Ok...so how is two gays getting married your business?[/QUOTE]

Marriage is an institution and fundemental aspect of civilised
society.Like I said,Gays are selfish.They want to Redefine Marriage
to accomodate their Lifestyle.No one is trying to stop Gays
from living together.But,yes,they have NO right to tamper
with the definition and societal import of Marriage.
I could say,Shame on you Gays.
But,that's half of what they live for.To parade a lifestyle
and demonstrate their Shamelessness.

Vile's point is that people used the exact same arguments when arguing against interracial marriage. "If no one can marry outside their race, then the law is fair." Even though this law was evenly applied across all races, the courts eventually ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it denied the right of marriage between two consenting adults based on this arbitrary difference.

They even used naturalistic arguments to oppose interracial marriages by pointing to how in the natural world like reproduces with like, and that the law should enforce that in human behavior. This argument was also disregarded.

While the arguments against gay marriage are not exactly the same, there's a common thread.

Finally, Trav, again, just because something is abnormal, doesn't mean it is unnatural or wrong. It's just different.

Outlawing interracial marriage is discrimination.It was wrong.
It was discrimination.We have discrimination laws on the books.
Banning Gay Marriage is not discrimination.Because same sex was never
lawfull for a Marriage.Again,look up the definition of Marriage.
It's very simple.
You are arguing apples & oranges.
Gays apparently have a huge problem with understanding gender.
But ... wait.Doesn't being Gay,mean that they favor one gender
{their own } to the exclusion of another.
There ... I just Proved Gays are both Seflish and discriminating.
Gays discriminate against the other gender.

Anyone else find the above post ironic?

Anyone else find the above post ironic?

Yes, plus a whole lot of other adjectives.

I really don't want to engage you in debate,because you haven't
the necessary tools.Yer blatantly dim-witted.

There you go again with the "I don't have a good response, so I'll result to name calling" tactic. Classic sign that you are losing the argument. Go ahead, throw in the towel.


People are born with many,many things in life,they later
choose to change.Their hair color.Their teeth.
Maybe a nose job.

And many things they can't change. Their height, eye color, sexual attraction (speaking for myself).

Gays DO choose their Lifestyle.They are NOT Born gay.
Influences and contacts and curiosity in their upbringing,is what
can translate into that lifestyle.


So which is it...a "choice" or the way they were "influenced" as they were raised? Those are 2 different things.

I can be attracted to Mary Jane Rottencrotch,all thru
Junior high.That means nothing.

YES IT DOES!!! IT MEANS YOU'RE STRAIGHT!!! If you're attracted to Mary Jane and not Marty John, then you are straight (assuming you are male). How hard is that to understand?

Here is a question that I challenge all straight people to answer. Between the time you first found yourself attracted to the opposite sex and the time you lost your virginity...were you straight? For me the answer is yes.

what seperates a straight person froma gay person? What is the difference? It is how they behave.


NO. Its what they desire! Two guys left on an island for 10 years will eventually do "something" - as seen in prison. Does it mean they are gay? Because once they are off the island or out of prison, they will probably never have a gay experience again.

In fact most gay people, when they realize they are gay (maybe in their teens), they actually hate themselves and go through a very rough emotional stage because it is frowned upon by our current society. That is why in their little world they consider it very strong when someone "comes out of the closet" - or declares to the world that they are gay. I actually feel sorry for these people.

Now I do get really annoyed with OVERLY flamboyant gay people who bring it up all the time. I have said many times to these types "hey look, we know you are gay and I am straight, now let's talk about some other fun stuff!!"

I don't buy into this crap about it being a "lifestyle" or a "choice". I haven't met a gay yet who hasn't said he would be straight if he had a choice.

I haven't met a gay yet who hasn't said he would be straight if he had a choice.
Ooooh, I was mostly with you up to here, but your bullpen blew the game in the bottom of the ninth. I haven't met a gay person in my life who has said that he'd take a magic pill that'd turn him straight. What kind of self-hating people do you hang around?

Here is a question that I challenge all straight people to answer. Between the time you first found yourself attracted to the opposite sex and the time you lost your virginity...were you straight? For me the answer is yes.[/QUOTE]

At exactly what point in yer life did you establish {project}
that notion.? Was it before of after you felt a sex urge.
Because all one has to do,Like Sigmund Freud pointed out
during his era,and was rudely scoffed at,was Infancy
and the sex urge.
So,you wanna go on record as saying You and other male
Homosexuals had NO attraction for yer Mommy,or her
nipple,then.Would you have Pics to verify this.That you screamed
and turned away from yer own mother's milk.
You loutish little livered lackey.

Ooooh, I was mostly with you up to here, but your bullpen blew the game in the bottom of the ninth. I haven't met a gay person in my life who has said that he'd take a magic pill that'd turn him straight. What kind of self-hating people do you hang around?

Which is all the proof necessary,and from yer own words to
Prove,once and for all,like the Global Warming Hoax,that Gays
are full of shit.They CHOOSE,and are NOT BORN into Homosexuality.
Because if a Gay,truly loathed their unwanted lifestyle,thrust
upon them,they would as many an abortion Mom,take a pill.
You really stepped in it this time thar Bubba boy.
You are trying to have it both ways.
Insist that a Gay lifestyle is perfectly acceptable,maybe even
due added respect,in this current PC climate.
And also that Gays have No Choice.They were born Gay.
Then onto the absurd logic that given those 2 circumstances,
No respectable Gay should or would,even if afforrded an option,
turn tail on their Gayness and go straight.
Face it Pally.Gays choose that Lifestyle.Are proud and boastfull
of it and are willing to con,even themselves in order to propagate
it's continuation.Even at the expense of negatively impacting the
young in our Society.
Gays have a lifespan,half that of straights.
Need I go on.

I don't buy into this crap about it being a "lifestyle" or a "choice". I haven't met a gay yet who hasn't said he would be straight if he had a choice.[/QUOTE]

yeah...yeah...yeah !!! All well and good and sheer poppycock.

yeah...yeah...yeah !!! All well and good and sheer poppycock.
That one [homosexual] you haven't met,happens to be Borg,who just
disagree'd wholeheartedly with that ASSessment.
If you're wanting to be banned, you're on track for it right about now.

Gays have a lifespan,half that of straights.


Where do you learn such nonsense?

