California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@spendius,

Again, to each their own. Women kiss men and enjoy it why don't you just acknowledged the fact that people are different and leave it at that? Instead you have to inject and project your own likes as if all people should reflect your own desires. Do you think women should find blokes ghastly? Well some men find blokes quite sexy and you should respect their sexual preference as I respect yours... I am not telling you you need to change and you should not be telling others to change based upon your own sexual preference.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
some humans did not even need to be starving while eathing the dead. this practice came out mostly of religious ceremonies.

I agree. The Old and New Testaments were dedicated to replacing such religions and have more or less done so. Human sacrifice with cannibalism was common before the Bible in that region it relates to and in those regions it took a while to get to such things were well known even in the 20th century. Baal was removed by Christianity and by nothing else. Suggest an alternative mechanism and I'll consider it. You need to know more about the Bible to mix it with me on the subject.

Words, words Rex. Love is a possession grab. A claim to ownership. And very easy to express. Actors and actresses do so every night on TV and they are very convincing.

Apparently Christianity replaced cannibalism with MORE cannibalism. "This is my body... take and eat, this is my blood... drink this in remembrance of me..."

2 Replies

@RexRed,

Humans were first replaced by animals. Then animals were replaced by bread. That's progress I would say.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Are you sure that it was not plants, then plants and animals, then plants animals and humans, and then back to plants and animals?

Are you trying to say that religion has been evolving?

0 Replies

Here Spendi a couple of kissing blokes!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43367180/ns/world_news-europe/

0 Replies

@RexRed,

Quote:

Marriage is a union of love and nothing else.

So what is all the argument for legal recognition all about if it is nothing else ?

Quote:

Is it magic?

We need to hold something up for people . If there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals in marriage then clearly homosexuals can have children, through adoption in the case of male couples .

Quote:

the Bible even tries to screw with that saying the man is married to Christ (religious mind control) and yet the woman married to the man

I think you are very wrong on this . Can you quote where in the Bible you got that from ?

Quote:

Some whales mate for life, shall we call that marriage because they are male and female and procreate?

It would make more sense than to call same sex couples married . At least the whales are capable of having children .

Quote:

It is time marriage become clearly and simply the bond between two people who love each other

Saying what marriage should be is rather pointless . It is more about sex and reproduction than it is about love . Do you need marriage to be in love ?

0 Replies

@jcboy,

My main complaint with homosexuals, males in particular, is how self absorbed and narcisstic they are . Good avatar.... self worship at its finest . You think of yourself as sexually attractive but are firing into a blokes shithole . How do you expect to be able to reproduce that way ? What is the point of attracting the same sex unless you are just concerned with your own pathetic crutch in a twisted way .

1 Reply

@RexRed,

There is more history of same sex kissing in our genetics than opposite sex kissing . Apes kiss the same sex to show frienship . Mothers kiss babies to express softness . Very rarely do they kiss across the sex demarcation line .

Quote:

Instead you have to inject and project your own likes as if all people should reflect your own desires.

You mean like taking over marriage ?

0 Replies

@RexRed,

Quote:

Apparently Christianity replaced cannibalism with MORE cannibalism. "This is my body... take and eat, this is my blood... drink this in remembrance of me..."

That is a criticism of Christians two thousand years ago . It never showed understanding then, and it doesnt show understanding now .

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Wow Ionus what happen to the politeness streak?
Why should he worry about reproducing?
What is the point of attracting the opposite sex unless you are just concerned with your own pathetic crutch in a twisted way?
I do not mean that completely but I do think, "that type of logic should at least be able to stand up to the opposite!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Why should he worry about reproducing?

Doesn't anyone remember what sex is for ? It feels good to encourage you to reproduce .

Quote:

What is the point of attracting the opposite sex unless you are just concerned with your own pathetic crutch in a twisted way?

You need to draw a line . At some stage, love between sexes is more about companionship and kids than it is about yourself .

The most promiscuous of any group are male homosexuals . When they started to study it in detail, researchers were shocked to find the large number of partners they had . It was common to have more partners in a week than there are days .

0 Replies

@Ionus,

ANUS SAYS

Quote:

Why cant the rights of a married couple be extended to defactos ? Oh wait, they are... but you know that dont you ?

