Teaching Gay History in California

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Then the court refused to admit evidence to answer the question. Simple economics, if there is so much available and it is split by a wider population, how much less does the original group get? If the government just prints money to pay for same sex "spouse" fertility treatment, where does it all end?
Same sex marriage is sci fi love, we have a definition for everyone, homosexuals marry all the time, there is no orientation test for a marriage license. How much harm does polygamy do your marriage and does that change it's morality under law?
The Court's new mascot got a rewrite of California law, thanks to imagination and sympathy. That's not justice.

Stupid, "gay marriage" and "same sex marriage" are two terms for the same thing. Are you really so stupid you don't know that? You are a fundie, so, you could just be that stupid.

And, like most homophobes, you argue out of both sides of your mouth.
Since gay people marry, why not let them marry members of the same sex?
Fk you.

Ahs B like yalls gotz 2 feal sory 4 dem pour whit chiles bean taut all dat crasy stuf bout how nice butt sex Bs. Dey shood B teechin dem howz 2 reed n writ n do sum rifmatic. Dats wat ah wuz taut N louck at me yall.

Why are you so insecure with your own sexuality, religion and marriage that you can't withstand same sex marriage. Is your own (we assume) marriage, sexuality and religion that weak?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>I believe in writing truth, nobody can stop me. Violence is always wrong, except in self defense. Gays and heterosexuals unite against the Islamist fiends of the Third World. Marriage is insignificant compared to life, everyone lives but not everyone will marry.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
There was no vote, democracy had nothing to do with it.

Hello Rose. How are you?

TomInElPaso wrote:

Why are you so insecure with your own sexuality, religion and marriage that you can't withstand same sex marriage. Is your own (we assume) marriage, sexuality and religion that weak?
<quoted text>

I have asked Brian the same thing.

There is only marriage.

The issue is who participates.

GodSmacked wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello Rose. How are you?

Doin' good.
How about you?
:)

How about we teach American history and the US constitution from start to finish?

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Doin' good.
How about you?
:)

I am having a great time tonight. Hope you will stop in the GLBT cafe.

Rob- West Michigan wrote:

How about we teach American history and the US constitution from start to finish?

The WHOLE THING???

These kids aren't disciplined enough to learn the Cliff Notes versions!

It requires reading AND considering something longer than a twitter.

GodSmacked wrote:

Brian it is justice to protect a minority in society from hypocritical laws that unjustly segregates them from society with binding laws. This is what our country is built on and what our armed forces have fought for.

It is justice to protect everyone from government intrusion and tyranny, we write our laws and courts apply them. Creating a new mascot protected class just creates more problems, division instead of compromise.

Is marriage a one size fits all cure the court can apply to all political demands? Singles are losing political power while government grows. In divorcing a child's right to live with mom and dad with marriage; we have a new social problem waiting in the future, against all children.

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not an issue, no, but it IS slightly germaine to the discussion.
Remember, included in U.S. history instruction is discussion of the founding of the Utopian movements of the 1800s, one of which were the Mormons. Their history is included and they were polygamists throughout the beginning of their subculture, and that part of their culture impacted Deserat's relations with the U.S. Government and Utah's status as Territory and State.
I mention this because Mormon participation and contributions to the History of the United States is not in question ... and they were nothing if not an alternative "lifestyle".

damn... with or without polygamy it's STILL an alternative lifestyle.

Rob- West Michigan wrote:

How about we teach American history and the US constitution from start to finish?

which version, the truth, or what's usually taught in school?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>It is justice to protect everyone from government intrusion and tyranny, we write our laws and courts apply them. Creating a new mascot protected class just creates more problems, division instead of compromise.
Is marriage a one size fits all cure the court can apply to all political demands? Singles are losing political power while government grows. In divorcing a child's right to live with mom and dad with marriage; we have a new social problem waiting in the future, against all children.

Brian, what new social problems are waiting in the future? Has allowing openly gay people in the military had any negative affect?

Brian, this post is very similar to what Hitler said and did during his time and history has shown the injustices supreme rule does to a society that lacks barriers to protect its minorities.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>It is justice to protect everyone from government intrusion and tyranny, we write our laws and courts apply them. Creating a new mascot protected class just creates more problems, division instead of compromise.
Is marriage a one size fits all cure the court can apply to all political demands? Singles are losing political power while government grows. In divorcing a child's right to live with mom and dad with marriage; we have a new social problem waiting in the future, against all children.

Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

Even were the "normal" community to accept revolutionary controlled Government's concept that "marriage" includes two or more persons of the same sex, where does that leave we dog lovers?

Speaking on behalf of my fellow dog lovers, I must say we are getting tired of all the Canineophobia that is being directed towards us by extremist religionists within the straight-laced canineophobic community.

In view of all the hard earned taxpayer money Government is using to murder our honeys in taxpayer funded Government dog pounds, shouldn't the "definition" of "marriage" include two or more persons of either sex, along with two or more of their four footed honeys who offer their unconditional love?

Since the revolution, America has come a long way. We still have a long way to go. Let us unite with our Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and their "Black" compatriots to DEMAND equality for dog lovers and their honeys under high-paid agenda driven Government judge enforced revolutionary Government LAW.

The progressive notion that our Republican "friends" established when they inflicted their gender confusing 14th Amendment dictate will mean nothing until our honeys are able to enjoy the same constitutional RIGHTS as our Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and their "Black" pals enjoy.

Ronald

Its starting already. The canineophobes are escalating their ungodly war against we dog lovers and our honeys. Killing our honeys in taxpayer funded Government dog pounds is bad enough, but I fear this is merely the first small step towards planned genocide. Isn't it about time the "normals" stop their H8ate?

Source: http://goo.gl/XyziJ

Ronald

GodSmacked wrote:

Brian, what new social problems are waiting in the future?

Let me start with my top five:

How will same sex marriage affect posterity? Will it reduce population?
How will same sex marriage affect gender role differences?
How will backlash affect gays? Will there be scapegoating?
Will new speech codes affirm new marriage equality? What power will be used?
How will the court suffer for ignoring voter will, what will it do to our democracy?
What happens when courts define cultural taboo?
.

GodSmacked wrote:

Has allowing openly gay people in the military had any negative affect?

Obama's personnel cuts have more negative affects. I'm tired of treating our heroes as social experimental subjects.

.

GodSmacked wrote:

Brian, this post is very similar to what Hitler said and did during his time and history has shown the injustices supreme rule does to a society that lacks barriers to protect its minorities.

Godwin's law? There is a difference between protecting minorities and patronizing them.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text> .
.
<quoted text>Godwin's law? There is a difference between protecting minorities and patronizing them.

Brian, how would this be patronizing gay's? The rest of your post I have responded to numerous times and don't see the need to do it again.