Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[TheVoiceofReason]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
No, marriage is a civil right for single unrelated adults. If you demand a separate title just to make sure that everyone knows that gay folks are different and lesser, then it is indeed ONLY about bigotry.
It's no different than separate drinking fountains for certain races of people. The very requirement shows that one of the groups is considered the lesser, so low, in fact, that drinking from the same fountain will foul it.
You want a separate designation for all same sex couple's weddings, because you feel that if they are drinking at YOUR fountain, they will polute it. At least in YOUR mind.
How can you say this is not bigotry?

No, I want "Marriages" done at courthouses designated as "Civil Unions" across the board to include straights , gays, Bi's........

Leave the word "Marriage" to those who have been married in the House of God......

So no, your "bigot" comment holds no water....

[Here Is One.]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>"Separate but Equal", right? Laws don't work well that way.

How will one person's marriage change the meaning of yours? Or the person down the street?

It won't, of course. You, and many like you, just feel better about making sure that there is a "lesser" definition for some other folks, whose marriage you don't really like.

My marriage IS a marriage, in EVERY way. Calling it something else to make others a little more comfortable isn't logical.

you don't seem to understand that it does not matter what you think or feel

We the majority will decide what will happen and the recent votes show that

You had your chance for equal rights and now even civil unions will be blocked

[not gay]

Your going to mess up your prostate gland is what's going to happen.

[Here Is One.]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>No, marriage is a civil right for single unrelated adults. If you demand a separate title just to make sure that everyone knows that gay folks are different and lesser, then it is indeed ONLY about bigotry.

It's no different than separate drinking fountains for certain races of people. The very requirement shows that one of the groups is considered the lesser, so low, in fact, that drinking from the same fountain will foul it.

You want a separate designation for all same sex couple's weddings, because you feel that if they are drinking at YOUR fountain, they will polute it. At least in YOUR mind.

How can you say this is not bigotry?

black people are still called black.
We did not change the meaning of the word white to include them

But they were not so stupid that they would even try that

Woman are not called men

And gays will not be married

[Quest]

[QUOTE who="Here Is One."]<quoted text>
you don't seem to understand that it does not matter what you think or feel
We the majority will decide what will happen and the recent votes show that
You had your chance for equal rights and now even civil unions will be blocked[/QUOTE]

That's what the courts are for (in part)- protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority. You don't like it, find another form of government that suits you better.

Seeing the speed at which marriage equality has gone from something unimaginable, to something supported by OVER half the population (if not yet the aging voting population), do you really think it will be too long before things change even further?

Even bigots can see the trends.

[Karma is a_______]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Answer: FALSE. The idea that there are separate subspecies of the human population classifiable as race, is nothing more than a 400 year old social construct, not a scientific reality.
" According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program,
DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
In other words, while the concept of separate human sub-species called "races" was developed four hundred years ago, during a time when white supremacists and the slave trade were seeking to justify the enslavement of Blacks, as well as the social, economic and political exaltation of whites, however, the most recent in-depth study of human DNA ever completed has shown that "race" does not exist.
Continue reading at NowPublic.com : Human Genome Project Announces That "Race" Does Not Exist | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-p... ;
So, you were saying?

errrr, that I'm a fundamentalist christian evangelical who never lets science and facts get in the way of my thinking......

[Rick in Kansas]

KiMare wrote:

Dicky Ricky, you dig in with more gay twirl...

And you dig in with more childish insults and non-responsive responses. You really are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

KiMare wrote:

Sorry, I don't fit into the anti-gay set, that is why gays have trouble with me. Nor do I fit into the gay set. Remember, I'm a lesbian trapped in a straight man's body...
All I'm left with is reality.

But what you don't seem to realize is that other than committing the sacrilege of admitting that there have always been Gay folk, you preach from their ugly anti-Gay playbook. I have no problem with you (you're simply just another useful idiot of the hate-filled set), nor do I give a flying f*ck what you claim to be. Oh by the way, I don't know what you've been left with, but confusing it with reality is a joke.

KiMare wrote:

Oh wait, you are too.

No dear, you're just an idiot.

KiMare wrote:

NO culture has accepted gay marriage. Even in Rome it was never legal and mocked by associates. In Indian culture, gays were most often used and abused.

Answer: False, the reality is that your knowledge of the history of Lesbians and Gays is just as pathetically lacking as your knowledge of the history of marriage itself. I know that you're just trying to bullsh*t your way out of the argument, but you can't.

KiMare wrote:

The fact is, the response to gays around the world is much the same as it has been throughout history. The fact is, there is not ONE SINGLE CULTURE that in any barely significant measure accepted gay marriage, or even gay unions!

You can repeat that lie as often as you want, it won't change the fact that a number of cultures have accepted same sex relationships (including the Christian Church) and even same sex marriages for extended periods of time throughout all of recorded history. What is this now, your fourth try now, you keep claiming that what I have said is wrong, but you've offered absolutely nothing which proves I'm wrong other than your say so and it's by your own say so that we know you really don't know what in the hell you are talking about.

