Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Rational Adult wrote:

<quoted text>Well, he did beat his wife, then he had sex with his 3 month old son. When the son turned 10, he made the son be gay and beat the boy until he agreed to enjoy it.
All the gays are trolls, they do not want to discuss the issue, because they have no legal support for gays breathing outside a closet.
They lied about Matthew Shepard and called it a hate crime, when gay Matt was killed by McKinney who was Matt's gay lover.

Post your source.

Silent Assassinat wrote:

95% of the Catholic priest molestations were homosexuals and you do not understand or care why.

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.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I think immorality by any orientation has negative consequences. Does that make me a bigot?
How does your argument work if you compare moral lifestyles to immoral?
Just to save time, when I say immorality, I mean a simple, non-religious,'do no harm' morality.

It depends on your definition of immoral.

For some on this thread, is it completely moral for a man and a woman to fall in love, marry, and form a family. And it is completely immoral for a gay couple to fall in love, marry, and form a family.

How is this logical, then an action is moral for some, but immoral for others, with everything being equal--when the ONLY difference is a simple and harmless natural trait?

So, yes, if a person proposes legal and civil discrimination against moral acts committed by people who share a natural trait that harms no one, they would be a bigot.

By definition.

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah, the stats from Hospitals from around the world all are getting together to make up stats about gay men..LOL!!!!

Post your source from these Hospitals around the world.

Rational Adult wrote:

<quoted text>So, your dad screwed you in the butt on Saturdays and in the mouth on Sundays. Your dad beat the fat lard off your mom, then beat your meat so that is why you think it is normal.
Proof again, all gays come from vile and abusive homes where your dad beat your mom and your mom sucked your 2 in. weenie and said good boy it will grow some day.....

Why is it the antigays that make the graphic homosexual and incestual sexual comments???

RiccardoFire wrote:

And just wait for the gay boy that will sue the Church for not allowing his ceremony at the Church. The Church will be forced to have gay weddings.

Churches right now aren't forced to perform interracial marriages if it's against their beliefs, as long as they're consistent with it. So that's a non argument.

Silent Assassinat wrote:

<quoted text>Your BULLCRAP gay bias crap is what does not fly.
Here is the source:http://www.theroadtoemm aus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/S tatsSdmy.htm
Not an anti-gay site, so cram yourself gay ride.
MEN:
- A 1997 study in British Columbia found the life expectancy of men who engage in sodomy to be comparable to that of the average Canadian man in 1871. Researchers estimate that nearly half of the 20 year old men currently engaging in sodomy will not reach their 65th birthday.1
- Ninety-five percent or more of the AIDS infections among gay men result from receptive anal intercourse.2
- The risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive. A Michigan homosexual newspaper admits there is no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this "soaring" cancer risk. Condoms offer only limited protection.3
- Homosexual men face a significantly higher risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices.4
- Men who engage in sodomy are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who commit acts of sodomy with men have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs. Control of STDs is a central component of HIV infection prevention in the United States; resurgence of bacterial STDs threatens national HIV infection prevention efforts.5
- Anal Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection is nearly universal among HIV-positive homosexual or bisexual men and about 60% in HIV-negative men exhibiting the same sexual behavior.6

Erased the space in your link and it still said "URL not found." Why am I not surprised?

Silent Assassinat wrote:

<quoted text>Your BULLCRAP gay bias crap is what does not fly.
Here is the source:http://www.theroadtoemm aus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/S tatsSdmy.htm
Not an anti-gay site, so cram yourself gay ride.
MEN:
- A 1997 study in British Columbia found the life expectancy of men who engage in sodomy to be comparable to that of the average Canadian man in 1871. Researchers estimate that nearly half of the 20 year old men currently engaging in sodomy will not reach their 65th birthday.1
- Ninety-five percent or more of the AIDS infections among gay men result from receptive anal intercourse.2
- The risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive. A Michigan homosexual newspaper admits there is no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this "soaring" cancer risk. Condoms offer only limited protection.3
- Homosexual men face a significantly higher risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices.4
- Men who engage in sodomy are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who commit acts of sodomy with men have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs. Control of STDs is a central component of HIV infection prevention in the United States; resurgence of bacterial STDs threatens national HIV infection prevention efforts.5
- Anal Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection is nearly universal among HIV-positive homosexual or bisexual men and about 60% in HIV-negative men exhibiting the same sexual behavior.6

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???

thisGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
BINGO!!!
This is precisely why I'm glad sodomites are not allowed to donate blood. Their AIDS/HIV, Herpes B, Syphilis, & Gonorrhea would contaminate our blood that is used to save life. But no thanks to the repelling of DADT, that may all change. Our military will be the first to suffer with the Gay Plague

Gays aren't allowed to donate blood because the screening isn't 100% accurate and allowing gay donations will result in and average of 10.6 HIV infections in the US annually as opposed to 7.2 without gay donations.

thisGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
BINGO!!!
This is precisely why I'm glad sodomites are not allowed to donate blood. Their AIDS/HIV, Herpes B, Syphilis, & Gonorrhea would contaminate our blood that is used to save life. But no thanks to the repelling of DADT, that may all change. Our military will be the first to suffer with the Gay Plague

So your gay plague theory is nothing but fear-mongering hysteria.