Where do you learn such nonsense?
He appears to be exaggerating a legitimate study that states, in part, "life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men." http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499

P.S. Freud is bunk.

Sexuality is not something that's set in stone, especially considering the amount of repression associated with the topic, whether you're straight or gay. I grew up in a pretty tolerant atmosphere, and all the gay people I've known are very happy, well-adjusted, nice people. People only feel that angst and self loathing when they're in a social environment that rejects them.

Besides, pushing aside this ridiculous idea of the "long and sacred tradition of marriage," how does gay marriage affect you personally? No one's forcing you into a homosexual partnership. No one's even making you attend the wedding. These couples just want the same rights and protections that all other couples receive under the law.

These couples just want the same rights and protections that all other couples receive under the law.

This is the crux of the matter, and the most difficult aspect of the topic for most people to address. A lot of people will say, "sure they should be allowed to get married and enjoy the same legal protections, but...."

So,you wanna go on record as saying You and other male
Homosexuals had NO attraction for yer Mommy,or her
nipple,then.Would you have Pics to verify this.That you screamed
and turned away from yer own mother's milk.
You loutish little livered lackey.

Wait a minute, so you're saying that babies breast feed because they're sexually attracted to their mothers? Does that make my daughters lesbians?

Wait a minute, so you're saying that babies breast feed because they're sexually attracted to their mothers? Does that make my daughters lesbians?
Giggity.

P.S. Freud is bunk.

Sexuality is not something that's set in stone, especially considering the amount of repression associated with the topic, whether you're straight or gay. I grew up in a pretty tolerant atmosphere, and all the gay people I've known are very happy, well-adjusted, nice people. People only feel that angst and self loathing when they're in a social environment that rejects them.

Besides, pushing aside this ridiculous idea of the "long and sacred tradition of marriage," how does gay marriage affect you personally? No one's forcing you into a homosexual partnership. No one's even making you attend the wedding. These couples just want the same rights and protections that all other couples receive under the law.

Yay >>w/o doubt the gay community is most definately workin
overtime to convince America that " Marriage " as stands,is
not up to their standards.

Bwa Haa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Where do you learn such nonsense?

Median age of death for the homosexuals was less than 45,with
only 2% living past 65,while the median age for the regular
population was over 70,with more than 60% living past 65.
60% vs. 2%.
According to Family Research Institute.
Not good news for Homosexuals.

According to Family Research Institute.
Since this is the news section and not the politics section...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/emmamoonpotter/epic_fail.jpg

American financial advisor,writer and television personality.
Her catch phrases are -- " Self-worth equals net worth."
and " People first,then money,then things ".
Orman told the New York Times magazine in Feburary 2007 that
she is a lesbian.Her partner of 7 years is Kathy Travis,a co-producer of
The Suze Orman Show.In the interview, Orman said she wishes she
could marry her partner,partly because it would save them both a
lot of money.She then says," It's killing me that upon death,K.T. is
going to lose 50 percent of everything I have to estate taxes.Or vice
versa."
That last part is due entirely to Liberal Democrats.
Think about it.

I think my question is being ignored.

I think my question is being ignored.

Sigmund Freud gained both notoriety and then acclaim for
his revolutionary diagnosis that Infants do,in fact,demonstrate
a sex urge.When an infant both latches on then becomes very
dependent on a Mother's nipple,it has much to do with the
pleasure factor.Not much different,from sex urges,in later life.
Is all.

When an infant both latches on then becomes very
dependent on a Mother's nipple,it has much to do with the
pleasure factor.Not much different,from sex urges,in later life.
Is all.
So you're saying that all infant girls are lesbians.

And here I thought that my 3 daughters were latching on because they were hungry.

Actually, Freud said that young children naturally fend off their own sex of parent in favor of the opposite... young males bide for attention from the mother, and young females do the same for the father.

Freud was a bit of a loon if you ask me. I was always far more attached to my mother as a child. (Although to be fair, I realized at a very young age that both my parents are completely insane.)

Ooooh, I was mostly with you up to here, but your bullpen blew the game in the bottom of the ninth. I haven't met a gay person in my life who has said that he'd take a magic pill that'd turn him straight. What kind of self-hating people do you hang around?

I think at some point in their life they hated it. Then as anything else in life, you learn to love it and make that thing yours...

Actually, Freud said that young children naturally fend off their own sex of parent in favor of the opposite... young males bide for attention from the mother, and young females do the same for the father.

You are in Neglect of the Infantile Factor.One feature of the popular
view of the sexual instinct is that it is absent in childhood and only
awakens in the period of life described as puberty." This,however,is
not merely a simple error but one that has had grave consequences,for it is
mainly to this idea that we owe our present ignorance of the fundemental
conditions of sexual life."
" There seems no doubt that germs of sexual impulses are already present
in the new-born child and that these continue to develop
for a time,but are then overtaken by a progressive process of suppression.
It seems that the sexual life of children usually emerges in a form
accesible to obversation round about the third or fourth year of life.
It is during this period of total or only partial LATENCY that are built
up the mental forces which are later to impede the course of the sexual
instinct and,like dams,restrict it's flow -- disgust,feelings of shame and
the claims of asthetic and moral ideals.One gets an impression from
civilized children that the construction of these dams is a product of
education,and no doubt education has much to do with it. "

-- The Freud Reader

Foolsworth, you failed to answer my question so I'll answer it for you. Between the time you hit puberty and the time you had your first sexual experience, you were straight.


At exactly what point in yer life did you establish {project}
that notion.?

Around the age of 12 or 13.


So,you wanna go on record as saying You and other male
Homosexuals had NO attraction for yer Mommy,or her
nipple,then.

If you'd trying paying attention you'd have seen that I am straight.


Was it before of after you felt a sex urge.
Because all one has to do,Like Sigmund Freud pointed out
during his era,and was rudely scoffed at,was Infancy
and the sex urge.
So,you wanna go on record as saying You and other male
Homosexuals had NO attraction for yer Mommy,or her
nipple,then.Would you have Pics to verify this.That you screamed
and turned away from yer own mother's milk.

So you've seen Freud's pics to see if he was sexually attracted to his mother's nipple? No one knows if an infant feels sexual attraction at that age (including Freud). I most likely turned to my Mother's nipple because I was HUNGRY. I'm not talking about some random sexual feelings we might have as infants. I'm talking about when you actually knew which gender turned you on.


