Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
So things like minority rights and handicapped rights are a violation of equal rights for all, right?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
So things like minority rights and handicapped rights are a violation of equal rights for all, right?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
So SS relationships are simply redundant.
That would be a definite distinction between marriage and gay unions, right?

KiMare wrote:

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 effect
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.

Judged:

2

2

2

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
None of that makes any sense.
A good marriage is BASED on love, and many people want to formalize their marriage legally for a variety of reasons, whether they are gay or straight.
No married couple is required to recognize all committed relationships as a requirement to obtain a marriage license. Just ask straight folks. Very few support incest, child marriages, or polygamy, and yet they are allowed to marry. Gay couples are no different.
Yes, gay people are claiming all of the benefits of marriage. As they should. Loving your family makes folks do things like that.
No one is "redundant" in a marriage. Everyone is different, and brings different strengths and weaknesses to the union.
Civil marriage is unrelated to the religious idea of marriage, for legal purposes. Many Christian denominations, however, have no issue with marrying gay couples.
Marriage is a building block of society because it supports stronger and more secure families, and having MORE secure families will only strengthen society. The plumbing of those involved isn't an issue.
No one is asking for any change in "crucial distinctions". Just the right to have one's family legally recognized. It happens all the time.
We already answered the "redundant sexuality" one. Trying to word it in a different way to increase the length of your argument is illogical.
No one denies a child parents by becoming a caring parent, and there is ample evidence that having married parents is better for kids. Can you prove that having forcible unmarried parents is better for kids? Provide stats and studies, please. There is also ample evidence that gay couples are just as successful at raising great kids as straight couples are.
Gay people and straight people engage in the same sexual acts. Please explain why you are only concerned when you imagine gay folks having sex? Do you ask your straight friends is they enjoy any types of sex that are non-procreative? Do you support their marriages if they do?
If those who do not procreate should not be allowed to marry because they are a "genetic dead end", please explain, in detail, why infertile and elderly couples are allowed to wed.
Why is marriage healthy for straight people but not healthy for gay couples?
The "sole birthplace" one doesn't make enough sense. Can you reword it in english?
The bottom line is that anyone who marriage and family life should logically support it for gay folks for all of the same reasons that straight folks engage in it.

Judged:

2

2

2

Wat the Tyler wrote:

<quoted text>
why would a gay guy want to be married in a Christian church in the first place?

Judged:

2

2

2

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
According to the CDC, as of 2005, they knew of not one single case of le$bain to le$bian transmitted HIV and well over 200,000 cases of women who contracted HIV through heterosexual $ex, yet for some reason, the bigots aren't on here suggesting that all straight women turn le$bian for the sake of their health and lives. Why the double standard???

RiccardoFire wrote:

He most likely will not, but the potential to be a member of a Church, then sue to obtain a large sum of money might be. pull your head out of obama for a minute and figure it out.

Judged:

3

2

2

RiccardoFire wrote:

Men having sex with men is not good for your health.

Judged:

3

3

3

Here Is One wrote:

There is no proof that you are just not a pervert......

Here Is One wrote:

There is no proof that you were born that way......

Here Is One wrote:

But if proof is ever found by definition it will be a defect in your brain........

Here Is One wrote:

Then we can treat it........

Judged:

3

3

3

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>He most likely will not, but the potential to be a member of a Church, then sue to obtain a large sum of money might be. pull your head out of obama for a minute and figure it out.

Judged:

3

3

3

Rational Adult wrote:

<quoted text>Take your queer butt back to the Nettie thread so Seen, can continue to whip it, gaywonder. I love the fact that you are a gay queer, it suits you.
Yes, gay puke, the federal law is DOMA and it says that homosexuality is not a protected or suspect class.
We do not have segregation in Alabama because of the 14th Amendment and it took Blacks over 100 years after they were given the right to gain the right.

Judged:

3

3

3

Rational Adult wrote:

Judged:

2

2

2

lides wrote:

And the relevance of this mindless quip is, what exactly?
Here Is One wrote, "There is no proof that you were born that way...... "

As I have said, nature vs nurture is irrelevant to equal protection of the law. Your argument is utterly witless, and what is more, even if it were relevant, you lack the capacity to back it with fact.
Here Is One wrote, "But if proof is ever found by definition it will be a defect in your brain........ "

There is solid proof that you lack the capacity to support your position with facts, or to indicate its relevance to the topic at hand. It appears that you only continue to post to further illustrate your own incompetence.
Here Is One wrote, "Then we can treat it........"

You havenÂ’t even proven your juvenile assertion yet.

Judged:

2

2

2

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>Actually gay men who are living in denial married to women (or who run and hide in the Priesthood) have stunted $exual attractions to children because they repressed their $exuality so that it didn't develop normally - they are high risk for molesting children.

To the extent which someone represses their $exuality, there will be a proportional lack of age progression in their $exual attractions. To the extent which someone represses their $exuality, there will be a proportional increase in obsession with their $exuality. Common sense Modern Psychology works much better than the bible.

More symptoms of the underlying problem - people who get their information about $ex education from a 2000 year old Middle Eastern desert tribe that clearly didn't even understand basic human rights. It's time for this to stop. There's a reason it's so prevalent in fundamentalist atmospheres like the Roman Catholic, Baptist and Mormon Churches.

Judged:

2

2

2

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>If being gay really is a choice, then where are all the homosexuals that figured out how to choose to be straight again? Or maybe even at least some gays turned bisexual by being able to develop genuine attraction to the opposite $ex - who are now faithfully in an opposite $ex relationship? Why aren't they ever on here telling us how they did it?

Judged:

2

2

2

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
what I said is that there is no proof it is not a choice
If there was proof it would be a defect in your brain and that we could fix.......LOL

Judged:

3

3

3

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
sounds to me line we need to build more prisons then

Judged:

3

3

3

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>The current court will likely approve gay marriage if they address it since Roberts has a history of doing consulting work for gay rights groups showing them how they can win cases based on Constitutional Law. At least GW did something good for us.

Judged:

4

4

4

Bruno wrote:

Why chose the word "Gay" to describe a queer?

Queer or Odd would be more appropriate.