Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals; they marry under the same laws as everyone else. There is no orientation test for a marriage license.
If you are offended by political opponents who argue to protect male/female marriage; maybe you're just over sensitive. Get over yourself; everyone has a right to their opinion.

Men and women don't marry under the same laws. There is a gender test.
Gay marriage doesn't harm male/female marriage, divorce does. You got divorced. You are the one who harmed male/female marriage. So, you should STFU, you stupid, hypocritical b!tch. That's my opinion. And you even said, I have the right to it.

[Chrisnris]

I believe that there are great marriages and their are horrible ones too, but being gay or straight doesn't have anything to do with it. Everybody should have the same rights regardless, if we were talking about employment rights and if somebody who is gay was being discriminated against for being that way than there would be a lawsuit against their employer. We are only asking for the same rights as everybody else we don't want to be discriminated against, we only want the right straight people have had for years. Are we not deserving of that?

[Mike DiRucci]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Most "pole smokers" are straight women, but I wouldn't expect you'd have any experience in that area.
<quoted text>
Rose's Law: Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
<quoted text>
Sexually insecure?

Mike's Law: Morons who dream up "Laws" and name them after themselves are silly.

[Impeachment Cobblers]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Your reasons for keeping marriage male/female are valid even if they aren't verbose. You don't have to engage every argument, especially if those arguments are made by rude or obnoxious people.
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution; marriage has always been male/female.

You don't give reasons, Brian, you just give slogans. There is no cause and effect shown, no supporting evidence, just some unfounded commentary. Little more than opinion. If I say the sky is green I really ought to provide some evidence. I can even give you reasons for it appearing blue (or gray, or red, depending upon time of day and weather conditions). OTOH, you simply make some claims and fail to back them up with substance. That is why you get insulted. You make idiotic comments, and get called an idiot.

You make the comment that people are obnoxious. Well Brian, you're bumper sticker slogans are quite tedious. Which is obnoxious to some.

Carry on by all means, it seems to be the limit of your capability.

[Impeachment Cobblers]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>

Gay marriage doesn't harm male/female marriage...

Brian, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It is repeatedly claimed that permitting same sex marriage will harm marriage. But when asked to give supporting evidence, all we get is the chirping of crickets. Nada, zip, zilch. You cannot show any harm, claiming there will be is not evidence.

[Mike DiRucci]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Rose's Law: Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
<quoted text>

That's because you never answer them jackass!

Want them to stop? TRY ANSWERING THEM!

What a dope!

[Mike DiRucci]

Impeachment Cobblers wrote:

<quoted text>
Brian, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It is repeatedly claimed that permitting same sex marriage will harm marriage. But when asked to give supporting evidence, all we get is the chirping of crickets. Nada, zip, zilch. You cannot show any harm, claiming there will be is not evidence.

The slippery slope. It has validity. If we grant same sex marriage what will we say when other groups demand their reform of marriage be given equal consideration? Polygamy, incest marriage etc. If marriage means everything, it means nothing.

In practice I don't see it as an obstacle to SSM because the numbers are insignificant. But to dismiss it as invalid is dishonest.

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

[SSOOTP]

Same Stupid Out Of Town Poster.

[Jazybird58]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Mike's Law: Morons who dream up "Laws" and name them after themselves are silly.

You bet sugar nipples. One day soon you might not be stuck on stupid.

[Jazybird58]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
So, basically, what you are saying, is that you don't want to read a rational argument against SSM, um OK, don't read it. But it makes perfect sense, and you know it. So, snore away, while the adults deal with it.

Oh snap, we all have been waiting for a rational argument against SSM, when will you be posting one?

[SSOOTP]

Does it still come in a can?

[The Flag is]

Once again the idiot Tea Party is about to crash the system, it's is all to apparent that the Tea Party needs to be outlawed and declared a danger to all american citizen's.

It;s another big defeat for John Boehner, Republicans party because they have nixed his fiscal "Plan B," because they didn't have the votes to pass it.

[Mike DiRucci]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>You bet sugar nipples. One day soon you might not be stuck on stupid.

What a dumb post!

You're funny Fruitloops. What's with the tin foil hat?

[Floride]

It's another big defeat for John Boehner, Republicans party. The Macco Nuts in the Tea Party are as dum as they look. Right Judy Nelson of the glendora city council.

Your all a bunch of terrible gamblers, just look at the fool calling himself Tim Donnelly.

[oneperson-onevoi ce]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Most "pole smokers" are straight women, but I wouldn't expect you'd have any experience in that area.
<quoted text>
Rose's Law: Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
<quoted text>
Sexually insecure?

Most are strait women but the male pole smokers wants the scales tipped. Youve made no point. I hope you dont infect thosr around you with your obviously high level of intelligence.

What about the children? Exactly, that is increasingly.societies attitude.

Thanks for the concern, but im quite secure in my sexuality.

If my comment offended you personally, perhaps you should psycho-analyze yourself, not me.

[Bll Grimeson]

American DC-7C by "Y" of Japan with original box. Same aircraft featured in the Twilight Zone episode "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" starring actor William Shatner.

[Chrisnris]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
You might...

So let me get this straight are you saying that the true definition of marriage is a union that can procreate through sexual intercourse of the person that they are married to? So according to that bs than I guess all those infertile hetrosexual couples are not considered to married either. Now that doesn't seem right. Or what about the couples that get married but choose not to have kids? Is that not considered marriage either? Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the asumption that marriage was a union joined together by love. But I guess I'm just a nieve legally married in this state of california lesbian and a mother of five highly intelligent, well rounded children.

[Bruno]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Was one particular jackass named "J-bird56" or some such silly sh!t a while ago used to post dumb stuff just like this jazzybird dope. Thought maybe they're the same.
This one wears a tin foil hat for chrissakes. It doesn't get any better than that.

My guess would be he is the same one

[KiMare]

Chrisnris wrote:

<quoted text>
So let me get this straight are you saying that the true definition of marriage is a union that can procreate through sexual intercourse of the person that they are married to? So according to that bs than I guess all those infertile hetrosexual couples are not considered to married either. Now that doesn't seem right. Or what about the couples that get married but choose not to have kids? Is that not considered marriage either? Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the asumption that marriage was a union joined together by love. But I guess I'm just a nieve legally married in this state of california lesbian and a mother of five highly intelligent, well rounded children.

Mating behavior today is the end result of simple genderless life forms evolving into two genders resulting in the ability for those species to survive.

Marriage is simply various customs culture created to support and celebrate the mating behavior union of those two genders. It is a union that hails back to the very roots of evolution, the recreation of a simple single genderless life form.

Duplicate genders cannot in any aspect replicate those basics.

Marriage links the beginning of life to the present. That has always been the case in every single culture. A 'reunion' of genders to 'one.' What has changed? Please, be specific.

Gay couples have never and CAN never replicate that.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

Smile.

[Brian_G]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

You didn't keep your marriage male/female. You got a divorce....

^^^Rose knows this is untrue; I've been married more than 25 years. She tells untruths because the truth isn't on her side.