California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

That's a good idea. Get some legal clarity. Bring it on.

I don't even have to look back Spendi... I have perfect recall of you writing you would not shake the hand of a drag queen.. That was certainly bordering if not above and beyond hateful and malicious. What if they were reaching out a hand to you to save you from being run over by a train, would you accept their hand then?

How quickly you forget and how easily I remember.

Rex what do you think about this guy? When I first seen him I thought that he was a girl with a deep voice but I was attracted to how smart he is.

I hope him the best in life and hope that he finds what he is looking for in life!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScW-djjpzGY&feature=channel_video_title

I really do admire his intellect!
Biblical origin of marriage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPakJE1K12Q&feature=relmfu

How many homosexuals want to get married ? What are their motives ? If all this fuss is about a small number who are struggling with reality, then why bother ? There are more important things in the world to fix .

Are you sure he said that ? That surprises me... there is nothing wrong with accepting a hand in friendship . It is only snobbery that would stop someone from doing so .

Why should we worry about what they want to do?
Do not get me wrong I find nothing wrong in asking questions I just can not agree with people who are so bent on not allowing them the same rights as us!

Spendius did say that! I think Spendius just does not want us to know what he was really thinking!

As it stands in the US, gay couples, married in all senses except the law, are unable to enjoy the benefits, under the law, of the married state. Such things as "Joint tenants with rights of survivorship" or shared social security, or tax filing . Theres a myriqad of things that gay couples DO NOT benefit in. It is a discrimination that, thinking what RL just said, If it seems that the institute of marriage is that which has been defined vi the Chritian religion, then isnt the discrimination against gays marrying a violation of our 1st amendment.

(I know your a little dense on this ANUS but try to follow the bouncing ball)

Please do not take this as fact with out checking into it because I am going by memory and my memory is very bad!

This whole anti gay thing reminds me of one of the forgotten books of the bible where people were telling Jesus that Mary Magdalene could not be one of them because she was a woman and we all know how woman were looked down upon so Jesus said he would make her a man!

You may note at this point that in the above cited passages from the Gospel of John, the Beloved Disciple is clearly male. Also, in 19:25-27 and 20:1-11 the Beloved Disciple and Mary Magdalene appear in the same scenes simultaneously. How can I allege that Mary Magdalene is the Beloved Disciple in light of this? The answer will be addressed in detail below. But for now: The reason that the Beloved Disciple was turned into a man in the text was because this disciple was clearly the founder and hero of the community that produced this Gospel. At some point after the death of Jesus, the emerging male leadership of that community simply became embarrassed about having a female founder. (Remember, we're dealing with male attitudes towards women 2,000 years ago.) In order to "mainstream" their community, they suppressed some of the more radical practices that Jesus taught them through his example -- such as treating everyone with equal dignity and respect, including the sick, the poor, the oppressed, the outcast, and women. Jesus apparently did not object to men and women sharing power and positions of leadership. Some of his successors, however, were not courageous enough to be so radical. So, in the case of the Gospel of John, the female Beloved Disciple had to become male. I will elaborate on just how I believe this happened below.

http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=forgotten+book+jesus+make+mary+magdalene+a+man&fr=my-myy&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=forgotten+book+jesus+make+mary+magdalene+a+man&d=4857947523779720&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=c84e4dd5,c53a3e63&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=hC6B1CwMWyH16OpZsgJ0MQ--

How many homosexuals want to get married ? It is a fair question to ask who wants something before handing it out .

Jesus, you should read your own posts....

Never heard of Hindu ? Buddhism ? Confucianism ? Shintoism ? Taoism ? They all involve one man one woman . Monogamy is hardly a Christian monopoly .

Things that are legal definitions . How is marriage required ?

Use the spell checker...or are you too arrogant ?

Gomer the turd must seek help...for alcoholism, low self esteem, delsuions of grandeur, and the use of a spell checker .

rl, you are way off . You need to read about Greek influence on the Jews . The beloved disciple was a man under Greek traditions . Jewish society had a lot of respect for women . It was Roman society that put them down .

Anyway, which Mary Magdalene ? Do you know how many there were ?

Is that all you can come up with. I am relectant to shake hands with anybody. It's a social convention I disapprove of. I would shake hands with a drag queen to confirm a $1000 bet that the 50 states will not have approved of homosexual "marriage" by 2050. What do draq queens do?

But I would readily grasp any hand if I was in the situation you have conjured up. Even Elton John's.

We are not talking about rights rl. We are talking about labels. "Married" for homosexuals is false labelling. As things are the few states that allow "marriage" for homosexuals as a bureaucratic category are going to need special dictionaries.

Fancy somebody writing than nonsense calling somebody else "dense".

If homosexuals are allowed the term marriage to get the benefits married heterosexuals get then they would have to get divorced in the same way as heterosexuals do if they split up.

yes, so? it's happened. so what?

[FARMERMAN WROTE}

TO WHICH ANUS RESPONDED


Then youve missed the nuance of the discussion. (Why am I not surprised?). Gays wish to be recognized under the rules of MARRIAGE (as defined by the predominant {Think: CHRISTIAN RELIGION}) The benefits that acrue are THE ENTIRE ISSUE. Right now these things like JTWROS and joint retiurns and being covered under a spouses medical insurance, are just not available to gay couples >SURELY YOU KNEW THAT MUCH NO?

Maybe not, the level of violent abrasive ignorance that ANUS has consistantly displayed on these boards must never be an issue of surprise any longer.

[/quote]

FARMERMAN:Such things as "Joint tenants with rights of survivorship" or shared social security, or tax filing .
IONUS;Things that are legal definitions . How is marriage required ?

In the States, those things that you dismiss as "legal definitions" apply differently to married couples vs. single people. The surviving spouse claims social security benefits that are not available to an unmarried couple. And there are tax filing advantages available to a married couple that even a heterosexual couple, let alone a homosexual couple, cannot claim. They are written into the law. Another commonly cited benefit is next-of-kin visits at hospitals, often unavailable to homosexual couples, whom many, more-benighted, hospitals consider unrelated and hence denied visitation rights.

And real-world experience in those states that do allow gay marriage shows that thousands of couples do want to get married, ionus. Not all do, of course, just as not all heterosexual couples do.

I see that farmerman beat me to it. He's right, ionus. You're picking nits again.

In the six years that gay marriage has been legal in MA, more than 10,000 lcouples have gotten married. Support for gay marriage in the state in 59%, versus 33 opposed. Politicians who come out against the law tend to lose their seats. That quiets the debate remarkably.