiles? The Micheal Jackson Pedo Exam? Because I've never heard of such of an exam.

"And in all that time, not one person has ever been able to show that their $exuality changed during the course of their lifetime."
-Ex-gays would disagree with you.

"Also, there have been tons of studies done on homo$exuality - if it was a choice there would be precursors to that choice leading someone to want to be attracted to the same gender or leading them to actually having attraction for the same gender - yet not one study has ever found any precursor or cause."
-There has been tons of documented precursors that show that homosexuality as being linked to truamatic experiences in childhood, whether it be rape, domestic violence, etc---many of which happens within the ENVIRONMENT that many gays live in. You don't even know what you're talking about!

Sources: http://www.livescience.com/13755-homosexual-l...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/environmenta...

"By all means though. Let's hear how you "chose" your sexuality."
-Not until you admit you chose yours first

[Jonah1]

TheVoiceofNonsense wrote:

<quoted text>
Slow down read was has been TYPED. Ill TYPE is again.....I have no problem with Gays having the same rights as married couples......just call it a "CIVIL UNION" and stop trying to change the meaning of marriage to include "GAYS"

If you have no problem with gays having the same rights, then you wouldn't have a problem with them being married. Simple as that. The fact is, you DO have a problem with us marrying. Your need to present yourself differently is hilarious.

Listen poodle, if you like civil unions so much, then you get one. We gays aren't interested in your lesser institutions. The meaining of the word marriage is "union", "institution", and "ceremony". Those meanings aren't altered in any way when gays enter into marriage. We've been getting married in various countries for over a decade now and the meaning of marriage hasn't been altered in any way.

TheVoiceofNonsense wrote:

<quoted text>
lmao......... what belief am I trying to force on you?

According to you opening statement here, that gays aren't worthy of marriage and must have an alternative institution created for them so that straight people can feel special. Anything I we can clear up for you?

TheVoiceofNonsense wrote:

<quoted text>
Im not the one trying to change the meaning of MARRIAGE....

Neither are we, but you are just to ignorant to realize it.

TheVoiceofNonsense wrote:

<quoted text>
Kid these days are hilarious.....

Maybe, but kids these days are also not robots buying into the bullshyt that people like you try and peddle. That's why our support grows on a daily basis, and the prejudices of people like you are dying out in droves.

[Jonah1]

TheVoiceofReason wrote:

For the record, of your GAY here a "High Five" enjoy your life, no one cares about your sexual orientation

Your continued presence in this and other gay related forums would indicate otherwise. Hypocrite much?

TheVoiceofReason wrote:

but please stop trying to change what us normal people look upon as sacred: MARRIAGE.

We aren't. If you weren't so stupid you would recognize that already.

[Here Is One.]

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>If you have no problem with gays having the same rights, then you wouldn't have a problem with them being married. Simple as that. The fact is, you DO have a problem with us marrying. Your need to present yourself differently is hilarious.

Listen poodle, if you like civil unions so much, then you get one. We gays aren't interested in your lesser institutions. The meaining of the word marriage is "union", "institution", and "ceremony". Those meanings aren't altered in any way when gays enter into marriage. We've been getting married in various countries for over a decade now and the meaning of marriage hasn't been altered in any way.

TheVoiceofNonsense wrote, "<quoted text>
lmao......... what belief am I trying to force on you? "

According to you opening statement here, that gays aren't worthy of marriage and must have an alternative institution created for them so that straight people can feel special. Anything I we can clear up for you?

TheVoiceofNonsense wrote, "<quoted text>
Im not the one trying to change the meaning of MARRIAGE...."

Neither are we, but you are just to ignorant to realize it.

TheVoiceofNonsense wrote, "<quoted text>
Kid these days are hilarious....."

Maybe, but kids these days are also not robots buying into the bullshyt that people like you try and peddle. That's why our support grows on a daily basis, and the prejudices of people like you are dying out in droves.

then get voted back to the closet like 31 states already did

That is your option..........Or should I say was your option

As most of the 31 states also banned civil unions

[Pam Jordan]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
This is a good example of where you have not brought logic, but in fact, seem to be relying on emotion. In other words YOU lied.
I referred to biological, step and foster parents in a overall average. That is a fair generalization.
You are referring to bad biological parents without comparison to bad foster/step/adoptive parents. Or a apples to apples comparison.
Read this article;
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/sandbox/20...
I have read every specific study on gay parenting I can get access too. Because of the article above and my experience I no longer accept these generalized summaries such as you posted. Please give me specific studies, and I will be happy to consider them with you.
Beyond that, please show me a specific study that compares typical biological parents with both gay and lesbian couples parenting.

kimare it was you who made the blanket statement the best place for children was to be was with thier biological parents.

i in turn advised many biological parents are unfit to raise their children.

you then want to include that fact there are situations in which their are unfit foster homes. on this we never discussed nor did i deny it.

there fore your claim of me placing a lie in this thread is incorrect and had you had any character you would admonish this.

no emotion involved as i have no foster children nor have i had to give up my own.