Rational Adult wrote:

<quoted text>No, bisexuals are at least half normal. Gays are completed screwed and were abused to the max.
If you chart the sexual deviancy brain factor in both homosexuals and pedophiles, you will find no difference.

"Sexual deviancy brain factor" LOL. Please explain that one and post a source, LOL.

Meanwhile, please educate yourself by reading ANY book titled "Human $exuality" by ANY author. It will clearly describe the SEVEN major differences between paraphilias and $exual orientations.

1. Paraphilias exist on top of one's $exual orientation. If homosexuality was a paraphilia there would be no homosexuals, only bisexuals (heteros with a homosexual paraphilia)

2. Most paraphilias are harmful and involve a victim.

3. Paraphilias by their nature are usually more situation based than object based.

4. Most paraphilias are harmful to the individual who has it, having associated character disorders, boundary issues that pervade other areas of the afflicted's life, and associated pathologies.

5. Paraphilias are treatable and have been shown to change in plethysmograph testing.$exual orientations have never been shown to change.

6. Paraphilias arise at different times in a person's life.$exual orientation always presents in puberty.

7. Paraphilias always have an identifiable cause.$exual orientations do not ever have any identifiable cause.

Rational Adult wrote:

<quoted text>You're an idiot and a liar. Often information is found on many sites, fool. You are gay, so you are sick and wrong.
Nobody has to provide a link to anything.
You see, you were born gay, as you say, so no facts, sources, links or a consensus from 100% of all doctors will change your vile filthy perversion and that is because you have chosen the filth.

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?

Bill Of Rights wrote:

<quoted text>
Never happened,remember when that mouth is open! LOL,To bad that Alzheimer's is finally catching up to you dic head! The Mods are the one's who read the posts and then delete them so blame them! Apparently you've had a lot of them removed but don't blame me,look unto thy self! Prove it or STFU! And whats with the creepy stalking of people eh,did you do that to the X-wifey?

You open your pie hole and the lies pour out Old SniffsButt. YUK!YUK!YUK! You get your little feelings hurt and you are too stupid to respond intelligently so you lie.

Now tell us about your Bronze Star you said you were awarded in Vietnam. "V" for valor? When and why were you awarded it "Proud Vietnam Vet"? You once bragged about it here. Why so humble now?

Can't wait for your ad hominens, they're amusing but of course just a cover for your lack of any substance or cohesive argument. But I think this is one of those posts you won't even try to respond to. We'll see. YUK!YUK!YUK!

Rational Adult wrote:

<quoted text>Hi Black Rose T-H, your information comes from NAMBLA and a child abuse site.
This is where he got his information from and the source of it, gay fool:
1. International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-661, "Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men."

Yeah I'm sure that journal is sitting on your shelf. Wrong. You found that reference on the internet, BUT FOR SOME REASON you don't want to post the link, LOL.

Why do straight men want their straight wives to "go down" on them? I am not sure just what that means, but it sounds like what homosexuals do to each other.

Rational Adult wrote:

<quoted text>Oh, gay queer, no, you gay pukes whine to the mods and then a post goes poof.
The only dick head is your dad and he dicked your butt. Your sorry gay butt is posting gray boxed, so I guess you have had a lot of your posts removed, gay puke.
No, your dad stalked you when you were 3 months old, James, and he dicked you until you turned gay. As Rose, she had the same dad and so did Mess Whitewater.

Amazing how it's the anti gays that post the gay graphic sexual comments.

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.

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.

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
Amazing how it's the anti gays that post the gay graphic sexual comments.

I have called them on it time and time again, with no answer.

It's creepy, really.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I think immorality by any orientation has negative consequences. Does that make me a bigot?
How does your argument work if you compare moral lifestyles to immoral?
Just to save time, when I say immorality, I mean a simple, non-religious,'do no harm' morality.

Risk groups for HIV from high to low:

1. Male homosexuals.
2. Female heterosexuals.
3. Male heterosexuals.
4. Female homosexuals.

Does that fit in with your morality?

KiMare wrote:

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

Where did I say same sex relationships are redundant? How could you possibly get that out of what I posted??? I was comparing sexual attraction in the genders, not even making a comparison between gays and straights.