Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[syrenn]

Marriage is essential to existence and survival because marriage protects survival of the species. Homosexuality does not. Eliminate all men or all women and the species does not survive. Eliminate homosexuals and everyone gets along just fine.

you are joking right?

marriage has nothing to do with the survival of the species.... SEX does.

Have it your way. Sex between a man and a women produce children. No matter how magnificent the sex between two men or two women, they will not have children.

I understand that one of the liberal goals is to destroy the concept of marriage and the family along with it. I"m not disputing that.

Really? .... Far be it from me to correct you... but either of a lesbian couple can produce a child... gay couples both male and female make fabulous loving parents and adoptive parents.

 

[Katzndogz]

You want to get rid of the Supreme Court?

Good luck with that...

Sooner or later the real rioters will riot........

Interesting to see you hate your form of government....

Would you expect something different perhaps?

It's called alienation. The more our goverment becomes an object of dislike, the more we dislike it.

Right up to the point where that government needs the support of the people and we yawn and point to the nearest liberal.

 

[syrenn]

Have it your way. Sex between a man and a women produce children. No matter how magnificent the sex between two men or two women, they will not have children.

I understand that one of the liberal goals is to destroy the concept of marriage and the family along with it. I"m not disputing that.

Yep, you've figured it out. We hate marriage and the concept of family. Damn.

Well this is awkward. Where do we go from here?

Oh you know, all the usual suspects. Plus increasing the shift of parental support of children onto the government as daddy.

I really do not think that this is not going to go away easily. I would expect a serious backlash. Not that I particularly care.

Do tell about this shifting support of children to a government daddy?

Here i though it was unmarried heterosexual women doing that.

 

[Mr.Nick]

It wasn't progressives that crucified Jesus. It was Italians

Jews...

Romans crucified him. The Pharasees saw to it.

Not all Jews are responsible, neither were all Romans because Pilot wanted to free him.

Well, Jesus was considered a heretic and a lunatic...

Both actions lead to his death.

 

[rightwinger]

Jews...

Romans crucified him. The Pharasees saw to it.

Not all Jews are responsible, neither were all Romans because Pilot wanted to free him.

Well, Jesus was considered a heretic and a lunatic...

Both actions lead to his death.

Romans did not take orders from Jews

It was Italians who crucified Jesus

 

[g5000]

The only reason this is an issue is because the federal government involved itself in marriage, and the majority never objected to government involvement. The majority took advantage of the special privileges the government gave to marriage. Tax breaks, inheritance laws, can't be forced to testify against one another, and on and on and on.

We know this is the issue because gay sex is not illegal. Two guys holding hands and kissing in public is not illegal.

So this is a government issue. This is about all those bells and whistles and presents the government gives you for being married.

This is a SECULAR issue.

If it wasn't about all the cash and prizes, no one would give a fuck if two men said they were married. It would not have any effect on anyone else whatsoever that two guys kissing in public doesn't already achieve.

So don't pretend this is some kind of religious issue or anything else.

This is all about the cash and prizes. And since you didn't object to the government getting involved in marriage and making it a secular issue, you can't whine now. Too late.

There are other issues. If one partner ends up in the hospital, for instance. Or who has legal rights to inheritance. I recently lost a bachelor brother who lived with another bachelor brother. There were questions when they were asked...like organ donations and disposition of the remains. The brothers lived together for years, and yet one was not permitted to make free and open decisions about the affairs of the other brother. The courts became involved and now there is a total goat rope scenario...
They were not gay, but that is all beside the issue...but related.

Yes, those are the things I placed under the category of "prizes".

If you look farther back, I first referred to tax breaks and inheritance rights and "legal standing" and so forth and so on. Since I was forced to repeat myself a few times, I shortened everything to "cash and prizes".

 

[Mr.Nick]

It wasn't progressives that crucified Jesus. It was Italians

Jews...

May as well say the "Spanish" committed the inquisition instead of Christians.

 

[Katzndogz]

The only reason this is an issue is because the federal government involved itself in marriage, and the majority never objected to government involvement. The majority took advantage of the special privileges the government gave to marriage. Tax breaks, inheritance laws, can't be forced to testify against one another, and on and on and on.

We know this is the issue because gay sex is not illegal. Two guys holding hands and kissing in public is not illegal.

So this is a government issue. This is about all those bells and whistles and presents the government gives you for being married.

This is a SECULAR issue.

If it wasn't about all the cash and prizes, no one would give a fuck if two men said they were married. It would not have any effect on anyone else whatsoever that two guys kissing in public doesn't already achieve.

So don't pretend this is some kind of religious issue or anything else.

This is all about the cash and prizes. And since you didn't object to the government getting involved in marriage and making it a secular issue, you can't whine now. Too late.

There are other issues. If one partner ends up in the hospital, for instance. Or who has legal rights to inheritance. I recently lost a bachelor brother who lived with another bachelor brother. There were questions when they were asked...like organ donations and disposition of the remains. The brothers lived together for years, and yet one was not permitted to make free and open decisions about the affairs of the other brother. The courts became involved and now there is a total goat rope scenario...
They were not gay, but that is all beside the issue...but related.

