North Carolina voters approve gay marriage ban

Not to mention Canada....

Nov 23, 2011 – The Canadian Press is reporting that the court will rule today on a case ... The prospect of multiple-partner unions is no longer far-fetched....

Isn't it also ironic that 1 in 20 homosexuals are child molesters who view children as sexual objects while fanning compassion. That's compared to 1 in 474 heterosexuals who molest children.

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
"ironic" no, sad...yes...

Cool Hand Luke wrote:

You keep trying to push those PRO- HOMOSEXUAL websites which are funded in large part by....... Homosexuals.
The definition of marriage is clear and always has been. To many people have been walking on egg shells when it comes to talking about homosexuals, it's time to tell it like it is!
You want normal people to believe that 2 men sticking their penises in each others azzes and then in their mouth is somehow normal! We are supposed to overlook the diseases such as shigellosis from consuming medically significant amounts of feces.The High Aids Rate, not to mention the highest rate of anal cancer,herpes, syphilis and hepatitis.
Aids,started with homosexuals and continues to be spread
by homosexuals. But since you make political contributions to political candidates suddenly your normal and that information is hidden and kept quite..
Obama has really came through for you! What no one is talking about with his health care program the taxpayers will have to pay for the diseases from homosexuality. At last count Aids patients cost taxpayers approximately $300,000 each to care for., yes Obama really came through for you!
It's not over yet, those Christians you have been attacking have had enough and since your dear leader(Obama) has flipped off God and his laws. Lets see how it works out for you!.
<quoted text>

none of what you mention affects me personally in any way.
(and MY God loves everyone, not just heteros)

anneutral wrote:

<quoted text>
none of what you mention affects me personally in any way.
(and MY God loves everyone, not just heteros)

It does affect us taxpayers though.

"Aids patients cost taxpayers approximately $300,000 each to care for"

This is too funny....it all sounds sooooo familiar....

Polyamorists' relationships wrongly targeted: lawyer
The Canadian Press Posted: Apr 14, 2011 9:12 AM

Canada's ban on polygamy unfairly criminalizes healthy relationships involving multiple spouses, a lawyer representing the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association told a special hearing in B.C. Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The group is among several interveners in the landmark constitutional case in B.C., which was prompted by allegations of abuse in the isolated religious sect of Bountiful, B.C.

But the group's lawyer, John Ince, said the shocking stories that have emerged from Bountiful don't reflect the lives of hundreds of polyamorists across Canada,

-------who say their relationships are secular, egalitarian and are part of mainstream society---------.

He said that's why the provincial and federal governments have largely ignored polyamory in the complex discussion of polygamy,

------and have offered no evidence that polyamory causes anyone harm.----

LOL!!!! Where have we heard this before????

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
It does affect us taxpayers though.
"Aids patients cost taxpayers approximately $300,000 each to care for"

surely you don't believe that only gay people get aids.
.
how much does each cancer patient cost the taxpayer?
how about a diabetic?

please provide a link for your stats.

Fitz wrote:

The "conservative" case for same-sex "marriage" is that it will make gay men somehow monogomous.

I don't think it's anyone's "case". It's more like a minor perk. It works for straight guys (to some degree)...

Fitz wrote:

The problem with this is the cultural left dosent really want gays to be monogoous, or straight people for that matter...

Uh... what? Come on. Are you just playing, now? What a strange thing to say.

Fitz wrote:

The other problem are the facts on the ground. Even in the groundswell years after same-sex "marriage" is made legal - only a tiny fraction of gay couples ever wed...& the numbers shrink from there.

That's what happens when a dam breaks. There's a flood, then a trickle. Lots of gay people got married when they became able to, then it's just down to new couples. So?

Fitz wrote:

Also, the divorce rate is remarkably high for both gay men & woman as compared to the normal real married population. This dosent surprise traditionalists because we already know men & women are diffrent (this is one of the reasons we uphold traditional marriage)

Yeah, WE know that men and women are different TOO. Why is there always this assumption that we don't? If we didn't, I guess we'd be bisexual, or something.