You loutish little livered lackey.

Nice. Yet another sign that you are losing the argument.

Lets put the pieces of the puzzle together. In claiming that sexuality is a "choice" or "learned", some have said that a person's sexuality is defined by actions and NOT defined by who they are attracted to. They've even tried claiming that a person is not gay or straight until they actually take part in the act, even though they find themselves attracted to one gender over the other.

Now, religious people will tell you that the main reason we are put on this earth is to create new life. Travh even said something similar when he said
"All life is about sustaining itself.". I believe this means that when God created humans he intended to give us the desire to be aroused by the opposite sex (so we would want to have procreate and so we would be aroused enough to make it happen). In fact, many have called this "natural" and on the flip side they've called homosexuality "unnatural".

So, for those who believe that a person is not straight until they have their first sex act, you would be saying that God did not instill you with the desire to be straight. Your claim would have to be that God made everyone Asexual and we all just had to "learn" or "choose" to be attracted to the opposite sex. In other words, God didn't make you straight, you made yourself straight. Which means the words "natural" and "unnatural" become irrelevant.

is that People are certainly free to choose or believe in what
they wish or see as inevitable.But Freud went up against the same
kinda bullish attitude about a sex urge in infancy,and went about
the arduous and tedious task of slowing converting his fellow colleagues.
He did so,based on years of firsthand experience and clinical testing.
Just because there's a movement afoot in this Country to legitimize
and even condone Homosexuality,therefore going so far as to
Redefine the meaning and definition of Marriage to accomodate such
Societal peer pressure.It neither means those types are right or even
correct in the bounds of humanity and what comprises civility.
Freud didn't go about changing the way fellow Psychiatrists thought
just to be different or even embraced.He did so based solely on
his deep belief as correct diagnosis,thru years of experience.
That is a far cry from what this Gay Marriage is all about.
It is an effort to shift civility and mores,due to a sliding scale
of Mother Justice,slowing going backwards in terms of civilized
humanity.

If you bottlefeed your babies, do they become sexually attracted to Coke bottles when they become adults?

If you bottlefeed your babies, do they become sexually attracted to Coke bottles when they become adults?

Yeah ...sure.
Like it or no.But Kids brought up on drinkin coke { Happy meals }
and cigarettes,is THE worst Unbreakable habit on earth.
Far worse than Heroin addiction.
I bet you dint knowed dat.
Kids that grow up sippin on Cokes or mountain dew all day long
and then take to cigarettes,are practically ruined for life.
Those 2 almost unbreakable habits are THE worst health nightmare
facing this country.

Like it or no.But Kids brought up on drinkin coke { Happy meals }
and cigarettes,is THE worst Unbreakable habit on earth.
What about homosexuals drinking Coke and smoking cigarettes? I should find you a picture of a Coke-drinking, Marlboro-smoking queen just to terrify you.

What about homosexuals drinking Coke and smoking cigarettes? I should find you a picture of a Coke-drinking, Marlboro-smoking queen just to terrify you.

I hadn't really thought of Homosexuals as Kids,but now that
you bring it up,yes they act very pansified,much of the time.
Like Kids at an amusement park.
Thank you for that clarification.

I hadn't really thought of Homosexuals as Kids,but now that
you bring it up,yes they act very pansified,much of the time.
Like Kids at an amusement park.
Thank you for that clarification.

Um, where did he mention "Homosexuals as Kids"? Try staying on topic instead of bringing up stuff like Happy Meals when it has nothing to do with the conversation. Or is changing the subject your way of avoiding questions previously directed at you?

Um, where did he mention "Homosexuals as Kids"? Try staying on topic instead of bringing up stuff like Happy Meals when it has nothing to do with the conversation. Or is changing the subject your way of avoiding questions previously directed at you?

Come to think of it,you may be right.
I may have had itchy fingers for a slight of sorts.
But Gays insisting on Redefining " Marriage " is a helluva lot
more than a mere slight.

But Gays insisting on Redefining " Marriage " is a helluva lot
more than a mere slight.
Yeah, fuck those people who demand equal treatment by the government! They're subhuman; they don't deserve equal treatment!

Yeah, fuck those people who demand equal treatment by the government! They're subhuman; they don't deserve equal treatment!

No,Gays want the exact same rights that encompass " Marriage ".
Which is highly ineligible.
There are Discrimination laws on the books.
No one is suggesting discriminating against Gays.
Even though I did say,an Employer or Landlord should have the
right to deny access to any group which demonstrates a potential
behavior problem.
Like Bikers.Bikers are denied a lot of stuff.

There are Discrimination laws on the books.
No one is suggesting discriminating against Gays.

Except you...see below.

Even though I did say,an Employer or Landlord should have the
right to deny access to any group which demonstrates a potential
behavior problem.

No you didn't, you said "an Employer or Landlord should have the
right to deny access to gays".


Like Bikers.Bikers are denied a lot of stuff.

They are? Like what? And is one of them employment or housing?

No you didn't, you said "an Employer or Landlord should have the
right to deny access to gays".
And I still agree with him. If you're going to talk about his rampant homophobia, talk about that, but quit bringing employers' and lessors' rights into this.

And I still agree with him. If you're going to talk about his rampant homophobia, talk about that, but quit bringing employers' and lessors' rights into this.

First, that is a part of his "homophobia". Second, I'm just responding to it (employers and lessors) each time he brings it up, so you're asking the wrong person to stop bringing it up.

Why do you agree with him on this issue? Why is it OK to turn down any gay person for a job or a home just because they are gay (and I'm not talking OK from a legal standpoint, I'm talking OK from a right-or-wrong standpoint)?

First, that is a part of his "homophobia". Second, I'm just responding to it (employers and lessors) each time he brings it up, so you're asking the wrong person to stop bringing it up.

