Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[KiMare]

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
My GOD you make absolutely no sense...

VV, it's YOUR analogy!

Now you are confusing yourself?

Snicker, smirk smile.

[Scarfs]

Wrap it tight and pull.

[Marram]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Viciously hateful, don't you think?
Smile.

Yes it was. I apologize. I truly don’t wish harm on anyone even if I completely disagree with their viewpoint.

[KiMare]

Marram wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes it was. I apologize. I truly don’t wish harm on anyone even if I completely disagree with their viewpoint.

Accepted.

[Soaked]

The nasty jerk squad has appeared again.

[endocannabanoid system]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Benghazi is not about Romney or bush. It's on Obama's watch. Yes Iraq was a mistake, but this is now. History doesn't divide people on what side you were on. It's not a game.

it is still good to hear you admit it was a mistake.

[endocannabanoid system]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>are you a bigot against 3 people in love? Do u think it doesn't happen?

you guys just dont get it do you???

what was offensive is comparing a monogamous loving relationship with a managi troi.... sort of like when the bigoted haters compare beastiality with homosexuality........a ridiculous comparison for sure...

confusing a stable lesbian or gay monogamous relationship, with group sex is easy for you reich wingers... because your brains are so limited...

[veryvermilion]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
KM is making sense, its written in opposite sex-ese, that might be why you're having trouble understanding.:)

Then why don't you take a crack at explaining it?

[Endless]

And the hits just keep on coming.

A a big fat toad its on your face too!

[veryvermilion]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
VV, it's YOUR analogy!
Now you are confusing yourself?
Snicker, smirk smile.

No, I'm still trying to figure out apple trees and walnut trees and what they have to do with same-gender marriage.

[sheesh void of hate]

Brian_G wrote:

You say your progressive but instead of embracing civil unions, domestic partnerships and shacking up you turn on our second oldest cultural institution. Instead of embracing the future to create true freedom and equality you want to redefine marriage for everyone. Rather than building a better way helping your brothers and sisters you turn on your parents and grandparents commitment and honor.
Same sex marriage is bad for the shame.

You seem to be all rolled up in negative thought. You indicate that you think this is some form of attack on marriage. I see it as sharing access. Exclusion is a negative action. It isn't as if gays are wresting our marriages away from us. You have yet to show any harm that isn't contrived.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Mr Anderson wrote:

<quoted text>
still hung up on bengazi?? are you bummed it hasnt gone anywhere?
tragic situation, however.....
Ill bet you were jumping up and down in horror over shock and awe?
NO??
more like jumping up and down in jubilation....
Im glad to be among those who were on the RIGHT side of that history...
we opposed that huge mistake from the start!!
ps: we dont know the history that you were voting for, and luckily, we wont ever find out what Romney would have done..
two wars, crashed economy, bad rethugs, no whitehouse!!

...I know that you are attempting to sound educated, and also trying to seem superior, but you are not doing dreadfully well with it...On with the latest dissection....

"still hung up on bengazi?? are you bummed it hasnt gone anywhere?"

What you are implying is that you do not care about Benghazi, or your fellow citizens, or government workers who are working overseas... But in a minute, you will be shown to be contradicting yourself.
"tragic situation, however....."
Sounds shallow to me...
"Ill bet you were jumping up and down in horror over shock and awe?
NO??"
You are trying to make a point here, but you haven't. I think that you are trying to paint some sort of odd picture, portraying him as an idiot, but that is your fictitious script, not his actions or sentiment, I think.
"more like jumping up and down in jubilation...."
Here, you are trying to throw some sort of spin on the whole post, intellectually dishonest, and not very sophisticated, I'm afraid, it didn't actually work...
"Im glad to be among those who were on the RIGHT side of that history...
we opposed that huge mistake from the start!!"
Now, here, you attempting to claim some sort of high ground, both for yourself, and for a group, unnamed, of course, did you mean to claim that all the gays in America were opposed to it?
"ps: we dont know the history that you were voting for, and luckily, we wont ever find out what Romney would have done.."
I'm sure that you know that we do not vote for history, but for candidates, right? Simple, and succinct, in displaying your lack of any real reasoning and thus your need to place him into a position that you can use, in order to attack him, but this is, again, your fictitious script, but nothing real or concrete.
"two wars, crashed economy, bad rethugs, no whitehouse!!"
This li'l rant is nothing short of a plea for a rational argument.