Fitz wrote:

But theirs nothing like actuall numbers to demonstrate what a whole lot of absurdity this all is in exchange for a small % of a small % who then divore at huge percentages more than normal people...

This is a new practice, and there's going to be a period of adjustment. Gay people have spent CENTURIES with no role models, no family models, no positive examples of ANY kind. This isn't because there aren't any, or because they aren't possible. It's because they haven't been ALLOWED. It's been the default assumption of "some" people that gays are automatically evil and wicked and depraved and destructive, and that rhetoric has been spread around for FAR too long. Now that we're finally moving to a place where positive and successful gay role models can show their faces, I think we'll see some interesting changes in the gay community over the next few years/decades. We've never had marriage before... is it likely that many of us are going to have difficulties with it? Sure! But as marriage becomes an established availability, as gay people are able to see more and more examples of successful same-sex marriages, we'll see those divorces reduced.

Fitz wrote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/ articles/299944/gay-divorcees- charles-c-w-cooke

I liked where he talked about the various legal options for gay people, pointing out "These variants include marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and reciprocal-beneficiary relationships".

It's nice to have someone call attention to the asinine patchwork of impotent legal mazes we have to deal with.

But where he says "most recent U.S. Census data reveal that, in the last 15 years, only 150,000 same-sex couples have elected to take advantage of them"

The census count only gives an accurate count of gay relationships when one of them can put themselves down as "Person 1". My partner and I weren't counted because of our rental situation.

What's frustrating is that "traditionalism" is aimed at marriage (as if an institution requires more protection than the people who would participate in it), but the "tradition" that I see is that of vilifying gay people. It's always been "tradition" to shun and slander gay people. We've been thrown out of our very FAMILIES just for being gay. Historically, we've been denied jobs and housing, military service, even the safety of walking down the street.

That's changing. DADT has fallen, more and more people realize they KNOW someone who's gay, and that the stereotypes don't hold true. Recognition of our most committed relationships as "marriage" is the next obvious, logical and inevitable step.

anneutral wrote:

<quoted text>
surely you don't believe that only gay people get aids.
.
how much does each cancer patient cost the taxpayer?
how about a diabetic?
please provide a link for your stats.

Nope, and I never claimed they did. Ganted, that SMALL segment of the population are 50% of the new cases

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fast...

I think the AIDS argument is irrelevant to this issue, just pointing out that gay marriage DOES affect all taxpayers.

Sorry, I meant that AIDS does impact all taxpayers.

anneutral wrote:

<quoted text>
(psst, don't tell anyone, but I'm Catholic)

I see...I was just pointing out that this advocacy scholarship has been ignored by main stream scholars and disregarded as B.S.

The way it works is that such scholarship is first published, then awarded prizes & fawned over (for P.C. reasons). Then and only then is it ignored and debunked as a source of real history...

This is the academies way of not letting false history prevail.. But first it needs to fawn over it...but everyone knows...its in the air.

Community Disorganizer wrote:

<quoted text>
What are you going to do, shoot me with your vibrator?

Maybe... LOL

Sawber wrote:

Sorry, I meant that AIDS does impact all taxpayers.

So does christardoism

Since 2003, approx. 15,000 same sex marriages have occured in Canada.

5,000 of them were visiting foreignhomosexuals who came here just to get married.

So that leaves 10,000 Canadian citizens involved in a same sex marriage. It shows homos are not getting married in droves.

