9th Circuit Court of Appeals Successfully Petitioned to Re-hear Prop. 8 Ruling

Not in my state, which bans any form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, and not at the federal level which doesn't recognize civil unions (nor same-sex couples' marriages).

Now, since you're resorting to using anti-gay slurs to make your points, I'll go back to ignoring you until you can behave like an adult.

 

No evidence that Milk was a pedophile. I will call you out on this every time you repeat this lie.

 

Such a telling use of a phrase...

 

when marriage is just about raising kids adopted or from another relationship or from current partners it might make sense to limit it to people that raise children homosexuals and heterosexuals alike

Those who don’t should be striped of their marriages

that might be fair and sensible I could support that

 

Maybe some people like Harvey milks story not for doing a 16 year old ( if he did I have yet to read the Mayer of Castro street and I’m not sure how god that source is ) but for managing to overcome discrimination by getting elected as an openly gay public official in California he was historic for that

Maybe they respect him for fighting crap like this

California Proposition 6 was an initiative on the California State ballot on November 7, 1978,[1] and was more commonly known as The Briggs Initiative.[2] Sponsored by John Briggs, a conservative state legislator from Orange County, the failed initiative would have banned gays and lesbians, and possibly anyone who supported gay rights, from working in California's public schools.

i don’t think telling students about him is an elaborate attempt to get them to have sex with adults

 

um how is gay marrage going to lead to chaos?

 

um unless you have to have sex to be married or unless its only legel to have sex if your married no marrage is not all baout sex

 

2 traits you can’t help that people can discriminate and attack you for irrationally they have things in common man

you’re the one who is hung up on genetics

 

You can compare racial injustice to sexual injustice in both cases people are being treated unfairly that’s why you have the word injustice in both cases

for example if someone stole form you by taking your car and someone else stabbed you in the eye for no reason

Both of those people would have done something unjust to you even though the crimes are very different

that’s why theft and assault are both considered unjust while not being considered exactly the same

if someone wont hire you for a job because of your race or because your heterosexual that’s the same discrimination just for different reasons

if you would not hire someone based on their race or because they were gay your acting unjustly in both cases

 

The issue he evades is the choice issue.

There is compelling evidence that orientation is not a choice people make, but formed at an early age, and not something people can change.

It doesn't matter whether it's genetic or not, what matters is it's not a choice, and it doesn't have to be genetic to NOT be a choice.

Then when he loses that argument, he pivots to te pedophelia thing......

 

Kind of sad that you think so. Then again we all have our own reasons for choosing to merge our lives with another, to live as one with them in good times and bad, through sickness and health, until death do us part. I'll try and respect your reason. Please try and understand that other folks have their own. For many, it's not all about sex.​

 

No one says you can't disagree with someone else's marriage. People have a right to their opinions and even their prejudices. The injustice is in putting that prejudice into our law, the injustice is in saying a couple cannot marry for no other reason than that you don't think they can have a 'real' marriage. Whether you based that opinion on their race, their religion, or their sex ... it's still unjust to deny them civil rights because of bigotry.​

 

well no it would have to be wrong to have homosexual sex in some way for it to avoid collapse even if it were a choice i don’t think it would be wrong to be gay have gay sex or marry the same gender ( hell it’s not wrong for heterosexuals to marry the same gender) having an orgasm with some one of the same gender is not inherently unfair or a cause of harm marriage to the same gender is the same

Pedophilia for example may not be a choice but it endangers children and a child may not be mature enough to make such a big choice in its own long term interest even if it would consent

The anti-homosexuality argument complete collapses because being gay in of itslef doesn’t harm any one or treat any unfairly and doesn’t limit any ones freedom

That orientation like all are basic likes and dislikes is not a choice is a fact it’s not relevant to homosexuality being good or bad in the 1st place

that dosent doom anti homosexulity arguments but it lends them no suport whatsoever

 

I didn't know that race had anything to do with marriage. I thought that any racial criteria for marriage was struck down with the Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia.

Who a person decides to marry and form a family with is a personal decision unrelated to race or genetics. It is a very personal decision that is identical for same-gender couples and well as opposite-gender couples. There is no difference between the two. They merge their personal assets and liabilities, they purchase homes together, they share financial success and disaster together, they pay the same taxes, and a significant percentage of both raise children together. They should be entitled to equal protection under the law and receive the same privileges and benefits of forming a family under the marriage laws.

 

What you speak of, of course, is the Constitutional principle that the government must treat all "similarly situated" parties alike. You give an excellent description of why these couples are similarly situated. Thank you.

