Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Mike DiRucci]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>OH joy another confused fundie. Lets see, if a man can marry a man why cant you marry your dog or favorite tree. I got your number suggar nipples

Like I said, you're stupid. Please continue! It will be fun. It doesn't have to be joyless.

Fun!

[Mike DiRucci]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>OH joy another confused fundie. Lets see, if a man can marry a man why cant you marry your dog or favorite tree. I got your number suggar nipples

OK OK, I heard the dog one but not the tree one. I give up. Why?

[BigStink]

Stove Top

The stupid attempts by the Republican party only were half hearted cover up attempts to bring the government of the USA to it's knees.

Douglas Tessitor of Glendora, California also echoed the same words about the financil well being of the city, he acted like a little child.

The co-called fiscal cliff was suspended in limbo Friday following a dramatic defeat for House Speaker John Boehner, whose own rank-and-file members refused to support his backup plan.

[Jazybird58]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, you're stupid. Please continue! It will be fun. It doesn't have to be joyless.
Fun!

Like I said I cant fix stupid. Have a great day sugar nipples

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Chrisnris wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand your idea of the evolution into the two genders for survival, on the flip side of that idea don't you think that maybe the world could be evolving again for the purpose of controlling the population? At this point in time I would have to say that most people would agree that our world is over populated.
I believe that everybody is entitled to their own oppinion, but what I just dont get is why and how can my marriage to another woman instead of a man harm hetrosexual married couples.

I'm not interested in opinions, I'm interested in reality and facts.

As you acknowledged, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on mating behavior. In other words, your ability to have a ss relationship hinges totally on mating behavior between diverse genders. The best setting by far for human fruit is the natural parents compared to any other default option.

That unique purpose deserves and requires a distinct description. Marriage has always been that description of reality.

Gays have the right to pursue a distinct description and rights that meet their unique needs. They are not however the same as a diverse gendered couple for the reasons I listed and more. Many marriage privileges have been instituted to protect a mother and children while the father worked. Gay couples cannot duplicate that setting, they in fact will unfairly dilute resources for the foundational relationship of our culture, the family.

As to population control, you ignore the fact that homosexual percentages have remained consistent through known history regardless of population. You also ignore the reality that evolution requires thousands if not millions of years to adjust to environment. War and famine have beat over population long before evolution has time to respond.

:-)

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, as usual.....you keep trying to tie procreation and marriage together and what you have NEVER understood is that that's not all that marriage is about......if it was, only those couples who could naturally procreate would be allowed that "SPECIAL" title......but in reality that's not ALL that marriage is about.......sucks to be you!!!

I didn't 'try' to do anything. I simply stated reality.

The fact is, the number of married couples that don't/can't procreate is so minor, we don't bother to distinguish.

You are attempting to add redumbant gendered couples who can NEVER mutually procreate. Clearly a distinct relationship!

If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.

Smirk.

[Mike DiRucci]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Like I said I cant fix stupid. Have a great day sugar nipples

HAR!HAR!HAR! "I can't fix stupid." So funny! Great comeback Fruitloops!

Maybe think harder or something next time. We can have fun. It doesn't have to be joyless.

[Mike DiRucci]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
I didn't 'try' to do anything. I simply stated reality.
The fact is, the number of married couples that don't/can't procreate is so minor, we don't bother to distinguish.
You are attempting to add redumbant gendered couples who can NEVER mutually procreate. Clearly a distinct relationship!
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Smirk.

That should inspire them!

WOOHOOO!

[VegOmatic]

Noting better than watching the stupid fools in washington DC - Republicans and Tea Party fudgers play with 98% of Americans lives.

Theser stupid fools ran away andare thinking they are going to fnd happy works in their home states, BAD IDEA, once they find they are home the bell ringing andf phone calls will shatter there stupid peace.

[Jazybird58]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
It takes no daring, at all, to state what is right, and what is wrong. It is a desire to not see the societal fabric torn, beyond recognition. It is not any more hate and ignorance, to tell you that SSM is wrong, that it takes to tell a child that their behavior is wrong. Do you hate a child, when you are telling it "no" ? Of course not. Children occasionally need reminded, as do the gay segment of our population.
For thousands of years, a marriage has been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.
Those who choose to live together in life-long homosexual relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages. I do not deny your right to live with whoever you choose, i merely refuse to accept a lowering of the bar, in order to allow you to call your relationship "a marriage". It is not. It is a sham. If you wish to call it a marriage, you are voting for misidentification, and that sets precedents for changing anything, any portion of reality can be denied, and we have not come all this way, through the mist of time, simply to give in to libertines that wish to change reality.
Live with whoever you please, just don't expect it to be called a marriage, when the majority of us know differently. Until we all receive polls in the mail, no poll can claim to know how the majority of us feel about this issue. I do not believe anyone who claims that the majority of Americans support SSM, they are either liars, or misinformed. Any poll can be manipulated, through the use of carefully screened participants.

