California High Court Upholds Marriage Ban

Smallc · May 29, 2009

Krikey....then I'll be marrying me Sister!

Just don't have children.

bush_cheney2004 · May 29, 2009

Just don't have children.

Why not? It's a right don'tcha know.

sharkman · May 29, 2009

Yes, scientifically we do. We also know that homosexuality is quite natural in nature. We've also come to understand human thought and opinion better. I certainly don't share your view that humanity is failing. Humanity has always had problems...and so far, we've always made it through the problems.

nonsense, we don't even know how much we don't know yet, keep dreaming. For instance we can't even tell if coffee is good or bad for us yet. Geez, we also find murder in nature, but we are not animals so why should we mimic them?

Edited May 29, 2009 by sharkman

Smallc · May 29, 2009

Murder hurts people...people being gay doesn't. I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference though.

Every day we learn more about the world that we live in. You can choose to ignore the progress if you want, but that just means that the world will probably end up leaving you behind.

sharkman · May 29, 2009

Murder hurts people...people being gay doesn't. I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference though.
Every day we learn more about the world that we live in. You can choose to ignore the progress if you want, but that just means that the world will probably end up leaving you behind.

Are you really sure that gay activities do not 'hurt' anyone? Then why is it recommended that they only practice 'safe' sex, which of course they prefer to not do. I won't bother you further on this, if you insist on seeing the glass as half full without checking back to see what the level was at 20 years ago that's your business.

Oleg Bach · May 29, 2009

Are you really sure that gay activities do not 'hurt' anyone? Then why is it recommended that they only practice 'safe' sex, which of course they prefer to not do. I won't bother you further on this, if you insist on seeing the glass as half full without checking back to see what the level was at 20 years ago that's your business.

Firstly gays do not have sex - get that straight..secondly - this is a non-issue and it really does not free anyone or grant more rights - in fact it removes civil rights the same way civil marrage is actually a control measure to maintain the herd....as for some gays - I know of one - an associate - and he is so self centred and internally nasty - to the most shallowest degree - that he will have relations with young men - and not tell them he carries the killer virus - talk about evil and stupidity being kin.

Oleg Bach · May 29, 2009

Another thing - gays are not frinking saints! My young and handsome son - befriended a gay man - (actually a woman hater) - we trusted this fellow - in time - he attempted to slowly convert my son to "experimenting" - I called the little creep and said that he insulted my family - he was self serving and diviate - and a liar - he was not trust worthy ----and - at this point - my son works part time in a swank health club - a very well known hollywood celeb - is in town and wants to listen to the kids CD - well - a CD is all he is getting - give it time and he will make that move on my son - and I am protective - I don't need some rich jerk from hollywood sexually interfereing with a good straight kid - lets see what happens - I bet you a thousand bucks that Mr- Spacey will be selfish enough to make a move on the boy - this will prove that some gays don't give a damn for the well being of others - being a friend should be good enough if you are a sincere and good person.

Topaz · May 29, 2009

I've listened to US news programs on this and one thing that was pointed out was that it should be up to the states and not the Feds and that one time being married if you were not the same ethnic was a no-no too and yet that has passed and this will too and gays will be able to marry freely in the future. I don't understand why the word marriage is so important. If civil union gives the couple all the power an man and a woman has legally, then make it so and lets get on with what is more important the recession!

bush_cheney2004 · May 29, 2009

I've listened to US news programs on this and one thing that was pointed out was that it should be up to the states and not the Feds and that one time being married if you were not the same ethnic was a no-no too and yet that has passed and this will too and gays will be able to marry freely in the future. I don't understand why the word marriage is so important. If civil union gives the couple all the power an man and a woman has legally, then make it so and lets get on with what is more important the recession!

Does that mean I will be able to marry me Mum?

Shady · May 29, 2009

I don't understand why the word marriage is so important. If civil union gives the couple all the power an man and a woman has legally, then make it so and lets get on with what is more important the recession!

I tend to agree. Civil unions achieve equal rights for the homosexual community. The issue should be over and done with, except that there are some gay activists who don't just want equal rights, they want their relationships to have equal significance. The problem is, that they don't. Never have. Never will.

Oleg Bach · May 29, 2009

I tend to agree. Civil unions achieve equal rights for the homosexual community. The issue should be over and done with, except that there are some gay activists who don't just want equal rights, they want their relationships to have equal significance. The problem is, that they don't. Never have. Never will.

Have all the rights you want - have all the privledge and responislby if you wish - that comes with legal unions and with those of the common law - but don't tell me that a woman is a man...or a man a woman - no matter how masculine the female is - or how femine the male is - they are what they are - men and woman - and if they can not marry each other because they are genetically or sexually conditioned - is not my problem - to infringe on the instution of marriage is aggressive and very unkind..they can do what they want - but not do what they want if it offends others - If people find that gays and lesbians are offensive for demanding to take the truf of hetrosexuals - perhaps homo-sexuals should be more sensitive to our feelings on this subject - apparently they do not give kind consideration to anyone - perhaps being gay is simply being selfish and covetess?