 

I am of the opinion that any two consenting adults should have the right of legal marriage as long as one of the participants is not put in an inferior state by the marriage.

This excludes pedophelia because children, and most teenagers, lack the emotional maturity for sound decision making.

This excludes plural marriage because if one participant has to dilute his/her affections, finances, attention, etc...the multiple participants are put in an inferior state.

If being gay were a choice, that wouldn't be noteworthy to me, nor would it affect my opinion on marriage equality...I support it

I feel that sexual orientation is not a choice, because I can't choose to be attracted to anyone but women. I know that's completely anecdotal, but I'm pretty sure some of the anti gay folks would have just made that choice, or offered someone who made that choice, as evidence that it is a choice.

 

Unless it's Harvey Milk, gay ambassador writ large who openly sodomized and officiated as "husband" to 16 year old drug-addicted vulnerable-teen Jack McKinley. Then it's justifiable and McKinley "consented" "of right mind and maturity" to the sexual arrangment/marraige.. right? Because if that's not right, you should write a California state representative right away and tell them to take Harvey Milk off the books mandated to be taught to children there as "the uber-gay hero".. http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...y-milk-have-been-registered-sex-offender.html

So because of your subjective opinion that one man may not ever be able to equally love his many wives, parents may only have just one child, because more would "dilute their affections, finances, attention, etc....the multiple [children] put in an inferior state."

Just using your logic and applying it. How can you prove a man [or woman for that matter] cannot love many? What if he is wealthy and can afford three or four wives with ease? How would that be "an inferior state"?

Imprinted compulsive behaviors often feel like there is no choice. And because of this, it's imperative to understand how, when and why people become imprinted to reproductive or deviant sexualities and fetishes of all descriptions. How sexuality is learned and passed on as a cultural value is of paramount importance to examine under a scanning electron microscope.

This is especially true when considering the final removal of taboos [santion via marraige] against these behaviors when you understand that sexual imprinting can be socially-learned/acquired, much like a virus: So says the prestigious Mayo Clinic..

So we'd better look this gay-marraige horse deep in the mouth before we commit to buy..

 

I understand its far easier to attack the site than the facts but perhaps you can actually debate the facts they presented before embarrassing yourself further on the subject.

 

We aren't making laws about God here are we? Enjoy your fail.

 

Creationist websites do not offer 'facts'

massive FAIL.

Please keep embarrassing yourself further by claiming they do.

 

First of all....thank you for your first response to me that didn't contain insulting language, to me at least.

Our dialog actualy had an affect on my original opinion...since Harvey Milk, admittedly committed statutory rape...if he would have been arrested, charged, and found guilty of that...and they had such a thing as registered sex offenders back then...Milk should have been registered as a sex offender.

Having said that...what purpose would posthumously registering Milk serve?...are you trying to just discredit Milk?...are you concerned about pedophelia?...are you interested in discrediting gays in general?...or all of the above?

From a legal standpoint...I think we should not posthumously do anything to anybody except pinning medals on fallen soldiers.

I did not say that that one man may not ever be able to equally love his many wives. Love is subjective. What I'm talking about is simple objective math. If a patriarchal plural marriage includes 1 Husband, and 3 wives, the Husbands finances will be diluted/distributed amongst the three wives. If the Husband only had one wife, that wife would get 100% of the portion the husband chooses to contribure to the family common fund. With plural marriage, the three wives would only get 33% of what one wife would get.

I didn't say anything about children within plural marriage, but that subject has too many variables and doesn't figure into my position, because the children of a plural marriage are not marital participants

 

No, but believers in 'god' are the #1 group againts homosexuals.

Yet another FAIL. You are on a roll today. 2 for 2.

 

Oh I see. Mr two faced got caught and now can't decide which lie to go with.

LOL Only if you ignore the fact they referenced the 14th amendment. What a shocker you left that out.

Try actually addressing the ruling they made for once.

Misspelling a word is a far cry from talking out of both sides of your mouth.

LOL You've made plenty. I'm not petty enough to cite them. I will call on you when you make a statement then lie about you making it.

No you lied about a statement and called it a typo. Sorry bro. If you actually had law books in front of you look up age of consent. Its not about a verbal commitment from the child.

And I do admit my mistakes. I made a typo about the 9th circuit decision.

LOL No. I'm calling you out on a lie. You just can't admit it so you blame a typo. So painfully predictable of you.

 

So basically you lie about a statement you made then attack the person for pointing it out. Got it