Are you really so stupid to see we are talking about legal definitions

I cannot believe that you are purposely stupid. It must take years of practice. We will have to explore that sometime when I need a good laugh. Legal definitions are those that IMPACT on the state of union among gays , in the US are what we were talking of> Yes they are legal definitions, SO WHAT???. You seem to be totally missing the point and I will post Monterey JAcks post which did a better job than mine ate detailing some of the "legal opportunities" that gays DO NOT ENJOY IN THE US. Whats so fuckin difficult ? Does your head not work at all?

Monterey Jack tried to detail to ANUS what Gays cannot enjoy in the US wrt to their status as a "couple"

Quote:

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.

Can you understand? You seem to only want to pick a fight unarmed with any point of argument again. You are certainly a (--------------------------------------------)

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Well I hope you lot are satisfied....you have excited Gomer the turd who cant string two words together without it looking like he typed them in with his elbow .

Quote:

Yes they are legal definitions, SO WHAT???.

Then the solution is legal status, not married status...why is it you don't understand anything you didn't hear on Oprah ? Just because you are notorious for your relationship with barn animals doesn't mean you are a staunch defender of gay rights . I think the vast majority of homosexuals would admit that what you do is just plain sick .

Do you really think (Do you really think ?) it would be impossible to create a status, not call it marriage, and have it apply to homosexual and heterosexual couples equally ? Wouldn't that defuse the current situation ? You aren't worried about human rights... you are keen to force your will on others .

Arm yourself with your finest 50 cent gallon of spirits and sit down and think . You should come back all full of enthusiasm and courage for the fight .

Gomer the turd must seek help...for alcoholism, low self esteem, delsuions of grandeur, and the use of a spell checker (but not bi-polar) .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

What Jack's quote so clearly misses is that the legal situation was created by legislators for a reason (s) . I presume those who legislated the law thought the reason(s) justifiable after taking advice from specialists and interested parties. Homosexuals need to undermine those reasons and not just wheedle and whinge that they are not getting benefits others get. Millions of people are not getting benefits others get.

Many millions of people in the US are denied benefits because they didn't get a diploma handed out by barmyman in return for regurgitating what he had told them to regurgitate in order to get one of his diplomas. And he was not elected as the legislators are.

Homosexuals need to undermine the State's reasons for offering financial inducements to encourage marriage between a man and a woman. They are acting as if they are wiser than hundreds of years of legislation and tradition on no other basis than that of gratuitous self interest.

And they are ridiculous when they seek the comfort of a Christian institution when Christianity condemns their actions out of hand. Marriage is an institution with a practical function. Undermining it by changing its conditions is the same as undermining the function and undermining the State that employed the institution for a practical purpose.

If the practical purpose is an anachronism they should make the case that it is. Which, in essence, what you get when you boil it down, is that the State should cease to encourage monogamous marriage between a man and a woman and allow (encourage) anarchy in sexual relations. In which case Mr Weiner and Arnie have no case to answer. Neither did Mr Clinton or Mr Spitzer or Mr Edwards. The hot air expended on such cases is objective proof that the population accepts the sanctity of monogamous unions between one man and one woman and calls it marriage. The Catholic Church and most other Christian churches deny the right of divorced persons to "marry".

Quote:

The wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles took place in a civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall, on 9 April 2005. The ceremony, conducted in the presence of the couples' families, was followed by a Church of England service of blessing at St George's Chapel. The groom's parents, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, did not attend the civil wedding ceremony but were present at the service of blessing and held a reception for the couple in Windsor Castle afterwards.

That was because Mrs Parker Bowles is a divorced person. Private Eye always referred to a divorced lady who "married" a member of the Royal family as "Old Tom Trowbridge's wife".

And in 2000 76.5 of the US adult population were Christians. According to ARIS. The Pew Research Council gives 82% for 2002.

So confront that lot with your intemperate insults. Directing them at me is not only stupid but also a waste of time and effort. As if I could grant your wishes. If I am a "boil on the arsehole of the world" then so are the vast majority of Americans. And you won't win their hearts and minds with that sort of talk. You'll simply lose whatever sympathy there is for your cause.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

What a mean spirited , bigoted, cockalorum you are. You seem to hve nothing to say except "Bunkerisms" on this subject.
Duhhhhh.

Quote:

Then the solution is legal status, not married status...

