Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
In Mexico gays have all of the same rights under a civil union......

LIE. Complete load of horse shyt.

In Mexico, gays can MARRY in Mexico City only. With all the same rights as straight people.
In the state of Coahuila gays can receive a Civil Union, which does NOT recognize all the same rights as marriage.
The rest of the states in Mexico recognize both, but do not allow gays to enter into either institution.

But please, don't let truth get in the way of you pretending that gays in Mexico have equality with straight people.

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
I am a opposite sex couple

You're a couple are you dear? All by yourself, you're a couple?

What a moron.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
That description fits almost ALL relationships.
Are you now trying to call ALL relationships marriage???

If the couple has a legal marriage license.....then Yes, that's what I'm saying!!!

Even to those who don't have a legal marriage license, but choose to refer to their relationship as a marriage is okay as well.

In my particular case, my wife and I are legally married and we fight to have federal recognition of that marriage just like any other legally married couple gets!!!

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
And many institutions have requirements..........

Yup. And the intitutions can adjust and change their requirements, and often do. For example, schools in the south in the United States are institutions. Originally one of their requirements was that all students be white. Now that is no longer one of their requirements. See how that works sunshine? Here's another example. West Point is an institution here in the United States. Originally one of its requirements was that all its students be male. Now that is no longer one of their requirements. Would you like some more examples hon?

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
To be married you must be a man and a woman.......

Um, no you mustn't. Not any more. You mustn't have to be man and a woman for over a decade now. Tell me sweatums, are you aware that this is 2012?

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
To be lawyer you must have passed the bar.....

I'm sure you're very familiar with bars.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
They say "husband" and "wife" too???

NO MARRIAGE LICENSE states "HUSBAND" or "WIFE"!!!

What they use to say was "GROOM" and "BRIDE".....but now not all say that and some just have a box to check!!!

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you collect your partners SSI???
NOPE

Not yet. Are you under the impression that this little fact negates the FACT that I'm married? LOL.

But please, don't let facts get in the way of you being a snippy little aggitative bitch. Witnessing your need to constantly post back handed childish insults to gay people is a hoot. Must suck to be as insecure and insignificant as you are.

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
When the blacks were given equal rights did we change the meaning of white to include them???

I roll with laughter every time you ask this asinine and completely meaningless question!!! Nothing exhibits your stupidity better than this one!!!

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope the word we used was human......
White still means white......

And marriage still means marriage. Marriage is DEFINED as an institution, a ceremony and a union. None of those definitions change when gays enter into marriage.

But please, do keep spreading the word about the gay agenda to change the meanings of words!!!!! What a jackass!!! And so publically willing do demonstrate it too!! You mother must be so proud!!!

Goooood morning

It's good to hear that regardless as to how much pressue the gay activist groups have put on Washington D.C. the president will not committ to reccognize SSM. This is a good thing

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
LIE. Complete load of horse shyt.
In Mexico, gays can MARRY in Mexico City only. With all the same rights as straight people.
In the state of Coahuila gays can receive a Civil Union, which does NOT recognize all the same rights as marriage.
The rest of the states in Mexico recognize both, but do not allow gays to enter into either institution.
But please, don't let truth get in the way of you pretending that gays in Mexico have equality with straight people.

Go to Mexico then ...

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
First, try responding to me and not repeating gay talking points about the Bible that have nothing to do with what I said (If you can.).

I did respond to you piss-ant. And I don't need talking points. Your questions were so ridiculously stupid that they required no talking points to address them. Funny, I notice you aren't adressing the responses themselves, but instead are now trying to make this about me. Typical tactic of uneducated fundies when they can't support their rhetoric.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Second, I'm not a fundie, which is why you have such a hard time dealing with me.

What on earth gives you the impression I'm having a hard time dealing with you? LOL!! You're stupider then I thought.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm a barbarian cynic giving you nightmares.

You're an idiotic imbicile who thinks he can present the nonsense of the bible as credible. You're a failure.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Third, we have known about amino acid birth for just your lifetime.

Whatever. Amino acid still isn't dust. Never will be.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You know that for the previous 4000 years, "from the dust of the earth" made the most sense.