Why do you agree with him on this issue? Why is it OK to turn down any gay person for a job or a home just because they are gay (and I'm not talking OK from a legal standpoint, I'm talking OK from a right-or-wrong standpoint)?
Because a contract (such as that between employer and employee, and lessor and lessee) is voluntary, and there is no legitimate reason to compel an employer or lessor to employ/lease to someone he does not want to employ/lease to. Such an employer/lessor is limiting his potential pool of applicants, and is likely to ultimately suffer from the consequences of his discrimination, if he passed up better qualified gays in favor of less qualified straights. I certainly don't think it's a positive or "right" thing to automatically disqualify homosexuals from something solely for being homosexual, but it would be an even greater evil to try to legislate a bigot out of being a bigot. It wouldn't work, for one, and for another, it's the employer's/lessor's right to choose his employee/lessee based on whatever criteria he sees fit to impose. It's a damn crappy reason to turn somebody down for something, I agree, but making it illegal weakens the very idea of a voluntary contract.

Because a contract (such as that between employer and employee, and lessor and lessee) is voluntary, and there is no legitimate reason to compel an employer or lessor to employ/lease to someone he does not want to employ/lease to. Such an employer/lessor is limiting his potential pool of applicants, and is likely to ultimately suffer from the consequences of his discrimination, if he passed up better qualified gays in favor of less qualified straights. I certainly don't think it's a positive or "right" thing to automatically disqualify homosexuals from something solely for being homosexual, but it would be an even greater evil to try to legislate a bigot out of being a bigot. It wouldn't work, for one, and for another, it's the employer's/lessor's right to choose his employee/lessee based on whatever criteria he sees fit to impose. It's a damn crappy reason to turn somebody down for something, I agree, but making it illegal weakens the very idea of a voluntary contract.

Oh! and all this time I thought Gays were like the clergy,so open to
all.When in point of fact,they live to EXCLUDE.
Exclude most Religious and those not in tune with their Anti-straight
mindset.
I really don't think Gays have a single Goddamned right to start callin
anyone a Bigot.
Why can't you Gays learn to just look up the meaning of words.
Like " Bigot" and "marriage" instead of conveniently lookin for ways
to rationalize both definitions and behavior.

Why can't you Gays learn to just look up the meaning of words.
I'm not gay, you knob-polishing nitwit.

If you bottlefeed your babies, do they become sexually attracted to Coke bottles when they become adults?
no, beer bottles:drinktoth

I'm not gay, you knob-polishing nitwit.

Never you mind about Me tool and how it's polished.
Ia all.

Never you mind about Me tool and how it's polished.
Ia all.
You seem to be making (false) assumptions about who polishes mine, so turnabout is fair play and so forth.

You seem to be making (false) assumptions about who polishes mine, so turnabout is fair play and so forth.

Dint you make claim as to yer proclivity.? I could swear you said
as mush.On mores danny one occasion.
Is all.

I'm sure if I was a member a group that religions call "evil", "sinful" and "damned", I probably wouldn't be too fond of religions either.

I'm sure if I was a member a group that religions call "evil", "sinful" and "damned", I probably wouldn't be too fond of religions either.

So Religions are wrong to speak of such sinfull and damned
practices.What SHOULD Religions talk about.?
Merely Hedonistic pursuits and the like.

Because a contract (such as that between employer and employee, and lessor and lessee) is voluntary, and there is no legitimate reason to compel an employer or lessor to employ/lease to someone he does not want to employ/lease to. Such an employer/lessor is limiting his potential pool of applicants, and is likely to ultimately suffer from the consequences of his discrimination, if he passed up better qualified gays in favor of less qualified straights. I certainly don't think it's a positive or "right" thing to automatically disqualify homosexuals from something solely for being homosexual, but it would be an even greater evil to try to legislate a bigot out of being a bigot. It wouldn't work, for one, and for another, it's the employer's/lessor's right to choose his employee/lessee based on whatever criteria he sees fit to impose. It's a damn crappy reason to turn somebody down for something, I agree, but making it illegal weakens the very idea of a voluntary contract.

I agree that it might not always work but how is it an "even greater evil to try to legislated the bigot out of being a bigot"? Why let the bigot have the power when it comes to neccesities like jobs and housing? There are a lot of other "voluntary" things, like providing medical assistance and selling groceries. If we allow people to deny groups of law-biding citizens from having certain neccesities, then I see that as a bad thing for society.

I really don't think Gays have a single Goddamned right to start callin
anyone a Bigot.

Was there another amendment to the Constitution I'm not aware of? And being a straight person, I guess I still have that right.

Why can't you Gays learn to just look up the meaning of words.
Like " Bigot" and "marriage" instead of conveniently lookin for ways
to rationalize both definitions and behavior.

Definition of "bigot":

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Here is the definition...or did you want to redefine that so it no longer applied to you?

I think ALL Gays should have the right to get out of their group.
But,I guess,for reasons UNKNOWN they CAN'T.
Or simply won't.
Is all.

You mean the right to be straight?

It's not like they live in compounds or something and refuse to be a part of society. In most social situations, sexual orientation is a non-issue.

[QUOTE=dnamertz]Was there another amendment to the Constitution I'm not aware of? And being a straight person, I guess I still have that right.

Homosexual marriage is not in the California constitution.
No Congress or legislature EVER voted to declare homosexual
unions a marriage.The idea has everywhere been rejected.
Where then,did the State Supreme Court find this was a right.?
Four of seven justices unearthed this right by consulting what
Orwell called their " smelly little orthodoxies ".
In 2004,San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom handed out thousands
of marriage licenses to thousands of homosexuals,overturning the
express will of the voters.It was an act of civil disobedience.

I agree that it might not always work but how is it an "even greater evil to try to legislated the bigot out of being a bigot"? Why let the bigot have the power when it comes to neccesities like jobs and housing? There are a lot of other "voluntary" things, like providing medical assistance and selling groceries. If we allow people to deny groups of law-biding citizens from having certain neccesities, then I see that as a bad thing for society.
If one person or group of people won't rent to or employ gays, there will always be another group who will. I hardly think that allowing employers and landlords to make their own decisions about with whom they enter into contracts would make gays any more homeless, unemployed, or hungry than the rates today.