KiMare wrote:

Your assertion of 'gay benefit' is not even a gay twirl, it is a outright lie. There are currently two highly speculative THEORIES about a evolutionary benefit of homosexuality.

Buttercup, all you are succeeding in doing is to tell us is that your knowledge of the evolutionary theories of homosexuality is as bad as your 'knowledge' of history. Why not just be honest enough to admit that there are no studies which in any way, shape or form question what you mistakenly refer to as "highly speculative theories". Just another alleged christian who won't get the hang of that whole false witness commandment.

continued...

[Rick in Kansas]

KiMare wrote:

Where did I say children were a requirement of marriage? I do say they are the rule rather than the exception. This is opposed to gay unions where no biological children are the... rule, right?

The question you should be thinking about is, if procreation is not a requirement for exercising one's right to marry, you won't allow that right to marry to be extended to same sex couples why exactly?

KiMare wrote:

Nor have I ever presented marriage in the context of 'Christian' marriage. Your bigotry zipper is down and Dicky is showing again...

You do realize that what you have said previously doesn't just vanish don't you? This discussion BEGAN as a result of you presenting marriage in a 'christian context" dear.

KiMare wrote:

What I have said is that children are a natural element of marriage as are opposite genders. These distinctions cross cultures and religions, don't they?

And you STILL haven't gotten past your idealized notions. Children are usually, but not always a natural element in SOME but not all marriages of the opposite gender, just as they are in same sex couples.

KiMare wrote:

Nor have I shared my view of marriage. I simply stated two distinctions, children and gender diversity, in the face of your attempt to equate gay unions with marriage. Your hissy fit added to twisted 'law' doesn't/can't change either one of those facts of reality.
Smile.

No dear, you offered your presumed but factually challenged 'distinctions' as the reason why same sex couples should be denied their right to marry. When it comes to the individual's right to marry, your silly notion of marriage needing to be 'gender diverse' in order to be an actual 'marriage' just is not relevant. You can call the laws which regulate our right to marry 'twisted', if that's what trips your trigger, but those are the rules we all play by, not those flaky ones rolling around in your head.

[TheVoiceofReason]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
That's what the courts are for (in part)- protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority. You don't like it, find another form of government that suits you better.
Seeing the speed at which marriage equality has gone from something unimaginable, to something supported by OVER half the population (if not yet the aging voting population), do you really think it will be too long before things change even further?
Even bigots can see the trends.

Over half the votes were against Gay Marriage in California........ but youre sitting here saying "OVER hal the population........"

[Quest]

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Who supports or doesn't support polygamy is irrelevant. That some gays are extremely against it is very interesting though.
.

Why? The vast majority of straight folks seem to be against it, too. Some aren't, of course, just as some gay folks are not.

Are you trying to say that being gay somehow genetically requires a support of polygamy? How does that work, exactly?

And why doesn't it apply to all heterosexuals--particularly ones who marry, as well? Why should only gay folks who want to marry a single perosn fall under the "support polygamy" requirement? That's just not logical.

But that's the point, isn't it? You aren't supporting logic, because you don't really have a logical argument left against same-sex marriage.

As I have said before, right now, the main proponents of polygamy seem to those from certain fundamentalist religious groups who want to marry many, and anti-gay folks. No one else seems to be pushing for legalization.

Frank, if YOU want to, then go ahead. But pretending to link marrying many with marrying one just isn't going to work for you.

[Rick in Kansas]

Karma is a_______ wrote:

errrr, that I'm a fundamentalist christian evangelical who never lets science and facts get in the way of my thinking......

Now if I can only get one of them to actually be that honest, I'll feel like I accomplished something...

[Karma is a_______]

TheVoiceofReason wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I want "Marriages" done at courthouses designated as "Civil Unions" across the board to include straights , gays, Bi's........
Leave the word "Marriage" to those who have been married in the House of God......
So no, your "bigot" comment holds no water....

actually, I am all for your idea. The gov't shouldn't be in the business of religious rites. I propose that the local gov't issue civil union licenses to any two consenting adults, hetero or homo sexual who want to commit to a life together. All legal rights bestowed upon married couples now would be given in these civil unions.

Then if the couple feels the need to have a religious ceremony, they can go to their local house of worship and have a marriage ceremony performed.

NEWSFLASH FOR YOU BUB

There are churches that accept same sex marriage and will perform such rites for homosexual couples

so what do you think, can we agree on this solution?

I'm betting you are against religious freedom. To you religious freedom means Americans are free to follow the tenets and dogma of your religion.

so

[Quest]

[QUOTE who="Here Is One."]<quoted text>
black people are still called black.
We did not change the meaning of the word white to include them
But they were not so stupid that they would even try that
Woman are not called men
And gays will not be married
[/QUOTE]

Did you realize as you wrote it that most of this post makes no sense at all?