From the dust of the earth makes NO sense and has never made sense, and never will. It's just a myth that was passed on from generation to generation. Your statement is as ridiculously stupid as saying, "you know that for the previous 4000 years, a flat earth mad the most sense".

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Fourth, if you condense the creation of humans down to one sentence, genderless to male/female is about as condensed as possible.

If, if, if. If grass were currency I'd be rich.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
What you are trying to avoid, is how in heaven a 4000 year old fiction book even comprehended pre-gender existence...

No, what I'm avoiding is your naivete.
Your bible clearly states that man was created as "man". That is not genderless. You can throw out as many bells and whistles as you want, and jumpt over as many mental hurdles as you want to try and pretend that your bible is credible. But the scenerio you are trying to sell, NO ONE is buying.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Didn't say 'sky angels' did it? If you really thought it was so ridiculous, why would you need to exaggerate? I'd say they were talking about alien visitation.

Oh, I see! Then please, let me rephrase the question. In the "two veins" of man's ancestry that you claim scientists have discovered, could you please cite a source indicating that scientists have discovered one of the two veins to include alien DNA. We'll wait right here for it!!

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Look up Homo sapiens neanderthalensis & Homo sapiens sapiens. They are the two veins.

And which vein contains alien dna or fallen angel dna? Which ones were the giants?!!! LOL!!!!

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
If the couple has a legal marriage license.....then Yes, that's what I'm saying!!!
Even to those who don't have a legal marriage license, but choose to refer to their relationship as a marriage is okay as well.
In my particular case, my wife and I are legally married and we fight to have federal recognition of that marriage just like any other legally married couple gets!!!

What will you do if the Federal Government fails to recognize SSM?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Then disprove it.

LOL! I'll get right on that. First I have to devote a few hours to disproving the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
That's about the most lame attempt at an analogy I've ever seen. Aren't you even a little bit embarrassed?

LOL!! Seriously!! Every single time he posts that it makes me smile. It's like showing up to Topix with a huge "IDIOT" drawn on his foerhead for everyone to see!!

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL! I'll get right on that. First I have to devote a few hours to disproving the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real? Oh, no. What is there left to believe in, first Santa Claus, then Jesus and now this...how depressing.

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You lose the history lesson on both counts;
1. The Bible was the text book for scores of early American school history.

And doctors used leeches. What's your point?

KiMare wrote:

2. Gay 'marriages' have never ever survived for any length of time in history.
Simply facts. You'll live to see it (smile).

You seem to be operating under the assumption that just because something is factual it must therefore have some relevence. That would be an incorrect assumption.

KiMare wrote:

They had many books, and the Bible was used in all schools along with daily prayer to 'Nature's Creator'.

Hey there KiMare, here's a little tidbit for you. It's 2012.

KiMare wrote:

Why do you always have to deny and twist reality? It's like telling the lie that gay unions are the same as marriage.

Well, that lie comes from your people, not ours. WE are fully aware they aren't equal, that's why we won't accept unions or any other lesser institution you fools think you can "offer".

KiMare wrote:

You have to keep telling bigger and bigger lies to maintain the first lie.

LOL!! You sure are foolish.

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
What will you do if the Federal Government fails to recognize SSM?

Do what we've been doing.......but don't worry......DOMA will be gone!!!!

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
That description fits almost ALL relationships.
Are you now trying to call ALL relationships marriage???

You might want to take a class on how to improve comprehension skills.

Oh, and just fyi, whenever one of you cur begin your response with "Are you now.....", or "Are you saying.....", the answer will always be "NO, that isn't what I was saying". The "are you now" tactic is Fundie 101, and merely shows how desperate you are, and what little integrity you have. When you intentionally misrepresent what other people have said in order to further an arguement you are losing, its a clear indicator of your deceitfulness.

Brian_G wrote:

We can defend husband/wife marriage in the Supreme Court. If that fails, we can amend the Constitution.
We'll win because we have a realistic view of our complex social institutions. We won't transform our culture for political correctness.

Yeah, slave owners said the same thing. How'd that work out for them Brian?

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
Go to Mexico then ...

Well, there you are sunshine! The fact that you think my post was positive of Mexico reveals perfectly your complete lack of comprehensive skills.