But your post exhibits a rather glaring flaw in reasoning: Business do not exist to "serve society". Landlords do not rent apartments to "serve society". Grocery stores do not sell food to "serve society". All three of these activities are done in order to make money. Whether or not something is "bad for society" is--and I cannot stress this enough--completely, totally, and absolutely irrelevant, when it comes to the concept of rights. Rights trump society any day of the week. Compelling a business or landlord to do X because it is "good for society" is, quite simply, an infringement on the rights of that business, and moreover, contrary to the principles of this country originally laid out in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Popular rights, like the right to fly an American flag, are rarely trodden upon. Unpopular rights, like the right to make racist remarks, form racist organizations, or make racist decisions as a business owner or landlord, are much easier targets. The true mark of a free society is how it treats the unpopular rights. Foolsworth here is a complete moron and jackass, but I don't want to have the guy arrested for being a moron and jackass. If he owns property, wants to rent it out, and his only taker is a gay guy, I don't want the government to step in and make him rent the property out to the gay guy. You may be forcing him to do the "right" thing, but he'll resent it, resulting in a certainly unpleasant and possibly dangerous situation for the gay tenant. You're also depriving the bigoted landlord of a pretty basic right, which even bigots deserve to have protected. If he wants to let that spare room go empty for three months and miss out on rent payments during that time, let him. He's only hurting himself.

Government action here does not prevent bigots from being bigots; it prevents bigots from abusing their power and discriminating against a minority group. Landlords and employers have rights, but those rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others. It goes the other way too. Tenants and employees have rights, but they are not absolute either.

The employer or landlord can still make things rather uncomfortable for these minority groups if they are bigoted and vocal enough, but they cannot enforce a two-tier system.

Borg, straight up, no smarmy-ness or anything, would you be in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s?

Homosexual marriage is not in the California constitution.
No Congress or legislature EVER voted to declare homosexual
unions a marriage.The idea has everywhere been rejected.
Where then,did the State Supreme Court find this was a right.?



That is not the "right" I was referring to. I was referring to you saying "I really don't think Gays have a single Goddamned right to start callin
anyone a Bigot".

Government action here does not prevent bigots from being bigots; it prevents bigots from abusing their power and discriminating against a minority group. Landlords and employers have rights, but those rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others.
How is declining to enter into a contract with someone an infringement of any rights? No one has the right to that apartment or that job until some sort of contract is made.
Borg, straight up, no smarmy-ness or anything, would you be in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s?
The ones preventing discrimination by private entities, yes. The ones preventing discrimination by government entities, no. There may have been a time to prevent racial discrimination by employers and landlords, where blacks would have found it very difficult to get a job or place to live otherwise, but those days have passed, even in the South.

But your post exhibits a rather glaring flaw in reasoning: Business do not exist to "serve society". Landlords do not rent apartments to "serve society". Grocery stores do not sell food to "serve society". All three of these activities are done in order to make money.

True, but in making money, there are laws put in place to prevent them from harming society.



Whether or not something is "bad for society" is--and I cannot stress this enough--completely, totally, and absolutely irrelevant, when it comes to the concept of rights. Rights trump society any day of the week.

Not true. There are MANY laws to protect society from people's rights. The law against drunk driving is just one example. I would also argue that the rights of the business owner to make money are just as important as the rights of the consumer.



You're also depriving the bigoted landlord of a pretty basic right, which even bigots deserve to have protected. If he wants to let that spare room go empty for three months and miss out on rent payments during that time, let him. He's only hurting himself.

And the person who needs the room.

How is declining to enter into a contract with someone an infringement of any rights? No one has the right to that apartment or that job until some sort of contract is made.

But you just quoted the Declaration of Independence as saying: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It didn't say those rights only apply to the seller/lessor and not the buyer/renter.



There may have been a time to prevent racial discrimination by employers and landlords, where blacks would have found it very difficult to get a job or place to live otherwise, but those days have passed, even in the South.

So even if it still happens, it should be legal???

Not true. There are MANY laws to protect society from people's rights. The law against drunk driving is just one example. I would also argue that the rights of the business owner to make money are just as important as the rights of the consumer.
Consumers have rights too, and sometimes there is a balance to be struck. As an aside, I'm against DUI laws in general, though I think that a high BAC should be an aggravating factor in any moving violation, along the lines of "aggravated X", and should come with an automatic license suspension in those cases. But DUI by itself, without some other factor (reckless driving, speeding, a crash, etc.) should not be a crime.
And the person who needs the room.
Are you suggesting that landlords should be compelled to provide housing, free of charge, to indigents? I'm sure they "need the room" too. That line of reasoning is really poor, as it necessarily leads to free housing being provided by anyone who has "room". Need is, again, irrelevant, because we live in a capitalistic, not communistic, society.

Consumers have rights too, and sometimes there is a balance to be struck. As an aside, I'm against DUI laws in general, though I think that a high BAC should be an aggravating factor in any moving violation, along the lines of "aggravated X", and should come with an automatic license suspension in those cases. But DUI by itself, without some other factor (reckless driving, speeding, a crash, etc.) should not be a crime.

whoa there! laws against reckless driving, speeding, obeying traffic signals, and dui, are all there to prevent a crash.

[QUOTE=BorgHunter]

But your post exhibits a rather glaring flaw in reasoning: Business do not exist to "serve society". Landlords do not rent apartments to "serve society". Grocery stores do not sell food to "serve society". All three of these activities are done in order to make money. Whether or not something is "bad for society" is--and I cannot stress this enough--completely, totally, and absolutely irrelevant, when it comes to the concept of rights. Rights trump society any day of the week. Compelling a business or landlord to do X because it is "good for society" is, quite simply, an infringement on the rights of that business, and moreover, contrary to the principles of this country originally laid out in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

************************************************** **
Man...get current.You are again,living in a rather jaded Jim Crow
tradition for a model.There are Laws.
Equal Opportunity under the law.
Equal Access under the law.
A Real Estste agent can be sued for STEERING.The illegal practice of
purposedly showing Homes or living areas that are not up to that
prospective clients income level.
Lets say a Black Husband & Wife go to Century 21 and sign a
contract after being passed thru the tecnicality like age,bank
accounts and job status.They earn more than a $250,ooo per year
combined.Lets say they're both doctors.
And the Real Estate shows them living areas for an under $100,ooo
income level,consistently.They could legally be sued.
WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE
ended many years ago.Proilly round the time of affirmative action.
is all.

Are you suggesting that landlords should be compelled to provide housing, free of charge, to indigents? I'm sure they "need the room" too. That line of reasoning is really poor, as it necessarily leads to free housing being provided by anyone who has "room". Need is, again, irrelevant, because we live in a capitalistic, not communistic, society.