Homosexuals just needed the government god to nod his approval. Their next step is having homosexuality taught to young children in sex ed classes.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think it's anyone's "case". It's more like a minor perk. It works for straight guys (to some degree)...
<quoted text>
Uh... what? Come on. Are you just playing, now? What a strange thing to say.
<quoted text>
That's what happens when a dam breaks. There's a flood, then a trickle. Lots of gay people got married when they became able to, then it's just down to new couples. So?
<quoted text>
Yeah, WE know that men and women are different TOO. Why is there always this assumption that we don't? If we didn't, I guess we'd be bisexual, or something.
<quoted text>
This is a new practice, and there's going to be a period of adjustment. Gay people have spent CENTURIES with no role models, no family models, no positive examples of ANY kind. This isn't because there aren't any, or because they aren't possible. It's because they haven't been ALLOWED. It's been the default assumption of "some" people that gays are automatically evil and wicked and depraved and destructive, and that rhetoric has been spread around for FAR too long. Now that we're finally moving to a place where positive and successful gay role models can show their faces, I think we'll see some interesting changes in the gay community over the next few years/decades. We've never had marriage before... is it likely that many of us are going to have difficulties with it? Sure! But as marriage becomes an established availability, as gay people are able to see more and more examples of successful same-sex marriages, we'll see those divorces reduced.
<quoted text>
I liked where he talked about the various legal options for gay people, pointing out "These variants include marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and reciprocal-beneficiary relationships".
.

I see were your coming from Ed...I would just point out a few things.

#1. People on my side talk about how "you guys" think there are no diffrences between men & woman NOT because the average gay man walking down the street dosent think so...but because the "gender left" in the universities...i.e.- the theorists behind this hold onto such notions as dogma... "that all family fors are inherently equel" and ther like...

Indeed ideas like same-sex "marriage" are predicated on such notions & require such a philisophical front in order to advance to this point.

#2. Likewise for my contention that "they dont want monogomy" - The cultural left is against marriage (its archic & patriarchal & font of oppresion)- they genuinly see same-sex "marriage" as a way to weaken all marriages and see this as a good thing.
Just because you dont dosent mean they wont prevail or that you cant admit to this fact.

#3. Your cultural change argument is valid in many ways. However it is an argument that gay marriage will change peoples behavior. When our side forward arguments of this type concerning how this change will hurt marriage we are always met with cat calls that "you cant prove this!" and/or cultural change dosent have any effect on other peoples perception of the insitution and therefore behavior.. You have gay people changing their behavior but many of your allies refuse to believe that straight people will change their behavior because of this change in definition.

anneutral wrote:

<quoted text>
http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574...
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

That's based on the assumption, which is controversal and has been refuted, that the pair were a couple, not "brothers", as in unrelated by blood but bonded through rite and ceremony.

This is a lawyer's quote using ssm to justify incest......

Galluzzo himself weighed in at the readers’ comments section of the Huffington Post article in order to "clarify" his argument. "I did not say that homosexual­ity was the moral equivalent of incest, nor would I," wrote the attorney. "I also did not say that I condone incestuous conduct, nor would I. I do question, however, whether the government has the right to interfere with the private sexual conduct of consenting adults in light of

-----Texas v. Lawrence.----

Imagine that...taking a ruling meant for somethin entirely different than what they are using it for...

Lilith_SatansWhore wrote:

<quoted text>So does christardoism

You are correct. Christians provide all sorts of medical, food, counselling, and housing aid that the gov't then does not have to deal with.

Too bad Atheists aren't very generous...

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
That's based on the assumption, which is controversal and has been refuted, that the pair were a couple, not "brothers", as in unrelated by blood but bonded through rite and ceremony.

"bonded through rite and ceremony"?
you mean like "married"?

(and I know it's been refuted, but has it been PROVEN to be false?)

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
It does affect us taxpayers though.
"Aids patients cost taxpayers approximately $300,000 each to care for"

yeah, see, my God doesn't care about money, just humanity.

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
I see...I was just pointing out that this advocacy scholarship has been ignored by main stream scholars and disregarded as B.S.
The way it works is that such scholarship is first published, then awarded prizes & fawned over (for P.C. reasons). Then and only then is it ignored and debunked as a source of real history...
This is the academies way of not letting false history prevail.. But first it needs to fawn over it...but everyone knows...its in the air.

everything and anything can be refuted.