Whoa Rock, thats a big ole load of manure you are passing off.

Procreation is not a requirement of marriage, never has been. Buttercup, you don't have to be married to have children. People do it all the time. The way you make marriage sound, and older couple pass the age of procreation should be denied the priviliage of marriage. Now please tell me just how telling a child that something is wrong is the same thing as dening two concenting adults the privilage of marriage. I will wait for your half ass answer

Now if you care to do just a little work ( Google) you will find that same sex marriage goes back a few thousand years. Shoot son, 1100 years ago you can find record of it in churches. So back up the bus and read before you make such silly claims.

[VegOmatic]

The state Department of Finance has demanded in recent weeks that 19 Orange County cities and the county itself turn over a combined $263 million in unused funds previously earmarked for low- and moderate-income housing.

[Jazybird58]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
If you read it , and still don't understand it, ask a grown-up to explain the big words. Guess all you want, it is nothing more than an evasion, on your part. You don't have to guess. I am not scared of gay people. I refuse to accept redefinition of terms, simply in order to satisfy a minority.

I see you then feel that the majority should always win right? Guess what buttercup, this is a republic not a democracy. The wimms of the majority wont be allowed to trample the rights of the minority. So until you find sound reason to justify exclusion of Gay rights, go away, you bore me.

[Mike DiRucci]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Like I said I cant fix stupid. Have a great day sugar nipples

Wait, wait! Don't go Fruitloop.

You forgot to tell us- why can't a man marry a tree?

[Lililth_Satans_B ore]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would he need to, has he been with your wife ?

oh hello "Mr Hand"

[Mike DiRucci]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Whoa Rock, thats a big ole load of manure you are passing off.
Procreation is not a requirement of marriage, never has been. Buttercup, you don't have to be married to have children. People do it all the time. The way you make marriage sound, and older couple pass the age of procreation should be denied the priviliage of marriage. Now please tell me just how telling a child that something is wrong is the same thing as dening two concenting adults the privilage of marriage. I will wait for your half ass answer
Now if you care to do just a little work ( Google) you will find that same sex marriage goes back a few thousand years. Shoot son, 1100 years ago you can find record of it in churches. So back up the bus and read before you make such silly claims.

Yes. I agree 100%. Procreation is irrelevant to marriage. That is one reason that incest marriage should be allowed.

And sure, SSM has always been around. We remember all those same sex couples from the history books! George and Harry Washington. Abraham and Bruce Lincoln. Marge and Bertha Thatcher. Very common.

WOOHOOO!

[VegOmatic]

Stocks sink after Republicans cancel budget vote in Washington D.C..

Investors sent Washington a reminder Friday that Wall Street is a power player in talks to avoid the "fiscal cliff."

[Mike DiRucci]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
If you think that we have any misconceptions about gay people, why don't you explain the realities to us ? This oughta be good.....

He's priceless, ain't he? Gonna be fun.

[Topeka]

You to old bruders, really should patch things up between you to and get on with it. Or flip a coin to see you goes first.

[NorCal Native]

KiMare wrote:

Gays have the right to pursue a distinct description and rights that meet their unique needs. They are not however the same as a diverse gendered couple for the reasons I listed and more.

Gay and Lesbian couples have THE RIGHT to pursue MARRIAGE.......period, not something you claim is different, but EXACTLY the same marriage as what heterosexuals get to do.......why? Because PROCREATION IS NOT NOW OR EVER BEEN A REQUIREMENT TO GET MARRIED, and therefore it is an IRRELEVANT issue!!!

Something you simply don't understand.....as long as there is ONE heterosexual couple who CAN NOT OR DOES NOT want children.......that argument has already lost!!!

[NorCal Native]

KiMare wrote:

Gay couples have never and CAN never replicate that.

The fact is, the number of married couples that don't/can't procreate is so minor, we don't bother to distinguish.

Who said ANYTHING about replicating another's relationship? Gay and Lesbian couples can and do create children and the law DOESN'T care how the children are conceived or if they are adopted......both are considered the offspring of the couple!!!

It DOESN'T matter how many opposite-sex couples CAN/DO/DON'T have children.......if one heterosexual couple is allowed to marry and CAN'T have children.....there goes the procreation argument.......just like it only took one woman to fight for the right to an abortion.....and we have that today!!!

The fact is that the institute of Marriage has been evolving steadily over the last 500 years and it matters not if you agree with it or like it....YOUR APPROVAL OR ACCEPTANCE is not REQUIRED!!!