Landlords don't need to.The Government steps in and offers free
section 8 housing.Most of those people are very capable to
get work,but are just too lazy.They have new TV's and lots of
fast food.Usually nice easy chairs {recliners} to plop their
lazy asses and sit around and consume enough food for 3 people.
They all virtually thrash their free housing and always expect
more.
It's a big problem in the urban areas.

[QUOTE=dnamertz]But you just quoted the Declaration of Independence as saying: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their **Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It didn't say those rights only apply to the seller/lessor and not the buyer/renter.

******************************************
In Thomas Jeffersons own words,the *Declaration was written, " In
order to place before mankind the common sense of the matter in
terms so plain and simple as to command their assent."
It asserted a philosophy of government that said that any
government can only rule with the consent of the governed and that
the basic purpose of government is to protect people's rights.



* First and foremost founding document.

**Is that a typo.I bet many a Gay/Atheist wood assume it is.
Therefore the entire debate is held in abeyance,until further notice.

Nah nah nah nah Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah !

[QUOTE=dnamertz]Was there another amendment to the Constitution I'm not aware of? And being a straight person, I guess I still have that right.

Homosexual marriage is not in the California constitution.
No Congress or legislature EVER voted to declare homosexual
unions a marriage.The idea has everywhere been rejected.
Where then,did the State Supreme Court find this was a right.?
Four of seven justices unearthed this right by consulting what
Orwell called their " smelly little orthodoxies ".
In 2004,San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom handed out thousands
of marriage licenses to thousands of homosexuals,overturning the
express will of the voters.It was an act of civil disobedience. Gavin Newsom is a great mayor. He has balls and I hope he takes over Arnold's job someday!

When Arnold moves into the White House ;)

When Arnold moves into the White House ;)

There's No way on earth that Arnie can bee TOO much a
Republican.Maria Shriver will see to that.Shriver is SO like her
MOM,it's almost scarey.

When Arnold moves into the White House ;)
do you plan on amending the Constitution or annexing Austria?:taser:

Ideally, both. *Crosses fingers*

Consumers have rights too, and sometimes there is a balance to be struck. As an aside, I'm against DUI laws in general, though I think that a high BAC should be an aggravating factor in any moving violation, along the lines of "aggravated X", and should come with an automatic license suspension in those cases. But DUI by itself, without some other factor (reckless driving, speeding, a crash, etc.) should not be a crime.

We strongly disagree there. There is a reason people who are too drunk to stand should not be legally allowed to drive. Same reason 12 year olds should not be allowed to drive. Would you argue that a 12 year old should be allowed to drive, and it should be legal as long as they are not driving recklessly or speeding?

Are you suggesting that landlords should be compelled to provide housing, free of charge, to indigents? I'm sure they "need the room" too. That line of reasoning is really poor, as it necessarily leads to free housing being provided by anyone who has "room". Need is, again, irrelevant, because we live in a capitalistic, not communistic, society.

I said nothing about free housing, but they can not discriminate.

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE
ended many years ago.

This coming from the same person who wants discrimination against gays to be legal.

This coming from the same person who wants discrimination against gays to be legal.

That's not what I said.
Seems to me and many clear-headed thinkers,that it's GAYS who
are the ones Insisting that Marriage encompass their same-sex
bond.Gays have both an agenda and a Bias.
Marriage isn't the foundation block of Society it is,to have
Gays just willy-nilly knock it down like Humpty Dumpty.

I said nothing about free housing, but they can not discriminate.
Why not? "They need the apartment" is specious reasoning unless you want the government choosing tenants for a landlord instead of the landlord himself. I haven't seen any other reasoning for anti-discrimination laws.

And I could probably argue that there are all sorts of other kinds of discrimination that can and are done in employment and housing interviews. How well-dressed the prospect is, how he speaks, how he conducts himself, his income (for housing), his criminal record, his job history, his age, his experience (for jobs), his level of education, and so on are all potential points of discrimination. There will always be discrimination when there are multiple candidates for one position. Not everyone can get that spot, and all the prospects may not like the landlord/employer's reasoning. This is life. A particular criterion being stupid or even immaterial is the prerogative of the person offering the position. Personally, if my employer turned down a gay applicant solely for being gay, I'd probably quit on the spot. That's my prerogative, but my viewpoint should not be codified into law.
That's not what I said.
Seems to me and many clear-headed thinkers,that it's GAYS who
are the ones Insisting that Marriage encompass their same-sex
bond.Gays have both an agenda and a Bias.
Marriage isn't the foundation block of Society it is,to have
Gays just willy-nilly knock it down like Humpty Dumpty.
Please, just shut the fuck up. You are not helping this debate any, and I'm getting sick of arguing on your side in the discrimination thing while you keep yammering on about how much you hate gay people. Give the hate a fucking rest, okay?

Please, just shut the fuck up. You are not helping this debate any, and I'm getting sick of arguing on your side in the discrimination thing while you keep yammering on about how much you hate gay people. Give the hate a fucking rest, okay?

You must be desperate,having to Trotsky out the HATE card as
you did.I don't hate Gays.Had a few Gay friends in my life.One very
close who I spent a lot of time arguing with and Critiquing
movies.He was a fantastic speller.Didn't know the meaning of
words with any near the accuracy.
I can't seem to credit YOU with the same curtesy you
demand of me,in regards to Religion,God { Creator } and fellow
Straights.
In fact,when push comes to shove,yer blatantly short-tempered and
quick to demonstrate hate for such things { God,Religion,Straights }.
Gays are wrong on this Marriage bidness.
You've yet to establish ONE Credible argument in defense of Gays
having the Right to a Legal Marriage.

That's not what I said.


Hmmm, well someone named "Foolsworth" on this said did when he said
"Employers should have the right to NOT hire them.
Rentors { Landlords } should have the right to NOT rent to them.
and so on and so forth."
Was that some other Foolsworth?

Hmmm, well someone named "Foolsworth" on this said did when he said
"Employers should have the right to NOT hire them.
Rentors { Landlords } should have the right to NOT rent to them.
and so on and so forth."
Was that some other Foolsworth?

That doesn't mean Hate.I know since I was a Rentor many times before
being a Homeowner,that some Landlords won't allow pets or
children.And the reason isn't hate.
Some Parks won't allow Bikers,also.

Why not? "They need the apartment" is specious reasoning unless you want the government choosing tenants for a landlord instead of the landlord himself. I haven't seen any other reasoning for anti-discrimination laws.