[Pam Jordan]

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have a logical argument against same sex marriage because there are no logical arguments against same sex marriage.
It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion about marriage equality with you when you erroneously believe I am against same sex marriage. What's with that? Paranoia? Bigotry against polyamorists? What?
If you lose the paranoia and bigotry, maybe we can talk about marriage equality for everyone.

do you have a vested interest in polygamy?

[Jonah1]

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Learn the various forms of polygamy and then maybe you won't be so ignorant and you'll have some credibility. In some forms of polygamy there are no women, for example three gay men, all married to each other. Or three lesbians.

Please indicate where these "forms of polygamy" exist. Oh, that's right, they don't.

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Is that OK with you? But the thing is, they don't seek or require Jonah1's approval.

As I have stated many times here Frank, if there are people that wish to have these forms of relationships to be legally recognized, they are free to pursue legal means to obtain legal recognition. Perhaps if you weren't so stupidly attempting to paint all gays as "polygamy bigots" you would realize that. But you are more interested in spinning your ridiculous "I Frank REALLY support marriage equality but the gays don't" nonsense, that you don't comprehend that.

And you are right, it isn't my approval they should seek, it's the governments approval they should seek. But there seeking is totally unrelated to mine for marriage equality. And it always will be you old fool.

[Frank Rizzo]

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Only an idiot would think that demonstrating how two entities are completely unrelated would consider that "bigotry"!!
<quoted text>
Because they weren't needed.
<quoted text>
Were you able to recognize that all my your little lonesome, or did you mom point it out for you?
<quoted text>
Yet acurate.
<quoted text>
I haven't been angry or frustrated yet. You morons don't have anything to warrant an emotional response.
<quoted text>
No, I'll stick to poor spelling yet understanding what words mean over not understanding word meanings and proper spelling like you. When public forums become spelling bees I'll worry about it then.

It is obvious you haven't studied sociology or cultural anthropology at all. Perhaps a class at your local community college school would help. Did you graduate from high school?

Any student of sociology or anthropology knows that polygamy is of course marriage and not a separate "entity". Indeed "polygamy" translated from the Greek means "often married".

Until you gain some knowledge of marriage and the family, and lose the attitude, it will be impossible to have any meaningful discussion with you.

P.S. The quality of your spelling is in inverse proportion to your anger, and you are usually very angry. Seriously, look over your posts. I'm serious about spell check, for your own sake, not to mention it's hard to take someone seriously who can barely spell.

[Anonymous]

FREE Money For GAYS, Lesbians, and straight people. Sign up at Copious.com and get 10$ free to spend for signing up. Here is a great page. http://copious.com/profiles/chris-duval Thanks and enjoy.

[Jonah1]

thisGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
-Dunno, you tell me. You Liberals came up with that nonsense, not us Conservatives.[/QUOTe]
Sorry poodle, that's not how debating works. YOU brought up genes, the onus is on you to support it. So, since you seem to think that lack of discovery somehow translates to "those people are lying", you tell me. Are left handers all liars too?

[QUOTE who="thisGuy"]<qu oted text>
There's a difference between being disgusted by a behavior & having a fear of something. Those who do drugs, like heroine, cocaine, as DISGUST me...so does that mean I'm a drug-addictphobe LOL?

There's no correlation. Drug addiction causes harm, and should therefore logically be disgusted. Gay people, our existence, our relationships, our friendships, and yes, even our sex, do not cause harm to anyone or anything. To be disgusted by us for no reason is irrational.....phobic.

thisGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
When will you sexual deviants ever understand not everyone is gonna like what you do in your bedrooms, & that it is gonna gross some people out? DEAL WITH IT.

When are you going to realize that normal people don't think about other people's bedrooms and what occurs there. That behavior is deviant. YOU deal with it.

thisGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
-Wrong again gaytard! It becomes an issue when you expose it everywhere except in your closet.

Homosexuality isn't something that can be "exposed" moron. Our feelings can be exposed, just like straight people. And we will expose our feelings to every degree that straight people expose theirs to us. Sorry you don't like that, but you don't get a say.

thisGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
-Except that...YOU ARE trying to change that! You're trying to CHANGE the definition of marriage,

The definition of marriage isn't altered in any way when gays enter into them. Go peddle your non-existent "redefinitions" to the sheeple, no one is buying that nonsense here.

thisGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
& you are trying to CHANGE those who may not agree with your politically [in]correct view.

