California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

What has that to do with Judge Reinhardt citing the Constitution to justify the overturning a popular vote by the "swinish multitude when one of its 7 principal signatories had written those things about city-slicker judges.

Had he not cited the Constitution I would not have composed that post which suggests to me, admittedly an ignorant Limey, that overturning such a democratic verdict is unconstitutional.

Why don't you devote your energies to Prop 69 and win a majority. Then I would have nothing to say about the matter except maybe in the context of some light-hearted public-house ribaldry which, I'm afraid to say, and with long experience, is rather of a constant tone.

It is necessary to get the ladies cackling a lot on Saturday nights to get them in the mood for the night we get a lie-in on on the morning of the following day. Do not those bars which cater especially for homosexuals, discriminating against heterosexuals in a manner the legislators don't know how to outlaw, have light-hearted banter about about them as well? I can do light-hearted banter about heterosexuals. All the best writers did as well. Writers are peeceed all to **** nowadays which is why they are no good.

I've seen homosexuals doing light-hearted banter about their own persuasion and it is often quite amusing I must admit.

One needs to be amused I tend to think when the mucking and foddering is completed.

spendi, We all know how you get your pleasures; by talking about sex when that's not even the topic of discussion.

Here's a news item from the internet today.


They're trying to take away a woman's sexual liberty, and they have the mitigated gall to talk about religious liberty. It has nothing to do with religious liberty; there is nothing in the bible or Catechism that restricts contraceptives. They can't see their own hypocrisy.

They are trying to give women their liberty back which has been taken away by contraception. Contraception renders women less dangerous and thus an indispensable part of their armoury is lost to them. So too with divorce. Homosexuality gives them no scope what ever. What does it matter if they are dangerous then? T.S. Eliot went further than that.

It is another of your circularities ci. You are defining what women's liberty is on your terms. I think Erasmus Darwin's occasional squeeze, Harriet Martineau, would give you a stern wigging if you had told her what your definition of women's liberty is.

And their determination, against a chorus of clamorous caterwauling, is proof that they know they are right. How easy it would be for them to give in. How tempting. How heretical.

There is no heresy that is not tempting.

What makes me laugh is that it was the Church that separated Church and State and not a bunch of land speculators who were parlezing literacy into hard cash.

They didn't need contraceptives in those days because women had the liberty to be dangerous as you will perhaps notice if you give the Bible more of your attention than hitherto. Witches being the OTT ones. Most of the agony was caused by the nature of the surroundings.

Look at the portrayals of the female in our culture compared with that in others.

The Pope's wanking tackle an atheist wit might say. You will have seen the Aztec version I presume. And some others I could mention.

Where do you see elsewhere such an obvious worship of the female in her tenderness and gentle manifestations as in the art commissioned by the Catholic Church.

You wrote,

No, your interpretation of what I wrote is mistaken. Women should have the freedom to do whatever they please without limits equal to men.

Your English Victorian background renders you out of date with most things sexual.

There is nothing sexual about contraception.

Define "sex" for us then we can have an idea what you are talking about. Male orgasm I shouldn't wonder.

Is that why they wear it on/in their sexual organs?

How about if we define marriage equality so you no longer have any doubt as to its meaning?

So we have one man and one woman and they get married...

They leave the holy sepulcher catholic church after the marriage ceremony and head directly to the local sex shop. They buy dildos for both him and her, sex restraints and lots of lube. Then they go to the local computer shop and buy their first computer and webcam. Then they go to the pharmacy and pick up their prescription of contraceptives.

Now granted they could have just gotten married to simply go home, hold hands and look dreamily into each other's eyes. Their marriage could be only to buy chocolates and flowers every now and then for one another and go to church every Sunday to pay their pedophile priest to absolve them from sin. But as we know not all marriage between a man and a woman are like this. How do we know this?

Well this couple goes home and hooks up their computer webcam and have sex while broadcasting the event for all of the world to watch. They booze themselves up and take turns tying each other up and apply everything from nipple clamps to vibrators while giving a show in all their "marriage freedom" that they use to do this under.

They do not intend to make babies, for if this was so she would not be using the pill and/or he would not be using a condom.

They holler, scream, pant and moan during sex in their apartment so loud that the gay neighbor's children one thin wall away are unable to sleep. The children wake up unrested such that the next morning they are unable to function properly at grammar school with a reasonable amount of alertness.