And I could probably argue that there are all sorts of other kinds of discrimination that can and are done in employment and housing interviews. How well-dressed the prospect is, how he speaks, how he conducts himself, his income (for housing), his criminal record, his job history, his age, his experience (for jobs), his level of education, and so on are all potential points of discrimination. There will always be discrimination when there are multiple candidates for one position. Not everyone can get that spot, and all the prospects may not like the landlord/employer's reasoning. This is life.

You are correct that there are a lot of qualifiers for discrimination which is why the law sets aside a special classification for groups which are illegal to discriminate against under law, such as race, age, gender and religious affiliation. The question of discrimination is one of whether gays deserve to be a protected class, such as race and gender are now.

Your argument against anti-discrimination laws are the same exact ones that were made against making gender and race protected classes, that "the government will be choosing tenents for landlords". It didn't happen then and I see no reason whatsoever to believe it would happen now.

The question needs to be whether there is a pattern of discrimination that warrents including gays as a protected class.

In my opinion I think there is enough evidence of discrimination against gays to make such a decision.

That doesn't mean Hate.I know since I was a Rentor many times before
being a Homeowner,that some Landlords won't allow pets or
children.And the reason isn't hate.
Some Parks won't allow Bikers,also.

Did I ever use the word "hate"?

Al-Qaeda endorses Foolsworth:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on same-sex marriage:

For the past five years, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been under the care of federal civilian and military employees who have taken an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The experience apparently has not enamored him of the document.

At his arraignment here Thursday, the alleged 9/11 mastermind said he would not accept any attorney, even a fellow Muslim, “who is sworn to your American constitution.” Displaying a surprising understanding of such concepts as federalism and dual sovereignty, Mohammed referenced recent decisions by state courts in California and Massachusetts under the powers reserved to them under the Tenth Amendment.

“I consider all American constitution” evil, he said, because it permits “same-sexual marriage and many other things that are very bad,” he told the military judge, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. “Do you understand?”

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/06/khalid-sheik-mohammed-on-same-sex-marriage-value-of-counsel/

Al-Qaeda endorses Foolsworth:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on same-sex marriage:

For the past five years, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been under the care of federal civilian and military employees who have taken an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The experience apparently has not enamored him of the document.

At his arraignment here Thursday, the alleged 9/11 mastermind said he would not accept any attorney, even a fellow Muslim, “who is sworn to your American constitution.” Displaying a surprising understanding of such concepts as federalism and dual sovereignty, Mohammed referenced recent decisions by state courts in California and Massachusetts under the powers reserved to them under the Tenth Amendment.

“I consider all American constitution” evil, he said, because it permits “same-sexual marriage and many other things that are very bad,” he told the military judge, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. “Do you understand?”

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/06/khalid-sheik-mohammed-on-same-sex-marriage-value-of-counsel/

Don't blame me if that's why they hate us.And may have been
fundementalist reason Uno for 17 or so acts of Hara-kiri,in the name
of fighting for Martyrdom and sins of the West,on the day of 9/11.

In as little as a month,gay couples can marry according to a
decision handed down in the nation's largest state { Calif.}
by it's Supreme Court...Today.

I was fearful of this.Not because Gays aren't entitled to
Rights.Just NOT Marriage rights.Same sex should never constitute
Marriage.For many a good reason.It defies the grounds of a
civilized Society.A Child should have a birth right to BOTH a
Mother and a Father.Not 2 of each.
How is a Society benefitted by propagation,if Gay marriage
becomes en vogue and an entire generation of more of society
find it perfectly acceptable to toss aside history and define
marriage according to their hedonistic mindset.
What next.?
Redefine the definition of what constitutes Rape or a Pervert.

the world is over populated. way over. many poeple are getting abortions and they dont have to when adoption is an alternative for families that cant have children, like gay families. two people should be allowed to get married becuase they are in love.
how does someone elses marriage effect your marriage? whats the problem? aint been doin so well with the wife since bob and greg hooked up?

Ah well nevermind. i dont want to argue with you foolsworth.we both know we are really different anyway. i have my opinions and im not changing them and you will not either. im not tryin to argue, in that first post, just stickin up for what i believe in. sorry. :P

the world is over populated. way over. many poeple are getting abortions and they dont have to when adoption is an alternative for families that cant have children, like gay families. two people should be allowed to get married becuase they are in love.
how does someone elses marriage effect your marriage? whats the problem? aint been doin so well with the wife since bob and greg hooked up?

What a leap.
Is that all it takes to just Re-invent the definition and
intent of " Marriage ".?
Just change History to what is most convenient for some.
A very limited " some " at that.

Another bOOb poster.
Man this place really attracts the pits.

whats the definition of marriage? hurry up im goin to dairy queen in a sec here.

just kidding. i was being funny you dont have to answer that. :D

but i really am gion to dairy queen so bye. ha. :)

were to gain control of Government it would be no more
complicated or successful than a game of Tic-Tac-Toe.

were to gain control of Government it would be no more
complicated or successful than a game of Tic-Tac-Toe.
ok.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/SFZ9Y0PGMqI/AAAAAAAAGow/RIzL-ww7ZN0/s1600/fathersday.jpg

:eek:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/gaywedding.jpg

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom speaks before Del Martin, left, and Phyllis Lyon are married in a private ceremony at City Hall. The couple is the first to be married in San Francisco as same-sex marriages become legal in California.

From Gay Marriage's Ground Zero
Tuesday, Jun. 17, 2008

In San Francisco, hundreds gathered to see long-time gay rights icons Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin marry after more than half a century as a couple. "When we first got together, we were not really thinking about getting married, we were thinking about getting together," Lyon said to laughter, standing behind Martin's wheelchair. "I think it's a wonderful day. We are very happy." "Ditto," said Martin.

But even as the state braces for thousands more weddings in coming weeks, some of the most ardent supporters of same-sex marriage are casting anxious glances at the calendar and wondering how long the wedding bells will chime in California. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is one of them.

Just before officiating at the Lyon and Martin nuptials Monday evening, Mayor Newsom took a break from what he described as the increasingly electric atmosphere around City Hall to worry about what the fall might bring. "There is just a great sense of pride here this afternoon," Mayor Newsom told TIME. "But there is a great deal of trepidation, concern and worry, too."

