Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302749...

Judged:

6

6

6

Prof Marvel wrote:

Of course the biggest con is the notion there's even such thing as a homosexual.
There's not an iota of science supporting the nomenclature, no litmus test, nothing except self-identification.
Now, self-identification is an acceptable form of identification -- we allow it for religious groups, ethnicity, etc. A man how looks like Bill Clinton can certainly self-identify as African-American.
Self-identification, however, is choice.
Gay activists promote the notion that everyone who self-identifies as homosexual was "born that way." In fact, if you go on television and say you chose to be bisexaul gay activists will picket the network for promoting dangerous and false ideas about homosexuality.
The fact is, gays have absolutely no idea how many people simply chose to live the gay lifesyle. But when confronted with this basic fact they attempt to use logic exercises to show it isn't so:
"Why would anyone choose to be an abused minority?"
or,
"Did you choose to be heterosexual?"
Actually, people DO choose to be heterosexual -- which is to say, people choose to engage in male female-sex.

Prof Marvel wrote:

Indeed, a sizable amount do so all of their lives and never really like it -- "Honey, I have a headache."
The point here, is both homosexuality and heterosexuality are choice.

Prof Marvel wrote:

Hetero men can learn to enjoy anal sex and homo men can learn to enjoy penis-vaginal sex.

Prof Marvel wrote:

"Homosexuality" and homosexuals are at best, heterosexuals who prefer male-to-male sex; that's all. That's all science can say about homosexuality with certainty.
Nothing more.
Heterosexuals who enjoy male-to-male sex -- that's all.
Sex cultists.

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not the same thing as being heterosexual.
Assuming you've had sex, were you homosexual before you first had sex?
<quoted text>
Choose to be gay then.
<quoted text>
Most men into anal sex are straight. Women also have anuses.
And you are saying gay men can learn to enjoy penis-vagina sex, yet you claim gay men don't exist! LOL.
<quoted text>
LOL. You are so stupid. Are you actually denying gay people exist!?

Judged:

7

6

6

Prof Marvel wrote:

Of course the biggest con is the notion there's even such thing as a homosexual.
There's not an iota of science supporting the nomenclature, no litmus test, nothing except self-identification...

Judged:

7

7

7

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>An Economics professor applauding a seriously methodologically unsound study, couldn't they find an actual sociologist? Yes dear, there are flaws in the existing studies, their sample bases are small and tend to be unrepresentative of the population of same sex couples with children, but their flaws pale in comparison to that agenda driven nonsense Regenerus pumped out. What you and the author of that piece you badly cut and pasted fail to grasp, is that if the problems that Regenerus claims to exist and at the magnitude he claims, even those small, unrepresentative samples should have stumbled across them. Amazingly, none of the dozens which have been done ever did. If all you have to offer are the lame attempts by others to blow life into a dead horse and childish insults, you really should quit while you're behind.

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not the same thing as being heterosexual.
Assuming you've had sex, were you homosexual before you first had sex?
<quoted text>
Choose to be gay then.
<quoted text>
Most men into anal sex are straight. Women also have anuses.
And you are saying gay men can learn to enjoy penis-vagina sex, yet you claim gay men don't exist! LOL.
<quoted text>
LOL. You are so stupid. Are you actually denying gay people exist!?

Judged:

7

7

7

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>An Economics professor applauding a seriously methodologically unsound study, couldn't they find an actual sociologist? Yes dear, there are flaws in the existing studies, their sample bases are small and tend to be unrepresentative of the population of same sex couples with children, but their flaws pale in comparison to that agenda driven nonsense Regenerus pumped out. What you and the author of that piece you badly cut and pasted fail to grasp, is that if the problems that Regenerus claims to exist and at the magnitude he claims, even those small, unrepresentative samples should have stumbled across them. Amazingly, none of the dozens which have been done ever did. If all you have to offer are the lame attempts by others to blow life into a dead horse and childish insults, you really should quit while you're behind.

Judged:

7

6

6

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
I have asked you for years to prove that a higher percentage of straight men prefer anal sex compared to gays and you do nothing but duck and dodge......
Just another of your lies I have caught you spreading like the VD you spread every day......
Post a link to prove that..........LOL
Waiting..........

Judged:

6

6

6

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not claiming anything except you have no litmus test for homosexuality, save self-identification.

Prof Marvel wrote:

You promote the idea that homosexuals are "born" not made, but present nothing to support this.

Prof Marvel wrote:

But prove me wrong.
Give us the litmus test for homosexuality.

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302749...

Judged:

7

7

7

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Quoting from the same silly article as rebuttal to my refutation of it, made sense to you why exactly? It's still the same Economics professor, still doing the same cheer for the same study which still remains seriously methodologically flawed.

Judged:

6

6

6

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
I have asked you for years to prove that a higher percentage of straight men prefer anal sex compared to gays and you do nothing but duck and dodge......
Just another of your lies I have caught you spreading like the VD you spread every day......
Post a link to prove that..........LOL
Waiting..........

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you tricky dicky ricky to be tricky too, and bring up another article by this 'economist' SMILE.
"MercatorNet: Is it possible to create laws which will accommodate both heterosexual and homosexual couples?
I think it is, but not without a cost. Let me first say that there are four major categories of costs and benefits of including any type of couple into marriage. There are costs and benefits of including, and there are costs and benefits of excluding. Most of the debate on gay marriage focus on just one or two of these categories, and as a result there is much confusion. Let me spell them out before answering your question:
Inclusion Benefits: These are the private benefits a couple gains from marriage, plus any social benefits. Most believe that the major social benefit of marriage is a sufficient quantity of high-quality children to perpetuate the society.
Inclusion Costs: Any type of couple that is included into marriage that requires a redefinition of marriage imposes a cost on the existing types of couples. Marriage has been designed for monogamous heterosexual couples. Any change to its institutional structure to accommodate others, must impose costs on the existing marriages. This is the argument of my paper in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.
Exclusion Benefits: Every society has values that pass judgement on various types of unions. Some believe that polygamy is moral, others believe it is immoral. Some believe that gay marriage is good, others believe it is bad. When a type of marriage is excluded, those who believe this type of marriage is wrong benefit. These benefits must be included in the decision to allow the type of couple into the franchise of marriage.
Exclusion Costs: When a type of couple is excluded the benefits they would have achieved in marriage are not realized, and this is a cost. In addition, some clerk somewhere has to be able to tell if a couple should be excluded, and this logistical problem also is a cost."
Please, read the rest of the article here;
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is_i...

Judged:

8

8

8

Days Of Futures Past wrote:

<quoted text>
What? Create laws that will accommodate both gays and heterosexuals? I take it you forgot about the Constitution bird brain! Try reading the 14th amendment again,or for the first time! Separate but equal is not equal,and how about equal treatment under the law? Sorry but Unconstitutional but it doesn't surprise me that you'd post something so idiotic and unamerican! D-U-H!