California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

spendi doesn't understand the concept of logic.

spendi's analogy never works; he probably doesn't understand the primary subject being discussed.

You might do well to remember it was a homosexual atheist Emperor who outlawed homosexuality .

So if I want to marry a goldfish I have the right ? This "right" you speak of, what is it based on ? How many societies in the past have had this inalienable human right ? If it is a right, like liberty, why is it denied to children ?

Another useless post .

Another useless post .

The primary subject is "California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban". There's nothing to discuss. It was a fact.

I am objecting to the use of the word "marriage" in this context. Doing so brings in a lot of other words and ideas. "Love" for example. Or "sexual intercourse". Rex uses the word "love" to characterise his relationship with a man and there is no way it means the same as the love of a man for a woman or a woman for a man.

I am in the same company as the population of 44 states and those of the vast majority of countries.

The financial benefits of official recognition of homosexual unions being equal to those of marriage constitutes an inducement to the former and government policy in every western country in the last 100 years has been designed as an inducement to the latter.

The problem is that, at bottom, the subject of marriage is sordid and you lot are playing around with euphemisms and affectations. Ever since Bernard Shaw had the nerve to follow Darwin/Science to the logical conclusion of stud-farm procedures for producing the next generation there has been a profound fear of the subject. The "union" between two people is always something of an illusion when given a label. The parties are, and will remain, discreet individuals.

It is a very complex subject. Pretending it is simple is just a cop out.

Why do homosexuals want to be "married" when them being so renders the word meaningless. It also means that homosexuals who don't choose to be "married" are discriminated against by the homosexuals who choose to be "married". If homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals why do we use these terms? They stigmatise themselves by using the word homosexual to decribe themselves.

If heterosexual couples can live together without being married, by the millions, why can't homosexual couples.

What is the sub-text here. You're playing around with the matter in order to flatter yourselves.

Jane Austen's justly famous opening sentence to Pride and Prejudice reads--"‘It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.’"

Decode that ci into plain English.

Charlotte Brontë found Pride and Prejudice a disappointment, she wrote that the book was "... a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but ... no open country, no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck."

The difference is between country house bonnet and rustic reality. You are into country house bonnet with Ms Austen's delicious and disgraceful irony. You've read too many women's magazines ci. and watched too much Lady TV.

Why is women's sport a separate category? Why are women's toilets off limits to men when they have more money spent on them than men's toilets do and are cleaner and better appointed?

Equality and justice are just badges you wear and have no meaning in real life. They are mere excuses to justify having found a way to annoy people.

Occasionally in England one might be driving through the country lanes on a nice summer afternoon and come across 50 0r more cars queued up behind some dickhead in a pony and trap going at 8 mph. He is exercising his rights. In every car the occupants would vote to stop the silly sod, release his pony and throw him and his trap over the nearest hedge.

Be very careful with "rights". They are music in the ears of trouble-makers, boat-rockers and barrack-room lawyer types who are continually on the look out for novel ways to annoy people.

You do, however, our legal system, based upon Judeo/Christian principles in how a "marriage" is defined and entered into as a contract does not recognize that union. Therefore your goldfish marriage cannot be consecrated and you (or your "spouse fish") cannot enjoy benefits to which you both had presumably worked for.
So, in most states and by Federal decrees, Gay folks cannot enjoy any benefits accrued via the state of marriage (At last toll, there were some 1300 or so benefits thus accrued).So,you understand how your Neanderthal view is actually a bit of a problem with civil rights of a couple.
Why is it in the states benefit to deny civil rights by "Defining" what can or cant be made a contract? You havent made a logical case to support your argument, you just keep attacking the folks on the other side.

And that has exactly WHAT to do with this topic of discussion? It wa also the same Emperor who decided which of the many Gospels will be considered "Official" and which ones needed to be destroyed

Keeping him on topic without wagging about the forecastle is always a treat wen it succeeds.

If homosexuals cannot enjoy the financial benefits of marriage it is a trade off for not having to suffer the disadvantages of being married to a person of the opposite sex.

Why would politicians allow a small minority to dip into the tax revenues when there are few votes in it and what there are going to the Dems anyway. It's a no brainer unless the intention is to concentrate the homosexuals in various locations as is done in bars and some hotels.

I knew a guy who bought a large hotel in a rundown seaside resort for a song and we all laughed at him. Within a year he had it fully booked all the year round by advertising it in homosexual publications.

If they do allow homosexual unions to get the benefits then it automatically follows that taxes will rise or some other benefits will be reduced.

What about the civil rights of bachelors and spinsters? What about the civil rights of parents who start spending on their kids, often paying sales taxes, with nappies and prams through to helping them in college and providing football kit.

You--a scientist!!! Good grief! You're a sentimental old fart fm. Follow the money.

That's social evolution. The Temple of Isis was subject to periodic opening and closing. I think it was Juvenal who explained the closures. The opening took place when the reasons for the closures had been forgotten.

You really do need to put a little more effort into your posts fm. Platitudes are no use to educated people although I am aware that you don't think you are addressing any.

It isn't my fault rl if you can only follow one post at a time.

spendi, From somebody who claims to understand English, you can't even follow one post at a time. Quit faulting others for not understanding what you post, because most of us don't understand what you write. There's nary a connection between the topic of discussion and what you write. You go into tangents that has no meaning to the topic.

We got the topic in one post. It was a report of the result of Prop 8.

But by putting my dick in a man's **** hole it would be consecrated ?

con·se·crate (kns-krt)
tr.v. con·se·crat·ed, con·se·crat·ing, con·se·crates
1. To declare or set apart as sacred: consecrate a church.
2. Christianity
a. To produce the ritual transformation of (the elements of the Eucharist) into the body and blood of Jesus.
b. To sanctify (bread and wine) for use in Communion.
c. To initiate (a priest) into the order of bishops.
3. To dedicate solemnly to a service or goal. See Synonyms at devote.
4. To make venerable; hallow: a tradition consecrated by time.

If you had of read previously, Rex said the ceremony was the least important . You also emphasise the legal aspects so what is wrong with having a legally recognised union that is not called marriage ? Are you familiar with a compromise or are you too belligerent ?

You just keep ignoring how the folks on one side feel about it .

No, they were two separate Emperors . Christianity lived with homosexuality for quite some time before it was outlawed . It was the Civil Law that led to the Religious policy, not the other way around .

The ancient Hebrew didnt disapprove of homosexuality, one of their tribes was notorious for it . They disapproved of going to the pagan temples to practice homosexuality with prostitutes because some might be tempted to change religions . Most societies where they have one man several women marriages allow homosexuality to ease tension in the young men while they await a war to kill them off . One man one woman was put in cement for our culture by the homosexual Greeks who needed one woman to reproduce with, but the idea of marrying a man was ridiculous for another man .

Another useless post .

What was the Emperor's name that you are referring to Ionus?

http://gayinsacramento.com/Chron-44-page.wps.htm