The weddings will stop abruptly this fall if California voters approve a November ballot initiative banning gay marriage. "There are a lot of mixed emotions about this," Newsom said. "It's exhilarating on the one hand. But it's by no means certain that California won't take back what it has given."

He should know. He had already married Martin and Lyon once before, in 2004. "Disgusted and outraged" at President Bush's State of the Union address that year, the mayor decided to challenge California ban on gay marriage by giving a marriage license to the couple. More than 4,000 other couples followed suit, and while their weddings were later voided, the court challenge led to last month's Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage.

Newsom told TIME he never expected to be in the middle of a fight for gay marriage. "Gay marriage was not on my radar. No one had asked me what I thought about it, and I had never really given it any thought one way or another." But the Bush State of the Union address changed all that. "I just felt deeply disconnected to my country, about which I care about very much. So I decided I'd make my stand by marrying one couple, and we decided [in 2004] we'd issue a marriage license for Phyllis and Del. Little did we know, we'd have 4,036 couples marry before it was over."

By the time Newsom presided over Martin and Lyon's new marriage on Monday, the battle lines for the fight in the fall had begun to form. Gay marriage opponents held signs and yelled slogans outside courthouses there and in the other locations where weddings were about to take place. In addition, California's top Roman Catholic prelate issued a statement reiterating the Church's opposition to gay marriage. "The church cannot approve of redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended," said the statement, signed by Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the head of the archdiocese of Los Angeles. "The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition. Its meaning is given, not constructed. When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened."

But the church's warnings are likely to do little to stem the tide of weddings between now and November. Newsom said there are already 1,670 couples registered for marriage licenses in San Francisco — and another 636 have booked space for weddings at city hall.

more... (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1815272,00.html)

There is allot of hype about about this and I worry that gay couples will adopt children and indoctrinate a homosexual life styles in them, then people having oral sex with health coverage and a pension or face possible disvorce is something.

The act of rectal intercourse must also add to health premiums and what not.

I just don't think this life style should be incouraged.

my opinion

When Arnold moves into the White House ;)
That's not going to happen!

There is allot of hype about about this and I worry that gay couples will adopt children and indoctrinate a homosexual life styles in them, then people having oral sex with health coverage and a pension or face possible disvorce is something.

The act of rectal intercourse must also add to health premiums and what not.

I just don't think this life style should be incouraged.

my opinion Not all gays have anal sex. But guess what many heterosexual couples do! You can't force someone to be gay anymore then you can force a person to be straight!

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/gaywedding.jpg

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom speaks before Del Martin, left, and Phyllis Lyon are married in a private ceremony at City Hall. The couple is the first to be married in San Francisco as same-sex marriages become legal in California.

From Gay Marriage's Ground Zero
Tuesday, Jun. 17, 2008

In San Francisco, hundreds gathered to see long-time gay rights icons Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin marry after more than half a century as a couple. "When we first got together, we were not really thinking about getting married, we were thinking about getting together," Lyon said to laughter, standing behind Martin's wheelchair. "I think it's a wonderful day. We are very happy." "Ditto," said Martin.

But even as the state braces for thousands more weddings in coming weeks, some of the most ardent supporters of same-sex marriage are casting anxious glances at the calendar and wondering how long the wedding bells will chime in California. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is one of them.

Just before officiating at the Lyon and Martin nuptials Monday evening, Mayor Newsom took a break from what he described as the increasingly electric atmosphere around City Hall to worry about what the fall might bring. "There is just a great sense of pride here this afternoon," Mayor Newsom told TIME. "But there is a great deal of trepidation, concern and worry, too."

The weddings will stop abruptly this fall if California voters approve a November ballot initiative banning gay marriage. "There are a lot of mixed emotions about this," Newsom said. "It's exhilarating on the one hand. But it's by no means certain that California won't take back what it has given."

He should know. He had already married Martin and Lyon once before, in 2004. "Disgusted and outraged" at President Bush's State of the Union address that year, the mayor decided to challenge California ban on gay marriage by giving a marriage license to the couple. More than 4,000 other couples followed suit, and while their weddings were later voided, the court challenge led to last month's Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage.

Newsom told TIME he never expected to be in the middle of a fight for gay marriage. "Gay marriage was not on my radar. No one had asked me what I thought about it, and I had never really given it any thought one way or another." But the Bush State of the Union address changed all that. "I just felt deeply disconnected to my country, about which I care about very much. So I decided I'd make my stand by marrying one couple, and we decided [in 2004] we'd issue a marriage license for Phyllis and Del. Little did we know, we'd have 4,036 couples marry before it was over."

By the time Newsom presided over Martin and Lyon's new marriage on Monday, the battle lines for the fight in the fall had begun to form. Gay marriage opponents held signs and yelled slogans outside courthouses there and in the other locations where weddings were about to take place. In addition, California's top Roman Catholic prelate issued a statement reiterating the Church's opposition to gay marriage. "The church cannot approve of redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended," said the statement, signed by Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the head of the archdiocese of Los Angeles. "The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition. Its meaning is given, not constructed. When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened."

But the church's warnings are likely to do little to stem the tide of weddings between now and November. Newsom said there are already 1,670 couples registered for marriage licenses in San Francisco — and another 636 have booked space for weddings at city hall.

more... (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1815272,00.html) I really loved that he married that old lesbian couple!!! That was wonderful.

There is allot of hype about about this and I worry that gay couples will adopt children and indoctrinate a homosexual life styles in them

CR...has it occurred to you that most homosexuals grew up with a mommy and a daddy? People aren't gay because they've been indoctrinated to be so.

Perhaps you could describe how to go about indoctrinating someone to be gay? I'd love to know, I'm behind on my monthly quota. ;)


, then people having oral sex with health coverage and a pension or face possible disvorce is something.

What?


The act of rectal intercourse must also add to health premiums and what not.

:rolleyes:...assuming you have signed up for insurance, were you asked what type of sex acts you engaged in?

I've heard many objections raised about homosexuality...yours are definitely among the goofiest.

I definitely think the definition of marriage is being broadened to a degree where marriage has become less respected, which I don't think is a good thing for society.

This seems like another step toward turning marriage into nothing more than a business partnership. Personally, I find that a little sad. Moreover, I think marriage performs a viable function in society - by lessening it's value, society is worse off.