Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Wat the Tyler wrote:

The following list of heads of states that support marriage equality:
1.) President Barack Obama of the United States
2.) President Francois Hollande of France
3.) King Juan Carlos of Spain
4.) President Anibal Cavaco Silva of Portugal
5.) King Harald V of Norway
6.) Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
7.) Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir of Iceland
8.) Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen of Finland
9.) King Albert II of Belgium
10.) President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina
11.) Prime Minister Sali Berisha of Albania
12.) Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg
13.) Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt of Denmark
14.) Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand
15.) Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom

unfortunately it's mainly just in the western countries.
latin america,africa, the middle east, and asia still have ways to go.
i'm still hoping for the future :D
if i was caught holding hands with my partner in my home country,
i would be judged like crazy or treated like shit.

Gordon Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
Good job on choice of president. Worst economic decline in American history and you want to re-elect him? Nice call moron.

too bad it's going to happen :)
america was already going through an economic decline
before he became elected.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Stop with the amature genetics. You are making yourself look foolish.

Advice on amateur genetics from someone who cannot even spell it. Priceless!

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Yay yaoi XD
Stupid comment for an overly controversial issue. By the way people will continue to do things even after they are banned or unbanned. Just look at prohibition from the 20's. People actually drank more when alchohol was banned. So gay men and women will continue to be so. Just putting it out there.(doubtless some will still comment negatively to this) and to every one please don't stereotype.

culprit89 wrote:

<quoted text>
too bad it's going to happen :)
america was already going through an economic decline
before he became elected.

And all it has done is get worse..........LOL

Home values just dropped again.........

And oslama almost lost in a primary to a convicted and incarcerated felon..........LOL

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
It's hard to ignore a blind sided totally uncalled for insult. I didn't side with anyone. I attempted a joke about two poor dears getting divorced with no man to blame and pay for it all. Perhaps it is you who has difficulty understanding and thus should ignore my (not meant to be unfriendly) posts.

Frank's making even more friends in here it seems.

LOL!!!

Hey Jackasson wrote:

<quoted text>
Bruno!
It's rude to talk about the other tools there in your drawer like that.
But don't worry, you'll allways be the dullest one in it...

The only TOOL the rainbow warrior wants is a massive fist shaped lamp!!!!!!

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, didn't learn it from my father or mother or stepmother.......learned it from my previous relationship with a woman I spent 12 1/2 years......seems I've applied to the right relationship then and now!!!
What I share with my wife, is not the same thing I shared with my partner of 12 1/2 years.....my marriage has a deeper connection to me....and I can see both relationships as for what they brought to my life.

You are right, I've been married to one woman 36 years.

We are clearly talking about different things.

Hey Old Mare wrote:

<quoted text>
You're a man!!!!?
Geezus! I thought you were a bitter old bitty.

Yeh, the lesbian in me like her too.

Don't know where you get the bitter from, and you are confusing wisdom for age and biting comments for bitty.

Smile.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Frank's making even more friends in here it seems.
LOL!!!

I'm not here to make friends. In fact, the more loud mouthed buffoons like you I piss off, the better I like it. For example, who'd want you or Mona Lott as a friend? Would you Dan? Come on, tell the truth. YUK!YUK!YUK!

OK, now it's your turn, where you try to tell me you're not a loud mouthed buffoon and I don't piss you off. YUK!YUK!YUK!

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
All you have to do is read the link that contains the wording of the books that I have posted here for you 100s of times....LOL
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/12/breaking-oba...

Hundreds? I see exaggeration is your forte. The GLSEN book in the first link contains the warning:

GLSEN wrote:

<quoted text>All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content. However, some titles for adolescent readers contain mature themes. We recommend that adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability. The editorial and customer reviews listed at Amazon.com often provide information on mature content.

You have the stench of right wing scare mongering.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right, I've been married to one woman 36 years.
We are clearly talking about different things.

Sorry, but seeing as I've just gotten married for the first time......I look forward to celebrating our years together.

You on the other hand will NEVER truly get this or grasp that a marriage is more than just the difference between a man and a woman.....but that's okay......because you're opinion doesn't really factor into what my wife and I feel about our relationship and our marriage!!!