Then this married, one man and one woman, they get dressed up very nice on Sunday, they go to their paganized Jesus, bleeding heart of the immaculate conception church on the weekend. They light a candle and drop money in the collection plate so their pedophile priest will have the gas money to drive across town and coerce some elderly widow into willing her estate to the church after she is dead.

This is freedom, this is heterosexual marriage? And gays are going to destroy this?

Granted this one man and one woman could have gotten married to just look dreamily into each other's eyes. They could have gotten married just to make a baby and then split up. They could have gotten married to just hold hands or they cold have gotten married so that on Sunday they don't have to walk into church alone to pay their pedophile priest. They have a vast array of choices and options. They can decide to hire a surrogate mother or father to help them bear children. Sorry to be so blunt about this, but it is heterosexuals themselves who have stretched the sexual envelope of marriage not me. As for the priests... we have centuries of incredibility to draw from in understanding them.

One man and one woman have the right to either marry and never have sex or they can be slutty and swap each other out for every and any sexual malady they can conceive of.

So the one man and one woman they fill their closest with sex toys and porno DVD's, they go on the internet and have sex shows in their hoochie-cooch jungle room sex parlor bedroom. How do they earn their income? Well they sell DVD's of them having sex. Some of these titles are: "married but still nasty", "bedroom bride's secrets" "honey honeymoon" etc...

Spendius? Do you get the picture here?

Now say, two same sex couples decide they want to respectfully get married...

Should they be barred from going to the sex toy store? Should they be questioned as to if they are going to have sex dogie style, the fire drill, play preachers wife, the milkman or whatever? Should they be accused that their only intentions for getting married is sex?

Should they have to endure your phobias and bizarre weirdness about how a "good women" and man should behave in your own twisted judgement? Should they have to endure your own phobias and projections and demeaning line of questions and freakish quirks?

Suppose these gay couples just want to get married to hold hands and look dreamily into each other's eyes? Suppose they just want to raise their children from previous marriages that did not pan out? And god forbid if they are actually attracted to one another... Maybe they just want to masturbate to adult porn. These sick **** priests and bishops and the likes masturbate while thinking about their little altar boys and girls. Then they go shake hands with the parishioners as they leave the church... They take their guilt ridden sin money donated to feed the poor and use it to protest committed gays who love one another yet are not permitted to marry?

Love and sex between two consenting married adults comes in many shapes and sizes and to allow these sexual freedoms to only a man and a woman and disallow this freedom to same sex couples is inequality no matter how you define it. Two committed consenting adult gays and their "love" should not be questioned any more so than two committed consenting adult heterosexuals.

Gays deserve the same rights to either screw up their marriages or make them work in the very same ways that heterosexuals have done for years...

Gays can't defile marriage any more than what heteros have already done to it. This is marriage equality... for better or for worse...

If that's your view of marriage I can't see why you want to bother with it.

Reminds me of the marriage that was in the news here a couple months back. Guy was sitting at the breakfast table while his wife cooked his breakfast for him. He didn't like the way she fixed his eggs, so he went upstairs and got his gun and came back to the kitchen. She saw it, and ran next door to the neighbors. He followed her and shot and killed her and the two neighbors. True story. Heterosexual marriage. I find it hard to think a gay couple can screw up the institution worse than some legally married couples are doing already. OmSigDavid, of course, thought the moral of the story was that a wife should always have her pistol strapped on over her apron, so she can take out her husband at the fist signs he's getting funny. Good thing he's apparently never been married.

Spendius, every once in a while a good, wholesome, "gay" marriage comes along where two same sex helpmates happily grow old together in loving harmony and commitment. I would like the equal right to peruse this dream if I so choose.

Exactly, I hope you get that right. This whole thread is about equality, but Spendi can't stop thinking about the bedroom.

I would like the same for you as well Rex. I have been married almost 28 years now but I do have to say you would have to be sleeping to believe in this dream at times.

Yeah--well--everybody does. If they didn't I can't see why there would be any marriage. The institution is specifically designed for the production of babies. Not necessarily the rearing of them.

Why anybody who thinks there is anything else to it should want to take over the outward forms of it is incomprehensible to me. There are many things people might do with their lives once they cross the bedroom off their list. I can't imagine any single ordinary bloke agreeing to have a ball and chain attached to his ankle if it wasn't for the shagging. It would be a madness imo.

Avoiding the ball and chain AND getting the shagging is cheating. The whole bloody point is the price of shagging. Do you not understand European literature? Take the sacrifice away and what's your strategy to prevent wholesale promiscuity.