Now, if you have nothing better to do, except try to place your opponents into positions from which they can be exploited, you have little skill to brag about. Now, if that is the best that you can do, then you should not attempt any more of this, as it shows your lack of anything even resembling a thought. Any thoughts that you may be entertaining to the contrary are merely "sour grapes", as your opponent did not place himself into the position that you wished him to be in. you had to do that, in order to use your weak game.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Mr Anderson wrote:

<quoted text>
do you have anything positive to add??
those sort of bigoted comments have no place here.

I do, and that is that I am positive that you an idiot. He is not the bigot here, you are. You wish to suppress his 1st Amendment rights to express himself, as you do not like what he has to say. Nothing bigoted in his post at all. You are trying to use an old and weak ploy, namely, calling him a bigot for not sharing your point of view. Weak and sad, to say the least. Tired.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Mr Anderson wrote:

<quoted text>
Im sorry brian, but the state doesnt actually require marriages to produce anything......
mabey you should leave your religious beliefes in the closet, where they belong.
same sex marraige is far from a "culture of death"....
i think you truly need to remove your head from your arse to have a discussion without sounding like a mideval asshole!!

...You should follow your own advice. And learn to spell, as well. Your grammar is atrocious.

[endocannabanoid system]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
I do, and that is that I am positive that you an idiot. He is not the bigot here, you are. You wish to suppress his 1st Amendment rights to express himself, as you do not like what he has to say. Nothing bigoted in his post at all. You are trying to use an old and weak ploy, namely, calling him a bigot for not sharing your point of view. Weak and sad, to say the least. Tired.

unfortunately you didnt provide a defense of "traditional marriage"

none of you baggers ever can.

because there really is no defense against such steep bigotry.

ill be thinking of you when they strike down prop hate next week!!

you are on the wrong side of history, but ill bet you like that.

the more you spew, the more your intolerance and bigotry shows.

ill bet youre still soar over last november, as well...

so ill cut your ignorant bigoted a&& some slack.

[endocannabanoid system]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
...I know that you are attempting to sound educated, and also trying to seem superior, but you are not doing dreadfully well with it...On with the latest dissection....
"still hung up on bengazi?? are you bummed it hasnt gone anywhere?"
What you are implying is that you do not care about Benghazi, or your fellow citizens, or government workers who are working overseas... But in a minute, you will be shown to be contradicting yourself.
"tragic situation, however....."
Sounds shallow to me...
"Ill bet you were jumping up and down in horror over shock and awe?
NO??"
You are trying to make a point here, but you haven't. I think that you are trying to paint some sort of odd picture, portraying him as an idiot, but that is your fictitious script, not his actions or sentiment, I think.
"more like jumping up and down in jubilation...."
Here, you are trying to throw some sort of spin on the whole post, intellectually dishonest, and not very sophisticated, I'm afraid, it didn't actually work...
"Im glad to be among those who were on the RIGHT side of that history...
we opposed that huge mistake from the start!!"
Now, here, you attempting to claim some sort of high ground, both for yourself, and for a group, unnamed, of course, did you mean to claim that all the gays in America were opposed to it?
"ps: we dont know the history that you were voting for, and luckily, we wont ever find out what Romney would have done.."
I'm sure that you know that we do not vote for history, but for candidates, right? Simple, and succinct, in displaying your lack of any real reasoning and thus your need to place him into a position that you can use, in order to attack him, but this is, again, your fictitious script, but nothing real or concrete.
"two wars, crashed economy, bad rethugs, no whitehouse!!"
This li'l rant is nothing short of a plea for a rational argument.
Now, if you have nothing better to do, except try to place your opponents into positions from which they can be exploited, you have little skill to brag about. Now, if that is the best that you can do, then you should not attempt any more of this, as it shows your lack of anything even resembling a thought. Any thoughts that you may be entertaining to the contrary are merely "sour grapes", as your opponent did not place himself into the position that you wished him to be in. you had to do that, in order to use your weak game.