Anyway ..

Black people and white people being allowed to legally marry each other changed the legal definition of marriage, at that time.

Did it harm you? Society? The couples involved? Did the sky fall?

Of course not. Nothing changed, except that some loving couples were now allowed to marry, when they had not been allowed to marry before.

And nothing will change when same sex couples may marry legally.

That's the whole point.

[Quest]

TheVoiceofReason wrote:

<quoted text>
Over half the votes were against Gay Marriage in California........ but youre sitting here saying "OVER hal the population........"

First of all, that vote was not held yesterday, and the polls have changed even in that short few years. Who knows how it would go if the vote were held today.

But, you failed to read the rest.

Over half of the population now supports same sex marriage, however, the VOTING population is an older demographic, and that demographic is not as likely to support equality.

However, one thing is sure. Those voters are aging out of the system, and younger voters have much less of a problem with marriage equality.

Even you can see that.

[Frank Rizzo]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Why? The vast majority of straight folks seem to be against it, too. Some aren't, of course, just as some gay folks are not.
Are you trying to say that being gay somehow genetically requires a support of polygamy? How does that work, exactly?
And why doesn't it apply to all heterosexuals--particularly ones who marry, as well? Why should only gay folks who want to marry a single perosn fall under the "support polygamy" requirement? That's just not logical.
But that's the point, isn't it? You aren't supporting logic, because you don't really have a logical argument left against same-sex marriage.
As I have said before, right now, the main proponents of polygamy seem to those from certain fundamentalist religious groups who want to marry many, and anti-gay folks. No one else seems to be pushing for legalization.
Frank, if YOU want to, then go ahead. But pretending to link marrying many with marrying one just isn't going to work for you.

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.

[TheVoiceofReason]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, that vote was not held yesterday, and the polls have changed even in that short few years. Who knows how it would go if the vote were held today.
But, you failed to read the rest.
Over half of the population now supports same sex marriage, however, the VOTING population is an older demographic, and that demographic is not as likely to support equality.
However, one thing is sure. Those voters are aging out of the system, and younger voters have much less of a problem with marriage equality.
Even you can see that.

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........

[TheVoiceofReason]

Karma is a_______ wrote:

<quoted text>
actually, I am all for your idea. The gov't shouldn't be in the business of religious rites. I propose that the local gov't issue civil union licenses to any two consenting adults, hetero or homo sexual who want to commit to a life together. All legal rights bestowed upon married couples now would be given in these civil unions.
Then if the couple feels the need to have a religious ceremony, they can go to their local house of worship and have a marriage ceremony performed.
NEWSFLASH FOR YOU BUB
There are churches that accept same sex marriage and will perform such rites for homosexual couples
so what do you think, can we agree on this solution?
I'm betting you are against religious freedom. To you religious freedom means Americans are free to follow the tenets and dogma of your religion.
so

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.....

[Here Is One.]

Quest wrote:

[QUOTE who="Here Is One."]<quoted text>
you don't seem to understand that it does not matter what you think or feel
We the majority will decide what will happen and the recent votes show that
You had your chance for equal rights and now even civil unions will be blocked"

That's what the courts are for (in part)- protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority. You don't like it, find another form of government that suits you better.

Seeing the speed at which marriage equality has gone from something unimaginable, to something supported by OVER half the population (if not yet the aging voting population), do you really think it will be too long before things change even further?

Even bigots can see the trends.

31 states have amended their constitutions and more will follow

We will amend the federal constitution if necessary

[Here Is One.]

Quest wrote:

[QUOTE who="Here Is One."]<quoted text>
black people are still called black.
We did not change the meaning of the word white to include them
But they were not so stupid that they would even try that
Woman are not called men
And gays will not be married
"

Did you realize as you wrote it that most of this post makes no sense at all?

Anyway ..

Black people and white people being allowed to legally marry each other changed the legal definition of marriage, at that time.

Did it harm you? Society? The couples involved? Did the sky fall?

Of course not. Nothing changed, except that some loving couples were now allowed to marry, when they had not been allowed to marry before.

And nothing will change when same sex couples may marry legally.

That's the whole point.

yes someone like you would have a hard time understanding

And we don't call blacks white but we have equal rights

Separate but equal is

[Here Is One.]

Quest wrote:

[QUOTE who="Here Is One."]<quoted text>
black people are still called black.
We did not change the meaning of the word white to include them
But they were not so stupid that they would even try that
Woman are not called men
And gays will not be married
"

Did you realize as you wrote it that most of this post makes no sense at all?

Anyway ..

Black people and white people being allowed to legally marry each other changed the legal definition of marriage, at that time.

Did it harm you? Society? The couples involved? Did the sky fall?

Of course not. Nothing changed, except that some loving couples were now allowed to marry, when they had not been allowed to marry before.

And nothing will change when same sex couples may marry legally.

That's the whole point.

what they have and you could have had

Now civil unions are also being abolished