One only has to look at the tone and the rituals of a proper Stag night, and they even fake that now, to know that another mug has been driven by his lust to agree to the tribulations of eschewing bachelorhood. The putative bridegroom is a figure of fun. That's why the blushing bride blushes. That she is "given away" absolves her of any moral culpability as does her demeanour and presentation.

Obviously a Man of God is required to preside over such sordid transactions so that they can at least provide a semblance of respectability and decorous good taste. Some council official on double time with a handful of forms to fill in, and a mouth full of ambiguous bureaucratese, in a tastefully designed office, gives me the sense that the transaction is of a mercantile nature which makes a nonsense of the whole Romantic genre.

I don't agree with divorcees using the word married as well. When the chain attaching the ball can be cut with a pair of cheap scissors, despite the rigmarole of the expensive manipulation of the handles, the essential point has been lost.

It is well known that media types have a much higher proportion of both divorce and homosexuality than is found on average and thus the case Media presents has become somewhat lopsided.

But even Prince Charles had to suffer the indignity of a Registry Office on the High Street to hitch up to Mr Parker-Bowles's wife. He should have got one of his bodyguard to knock off Mr Parker-Bowles and then everything would have been hunky-dory and a cathedral marriage in perfect order.

Denude the word marriage of meaning and the institution becomes meaningless as well. Properly married people might then take to using some other expression, such as "Blessed in Heaven", to denote their condition. But if it caught on and became the official usage of the Church I have no doubt that envious eyes would soon become cast on that.

Of course I am speaking here, as always, of a proper wedding. All deviations from the ideal can be considered cases of les majesty. By the use of a cheap verbal trick the general approval of the properly married state can be garnered to the bosoms of the improperly married.

Fat chance!! You won't get past my feet with stuff like that. Nor any of my mates in all the pubs I've ever been in. **** Media and all its works. It's being inspected on Judge Leveson's dissecting table with the sort of disinterested expertise that I find very refreshing. It seemingly corrupts everything it touches.

All the tricks used in A2K debates are being exposed in the Leveson Enquiry as guilty witnesses squirm and wriggle under a penetrating light they had never expected to be shone upon them and a demonstration given of how intelligent people respond to such nonsense.

There is no equality. That's just a word people use in discourse to elicit approval from noddies. It's fundamentally demagoguery. You can't go wrong with it as long as you avoid people like me.

The fact that you refer to marital sex as "shagging" and not "making love" speaks volumes ...

I sincerely hope you don't think I used the word I did with any other intention than for it to speak a message. I am not generally given to accidental usages in my posts.

"Making love", an expression I am quite familiar with, covers far too wide a spectrum of activity for it to have been useful to the position I was taking. Love can be made in an infinite variety of ways but "shagging" is a scientific word about which there can be no doubts. Married heterosexuals are allowed to make love.

We have converted country houses which specialise in "Second honeymoons" where I presume the idea is to remind jaded couples of the opposite sex of the love-making aspects. So also candlelit dinners on St Valentine's night. They are forms of play.

The point you make Rex tells us something about you.

I guess the same thing can be said about you too Spendius.

Thanks for that succinct and exactly right video RL

It derives from rl being unable to understand my posts. He reads them too fast and he reads them thinking he knows what they are going to mean before he begins either because they are mine, or because I am pissed or because I have my underpants on inside out.

It is not bigoted to oppose the suffrage of women if the opposition derives from an economic argument that votes for women leads to catastrophic consequences which, of course, it is bound to do.

It is bigoted to be in favour of votes for women simply "because!" and not to engage in the economic argument.

It is not bigoted to oppose homosexual partnerships being "marriage" if reasons are given of the practical difficulties of doing so.

It is bigoted to assume that those opposing such usage for practical reasons are homophobic because it follows the first principle of bigotry which is that it must be easy as there is then no need to answer the arguments from practicality.

Wouldn't it be more respectful to A2Kers for rl and RR to have answered the points I raised in those two posts rather than blurting out some easy to do nonsense.

The second principle of bigotry is that the audience are not respected.

rl's and Rex's last two posts are in line with their tried and tested method of profound disrespect to A2K viewers and to the debate format in general in the discourse between people.

Anybody who does not know from reading the last six posts on this thread who the bigots are should hurry on down to adult evening classes for the correction of mental retardation.

The third principle of bigotry is that there is a vacuum where a sense of humour should be.