I accused spendi, a long time ago, of being the master of the bleedin obvious. Im rethinking that annointed status since you are giving him a real run for stupid recounts .
OF COURSE ITS LEGAL STATUS DIPSHIT. THats where the fuckin problem lies. If a person is denied the enjoyment of (what I would consider) social contract rights, then there IS A FUCKIN LEGAL PROBLEM isnt there? Ill bet it took you many hours to come to that conclusion. After which the point of arrival at such a deep insight, where are you?
The fact that gays cant claim certain benefits because of some ungranted "legal" status is one of the reasons that states are dealing with this issue and is an issue that is unique to ONLY gays. If I had a gay partner and I wished to share my wealth on the basis of estate laws, I COULDNT. AS Monterey Jack stated I couldnt have any visitation rights if my gay partner were terminally ill in a hospital.

The restrictions placed upon gay couples based upon the legal system (WHICH WAS DERIVED FROM SOME ASSHOLE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE), it wasnt deroven from Islam or Taoism, Thats what we are dealing with in the US. Its not a siomple matter of "Change em"
Im getting tired of always having to explain some of our more basic legal consequences of "being alive in the US". If you want to understand them then listen to several of the guys here.Rex is a gay guy who, like several others similarly programmed, has made a cogent argument for changing his plight. If you want to give advice of a positive nature thats good. If you just want to hang around like some street thug, why not piss off and join spendi as he completes his rounds annoying others.

Quote:

it would be impossible to create a status, not call it marriage, and have it apply to homosexual and heterosexual couples equally ? Wouldn't that defuse the current situation ?

If its the title thats got you all tangled up, then yes , possibly. However, the term "civil union" was attempted in several states , and I dont believe that had any more luck than "marriage" SO, several other states have bitten the bullet and have announced the legal state of marriage in their codes of law. In those states, like MAss, gay couples in the thousands have been trying to establish residency to comply with the law.

Can ya get it ANUS?

WOW, does it rob you of vitamin D woith your head stuck so far up your ass?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Sometimes doing what is right goes well against the wishes of a majority or the teachings of certain religions. After all, we had a civil rights confrontation that went agaisnt established law and "majority feelings". An argument based upon a religious belief and rules of law so derived is , of course, idiotic for our country. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Theocratic Democracy (sorta like the UK). WE create the laws and we change them as we evolve into a more advanced civilization. Most problems that arose wrt gay citizens being derived enjoyments of contract rights are religious bigotry and outdated beliefs. They will have to be modified, or changed and such changes will be made against the will of the majority, JUST BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

1 Reply

Same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, says Jensen

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/samesex-marriage-will-lead-to-polygamy-says-jensen-20110610-1fx29.html#ixzz1P4ArSh66

I guess that means gay marriage will be legal in Utah, right?

1 Reply

@hingehead,

If you are talking about multiple sexual partners well I got news, that is already happening. Multiple marriages, I don't see and reason for this excess. Two's company, three's a crowd. Let two marry and if a third wants in let them be there in agreement only. Marriage itself is a doorway to polygamy. Gay marriage does not make it any more or less so. Marriage was used for polygamy long before gays wanted in. This article is pure tripe and pandering to the religious freaks.

''Ministers of the Gospel will find it increasingly difficult to teach Christian sexual ethics… since what they say will be contrary to what the state says,'' he said."

Comment: Yes, how can the "ministers" teach hate and homophobia when the state says it is okay?

Ministers should "administer" love, healing and tolerance not drive teen homosexuals to go kill themselves. Jesus showed tolerance the ministers do nothing more than defile his compassionate message with their hypocrisy... We all know what they do behind closed doors. When the truth finally comes out who is really surprised? These homophobes preachers are nothing more than closet cases themselves mad because someone else is getting what they secretly desire themselves. He who screams the loudest has the most to hide.

2 Replies

If the catholic church cared about community they would have come out hard against their own pedophile priests that blood sucked communities all over the known world to the point of near collapse. They have no credibility to be crying about community now. They guarded their confessional and allowed the destruction by their "ministers" to continue for many years. Perhaps not even one tenth of the abuses and atrocities perpetrated by this religion has been reported.

They just want to de-legitimize homosexuality so they can keep feeding off of homosexuals and their vulnerabilities. There are some very loving and sane Catholics, I certainly do not fault them all for this scourge. These ones speaking out against homosexual marriage are the most vile. Homosexual priests would never join the church and over time become pedophiles if they had a legal alternative to marry a consenting same sex adult in celebration of their homosexuality.

This has nothing to do about community the church had their chance to show their love for "community" and they blew it. They protected their closeted pedophiles over their duty of protecting the community.

Gays are certainly better off married and out in the open than repressed by the church and dressed in priests robes while convincing naive parents to leave their children with them.

2 Replies

@RexRed,

Very good point Rex. Wink

0 Replies

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know