BubberMiley · May 30, 2009

The problem is, that they don't. Never have. Never will.

To you, they don't. Just as your relationships may have no signficance to them. The difference is they don't try to make you a second-class citizen like you do to them.

It is a strange insecurity that compels a person to take away others' rights to make him feel better about himself.

Smallc · May 30, 2009

I tend to agree. Civil unions achieve equal rights for the homosexual community. The issue should be over and done with,

No, because not being able to marry makes them different from you. It's almost as if they have to sit at the back of the bus.

Smallc · May 30, 2009

if you insist on seeing the glass as half full without checking back to see what the level was at 20 years ago that's your business.

I'm pretty sure our measurements wouldn't match up, since your glass is always half empty.

Shady · May 30, 2009

To you, they don't. Just as your relationships may have no signficance to them. The difference is they don't try to make you a second-class citizen like you do to them.
It is a strange insecurity that compels a person to take away others' rights to make him feel better about himself.

You may want to re-read my post. I'm not advocating taking away any rights from anyone. As I stated, I want civil unions to provide EVERY SINGLE RIGHT in which married couples enjoy. I'm not trying to make anyone a "second-class citizen." But at the same time, I'm just pointing out a fact of human biology, and human nature. Homosexual relationships are not as significant, or as important as heterosexual ones. It's not my opinion, it's simply a matter of science and nature.

Smallc · May 30, 2009

As I stated, I want civil unions to provide EVERY SINGLE RIGHT in which married couples enjoy. I'm not trying to make anyone a "second-class citizen."

Yes, you are. Why should they have to be different?

BubberMiley · May 30, 2009

Homosexual relationships are not as significant, or as important as heterosexual ones. It's not my opinion, it's simply a matter of science and nature.

What do you intend to do about all those those marriages involving the infertile? You could start with annulments after menopause.

sharkman · May 30, 2009

You may want to re-read my post. I'm not advocating taking away any rights from anyone. As I stated, I want civil unions to provide EVERY SINGLE RIGHT in which married couples enjoy. I'm not trying to make anyone a "second-class citizen." But at the same time, I'm just pointing out a fact of human biology, and human nature. Homosexual relationships are not as significant, or as important as heterosexual ones. It's not my opinion, it's simply a matter of science and nature.

And this is a completely reasonable compromise, so of course the gay brain trust will reject it as homophobic. They are being completely unreasonable and seem unable to view things from anything but their own heterophobic perspective. And this single thing is why they are responsible for California's recent vote.

And how did they do that, you ask? By comparing their lot in America to those of the blacks. Aside from being totally off base with that one, they managed to tick off the black voting base which is largely responsible for the vote results. And the gays response? Attack the Mormon church, and at all costs bend over backwards to not offend the blacks anymore. They were half right with that response. Half right is still half wrong, however, and churches should be allowed some leeway in these matters since gays are allowed to organize non-profit organizations which are so politically active they make the Mormon church look positively virgin by comparison.

The bottom line is that gays have everything already except the m word, which would be good enough for anyone else. Marriage should be reserved for those couples who have the possibility of conceiving children and for the family.

Smallc · May 30, 2009

What it equates to is segregation. Sure, they can still ride the bus (get civil unions), but they have to ride at the back of the bus (they can't get married, unlike others.

BubberMiley · May 30, 2009

Marriage should be reserved for those couples who have the possibility of conceiving children and for the family.

So you too are opposed to people being married after menopause? Should there be a requirement for proof of fertility before a marriage licence is issued?

bush_cheney2004 · May 30, 2009

What it equates to is segregation. Sure, they can still ride the bus (get civil unions), but they have to ride at the back of the bus (they can't get married, unlike others.

Segregation by gender is still very legal in public accommodations for Canada and the USA.

Smallc · May 30, 2009

This has nothing to do with gender, but rather a legal contract between people.

sharkman · May 30, 2009

So you too are opposed to people being married after menopause? Should there be a requirement for proof of fertility before a marriage licence is issued?

Tell us what you think, should there be a requirement for proof of gayness before a civil union license is used?

sharkman · May 30, 2009

What it equates to is segregation. Sure, they can still ride the bus (get civil unions), but they have to ride at the back of the bus (they can't get married, unlike others.

Nonsense. They ride in any seat of the bus they want. They get every single right anyone else gets, plus their gay rights are actually held above rights of non gays. But since it's two people of the same sex on the bench in the bus, it doesn't meet the definition of marriage.

Smallc · May 30, 2009

But since it's two people of the same sex on the bench in the bus, it doesn't meet the definition of marriage.

It met the definition of Marriage a short time ago and it meets the definition where you live. Besides, they can already ride on the bus because they can get civil unions, but they are restricted from sitting in the married seats. Either everyone who signs the contract outside of religion can be married or they can't.