I dont have any "opponents"

you are either tolerant of people not like yourself???

or you are not(like you) and on the wrong side of history

83 % of folks under thirty approve of same sex marraige.

and 58% of the population at large is now in favor of gay marriage.

up from just 23% in 1996

the future is tolerant, not bigoted.

sorry.

ps; we dont let the majority vote on the minorities rights here in america.

if we did?? bigots like you would have held on to slavery at least another half a century.

I can imagine you are a constitutionalist...... though you probably only like the original one, without all those pesky amendments.

pps: ill give you credit, at least you actually read stuff!!

when most baggers as dumb as you, dont even try!

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
VV, it's YOUR analogy!
Now you are confusing yourself?
Snicker, smirk smile.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I'm still trying to figure out apple trees and walnut trees and what they have to do with same-gender marriage.

VV, you lie again!

post 184206

"Children are to all marriages, as sheep are to all farmers.(not all farmers raise sheep)."

Got caught with your pants down again...

However, the real question is, why do ss couples find it so hard to establish their own identity?

It's not about rights, those can and have been addressed in other ways.

It's not about family, most people like (and want) having their one natural mother and father together and raising them. A gay couple is never more than one of those, and always missing a gender.

It's not about acceptance, this forum and history are evidence that many will never accept that ss couples are the same as marriage. The only result of forcing that on people is a greater resentment, not acceptance.

You need to ask yourself why it is impossible for you to never successfully counter that inner sense of sexual brokenness.

Oh, and everyone knows exactly what the apple and walnut tree analogy means.

Smile.

[KiMare]

endocannabanoid system wrote:

<quoted text>
unfortunately you didnt provide a defense of "traditional marriage"
none of you baggers ever can.

You lie too.

To use your bigotry, none of you faggots can ever provide a defense of the most basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

So please, explain how a redumbant gendered couple, merely a replicated half of a marriage, totally incapable of ever mutually producing human fruit, the exclusive goal of mating behavior, is the same as 'traditional marriage'?

Bazinga!

[KiMare]

endocannabanoid system wrote:

<quoted text>
I dont have any "opponents"
you are either tolerant of people not like yourself???
or you are not(like you) and on the wrong side of history
83 % of folks under thirty approve of same sex marraige.
and 58% of the population at large is now in favor of gay marriage.
up from just 23% in 1996
the future is tolerant, not bigoted.
sorry.
ps; we dont let the majority vote on the minorities rights here in america.
if we did?? bigots like you would have held on to slavery at least another half a century.
I can imagine you are a constitutionalist...... though you probably only like the original one, without all those pesky amendments.
pps: ill give you credit, at least you actually read stuff!!
when most baggers as dumb as you, dont even try!

Interesting.

You site gay polls espousing democracy, then turn around and demand the twisted perversion of a republic's rights.

Want it both ways when it's your way seems to me...

By the way, history exclusively shows that when young people get a life and grow up, then tend to believe just like old people do now... Does that worry you?

Smirk.

[Brian_G]

Mr Anderson wrote:

Im sorry brian, but the state doesnt actually require marriages to produce anything......

I never claimed procreation is a requirement for marriage, just that the state benefits most from the children of married husbands and wives.

.

Mr Anderson wrote:

mabey you should leave your religious beliefes in the closet, where they belong.

What "religious beliefes[sic]"? Do you think arguing for procreation is a religious notion? My argument doesn't mention religion, it has nothing to do with religion.

For some people, religion is the number one reason to keep marriage one man and one woman. On my list, religion is number 26.

.

Mr Anderson wrote:

same sex marraige is far from a "culture of death".... i think you truly need to remove your head from your arse to have a discussion without sounding like a mideval asshole!!

If you argue same sex marriage is good because population growth is bad; that promotes the culture of death. I value every human life, homosexuals have infinite worth just like very other person. Same sex marriage is bad because many of its promoters fear population growth and favor restricting the number of children you may have.