Living will
Power of attorney
They should have taken care of these things.

 

[syrenn]

Jews...

May as well say the "Spanish" committed the inquisition instead of Christians.

The spanish did commit the inquisition...It was queen Isabella who asked the permission of the church to purify her country......


and by the way.... you keep not answering a simple question...

do you think heterosexual people feel they have the right to marry?

 

[gallantwarrior]

And if you are worried about the health of a society why would you allow gays to marry? They can NOT BREED at all.

Once again as a society and as a Government we do not test for nor prevent people with KNOWN defects from marrying or breeding, why suddenly is a little in family breeding a problem? I mean after all what would the percentage of siblings marrying be? And what are the chances their offspring would marry and breed with each other?

You have no argument.

Let me go tell our daughter she doesn't exist. Let me go tell all the children of gay couples they don't exist.

You have spoken.

Yeah, I can't wait to tell the five babies I had that they don't exist. I can anticipate my son's response..."does that mean I don't have to go to school?"

Your son's response is predictable. Otherwise, as long as I do not have to pay for your children....

 

[bodecea]

you are joking right?

marriage has nothing to do with the survival of the species.... SEX does.

Have it your way. Sex between a man and a women produce children. No matter how magnificent the sex between two men or two women, they will not have children.

I understand that one of the liberal goals is to destroy the concept of marriage and the family along with it. I"m not disputing that.

Yep, you've figured it out. We hate marriage and the concept of family. Damn.

Well this is awkward. Where do we go from here?

Toaster oven?

 

[Mr.Nick]

May as well say the "Spanish" committed the inquisition instead of Christians.

The spanish did commit the inquisition...It was queen Isabella who asked the permission of the church to purify her country......


and by the way.... you keep not answering a simple question...

do you think heterosexual people feel they have the right to marry?

Marriage is not a government issue....

What I believe is irrelevant...

 

[bodecea]

Have it your way. Sex between a man and a women produce children. No matter how magnificent the sex between two men or two women, they will not have children.

I understand that one of the liberal goals is to destroy the concept of marriage and the family along with it. I"m not disputing that.

Yep, you've figured it out. We hate marriage and the concept of family. Damn.

Well this is awkward. Where do we go from here?

Oh you know, all the usual suspects. Plus increasing the shift of parental support of children onto the government as daddy.

I really do not think that this is not going to go away easily. I would expect a serious backlash. Not that I particularly care.

Yeah. we can tell.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yes we did. Are you saying that if a group is a minority, they just have to suck it up if the majority votes away their civil rights?

OK, I've got no horse in this race, but I am interested in how marriage qualifies as a civil right?

Equal treatment under the law qualifies as a civil right. It's right there in the Constitution.

This apparently needs to be pounded into some heads.

As long as there is some benefit provided for those who are "married" as opposed to those who are not recognized as "married", then there is obviously grounds for argument. If some in a committed relationship are afforded government benefits based on that particular status, then "equal access" is a valid argument.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Romans crucified him. The Pharasees saw to it.

Not all Jews are responsible, neither were all Romans because Pilot wanted to free him.

Well, Jesus was considered a heretic and a lunatic...

Both actions lead to his death.

Romans did not take orders from Jews

It was Italians who crucified Jesus

Jews were behind the entire crucifixion.....

What the fuck is wrong with some of you???

 

[Katzndogz]

you are joking right?

marriage has nothing to do with the survival of the species.... SEX does.

Have it your way. Sex between a man and a women produce children. No matter how magnificent the sex between two men or two women, they will not have children.

I understand that one of the liberal goals is to destroy the concept of marriage and the family along with it. I"m not disputing that.

Really? .... Far be it from me to correct you... but either of a lesbian couple can produce a child... gay couples both male and female make fabulous loving parents and adoptive parents.

You did not pay attention. No same sex couple can have a child without the participation of a third party or parties. Adoptive families do not have the genetic materials of BOTH parents. Do you think that marriage should now be expanded to include a third spouse for child bearing purposes?

Men and women only need a man and a woman.

 

[Mr.Nick]

What the fuck will people say next??? Jesus didn't exist?

 

[syrenn]

May as well say the "Spanish" committed the inquisition instead of Christians.

The spanish did commit the inquisition...It was queen Isabella who asked the permission of the church to purify her country......


and by the way.... you keep not answering a simple question...

do you think heterosexual people feel they have the right to marry?

Marriage is not a government issue....

What I believe is irrelevant...

you are the one calming it is not a right for gay couples to marry..

i am asking you... do you think heterosexuals feel they have the right to marry. Its a simple question, try you best to answer.

 

[g5000]

Marriage is essential to existence and survival because marriage protects survival of the species.

You really should read the ruling. It directly addresses your argument on the first two pages.

 

[Katzndogz]

Next they will start the list of demands.