Hey Old Mare wrote:

<quoted text>
Wisdom!?!
With the rambling crap you post, I was thinking senility.
And if you think your comments are "biting", I'm just going to have to go with senile again.

'clever' response from an old mare....

By the way, I often am referred to as a jackass, we might be related!

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but seeing as I've just gotten married for the first time......I look forward to celebrating our years together.
You on the other hand will NEVER truly get this or grasp that a marriage is more than just the difference between a man and a woman.....but that's okay......because you're opinion doesn't really factor into what my wife and I feel about our relationship and our marriage!!!

I guess you forgot about the differences I noted before;

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.

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why don't we leave it to RnL to decide if I insulted her by telling her I think her marriage is a good thing and I support it and thanking her for her service. OK Miss Busybody?
If she says I did, it's still none of your concern. What are you the manners committee?

You have insult me in the past.....but it matters not because I have no interest in getting into any sort of dialogue with you.......and it is difficult to determine when someone is telling a joke unless you know the person.

I have no issues with you one way or the other and with regards to Bruno.....well, he's just a jerk who needs to believe that all women must have some man tool in order to be satisfied and can't grasp the concept of what Lesbians are.

KiMare wrote:

That's all ya got? Seems that if that list is all ya got.....stop spamming the thread with it!!!

Regardless of what you believe or what you think marriage is about.....it's not a one size fits all......the couple get's to define their marriage.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
That's all ya got? Seems that if that list is all ya got.....stop spamming the thread with it!!!
Regardless of what you believe or what you think marriage is about.....it's not a one size fits all......the couple get's to define their marriage.

If you check your post, you asserted all I had was gender diversity, which by the way is significant enough to distinguish between marriage and gay unions.

But here is another one;

Every single culture in all of known human history have marriage from start to finish.

Gay marriage? Zero (0).

Another;

Marriage reflects the earliest evolutionary roots of human existence. The transition from simple life forms to genders and back again.

SS unions has no such identity except as evidence of a genetic defect.

Want more?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess you forgot about the differences I noted before;
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.

I guess you forgot about the differences I noted before;

If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love then you should be okay with your
heterosexual marriage being outlawed.

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage, then you're a hypocrite
if you think your heterosexual marriage is the only
one entitled to be called marrage.

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage, then you as a heterosexual in
a marriage should be just fine with your rights and benefits
being taken away.

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders then you ignore the
diversity of same sex couples in a world of opposite sex
couples.

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
then you disagree with incest and polygamy.

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no effect you should consider the benefit
of adopting couples in a world with 4 plus million orphans.

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
then you shouldn't be banning and redefining marriages.

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity then
you ignore the fact that hermphoridites are born every day as well
as people with over 20 different conditions that give them the PHYSICAL
characteristics of both genders and have a mind too tiny to imagine
that 5% of the population may in fact be attracted to only the same
gender.

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
then you should be working to ban single parents from adopting
as they do in every state in the Union.

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act, then you should ask yourself if
every sexual attempt that doesn't result in procreation is a
harmful act as the bible describes.

(cont'd)

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess you forgot about the differences I noted before;
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.

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end, then you should ask yourself why
it is that infertile heterosexuals continue to be born.

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest, then you should ask yourself
why, since 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 $ex, you aren't suggesting that all straight
women turn le$bian for the sake of their health and lives. Why the double standard???

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none, you should congratulate yourself that you
aren't so selfish as to have to biologically reproduce in a world with over 4
million orphans.

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people', then you've defined
marriage accurately, two people making a commitment to spend their lives together.

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

AND WE DO.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
If you check your post, you asserted all I had was gender diversity, which by the way is significant enough to distinguish between marriage and gay unions.
But here is another one;
Every single culture in all of known human history have marriage from start to finish.
Gay marriage? Zero (0).
Another;
Marriage reflects the earliest evolutionary roots of human existence. The transition from simple life forms to genders and back again.
SS unions has no such identity except as evidence of a genetic defect.
Want more?

Traditional marriage, at least biblically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...