Yes, we are. That's our right to do so. Wanna know some others who have done the same thing? Blacks, women, the handicapped, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Mormons, etc. The list is endless.

thisGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
You are trying make it were anyone talks bad about homosexuality as "hate speech"---CHANGING the definition of Freedom of Speech.

What a load of crap. You have the right to speak poorly of gay people, just like the KKK has a right to speak poorly of Catholics, Jews, gays and blacks. Your freedoms are not altered in anyway bigot.

[Pam Jordan]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
This is a good example of where you have not brought logic, but in Beyond that, please show me a specific study that compares typical biological parents with both gay and lesbian couples parenting.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-2...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,859...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-...

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sectionfr...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-parent...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/...

http://io9.com/5458304/research-shows-two-gay...

there are many, many more so i would conclude if you claim to have read all the research available as you made mention of in your post that your resources are very limited.

[Quest]

TheVoiceofReason wrote:

<quoted text>
You are proving my point about Hollywood and making it normal. There's a reason the "young" seem to accept it more. It's not because they are more "intellectual"...... ..it's because they are SHEEP being led by Kim Kardashian and Ellen........

Hardly. Hollywood cannot make something normal. It CAN reflect society, and it does that well.

If it did not, the movie/TV machine would go out of business.

I know that being gay is normal for those that are hardwired that way, the same way that you know you are NOT gay. It's innate. It has nothing to do with how intellectual one is, or how educated, or even how religious. It's a simply innate trait that really affects no one who does not share it.

We can't help it if others, for some odd reason, obsess about what they imagine we might be doing in private. We find your interest rather creepy.

If you are trying to say that all gay people act "not-nomal" in some other sort of universal way, you would be just as silly as if you applied such a statement to all straight folks.

[Quest]

[QUOTE who="Here Is One."]<quoted text>
then get voted back to the closet like 31 states already did
That is your option..........Or should I say was your option
As most of the 31 states also banned civil unions[/QUOTE]

Civil rights should never be subject to a vote. If you choose to vote on such things, expect a multitude of costly court challenges, and unending barrage of them, until your vote to harm others is overturned.

I love how this country works. There is even a remedy for bigotry, though it often takes some time to implement.

[Pam Jordan]

thisGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
"We've had the ability to accurately and affordably test people's $exuality in a lab setting since the 1950s."
-Really? What is it? The butt test? How are you going to test those who are pedophiles? The Micheal Jackson Pedo Exam? Because I've never heard of such of an exam.
"And in all that time, not one person has ever been able to show that their $exuality changed during the course of their lifetime."
-Ex-gays would disagree with you.
"Also, there have been tons of studies done on homo$exuality - if it was a choice there would be precursors to that choice leading someone to want to be attracted to the same gender or leading them to actually having attraction for the same gender - yet not one study has ever found any precursor or cause."
-There has been tons of documented precursors that show that homosexuality as being linked to truamatic experiences in childhood, whether it be rape, domestic violence, etc---many of which happens within the ENVIRONMENT that many gays live in. You don't even know what you're talking about!
Sources: http://www.livescience.com/13755-homosexual-l...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/environmenta...
"By all means though. Let's hear how you "chose" your sexuality."
-Not until you admit you chose yours first

i read the 'live science' link.

it stated gay children are up to five times more likely to commit suicide but with a supportive enviroment including school and church and the like this lessens dramatically.

i can understand this given the pressures they must face but find it odd you seem somewhat giddy about this fact.

[Frank Rizzo]

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Please indicate where these "forms of polygamy" exist. Oh, that's right, they don't.
<quoted text>
As I have stated many times here Frank, if there are people that wish to have these forms of relationships to be legally recognized, they are free to pursue legal means to obtain legal recognition. Perhaps if you weren't so stupidly attempting to paint all gays as "polygamy bigots" you would realize that. But you are more interested in spinning your ridiculous "I Frank REALLY support marriage equality but the gays don't" nonsense, that you don't comprehend that.
And you are right, it isn't my approval they should seek, it's the governments approval they should seek. But there seeking is totally unrelated to mine for marriage equality. And it always will be you old fool.

I am not attempting to portray all homosexuals as "polygamy bigots", only the ones who like you, actually are.

Along with some education on marriage and the family perhaps you should get that paranoia about my motives checked out. Until then, you are much too angry and ignorant for me to attempt any meaningful discussion on marriage equity with you.

The bottom line is I support marriage equality, and you do not.