Comments on: Gay Marriage Opponents Vow To Fight Ruling

Group Wants Legalized Same-Sex Marriage In Calif. Postponed Until Nov. So Voters Can Weigh In

[blackyowe]

I think this is all rubbish we have had thousands and thousands of years of marriage between a man and a women and now in one generation we have a bunch of upstarts who think they need to change the whole social landscape. Well like allot of late 20th Century garbage this too shall pass away. It''s because people have two much time on their hands and they are spoiled brats they cook up idiotic ideas like same *** marriage. What you all do in your bedrooms is OK by me just stop wasting money and time on such trivial and idiotic ideas as this. Just because Gay and Lesbians are hungry for acceptance and respect does not mean this is the way to gain it. It makes folks like me down right cranky. I have been been married 28 years and I think this is just so ridiculous and foolish. It can be made legal but I will never except it as real. It''s about as silly as breast implants. Our society has gone mad. It''s all FAKE!

[jkhagemann]

The homosexuals deserve to have the same rights as anyone else. I would rather have a Gay or Lesbian as my neighbor than a Christian. Homosexuals bring beauty and peace to every community they reside. Property values go up, business returns...!

Christians, well you know the story... hate, lies, sexual abuse, speak with two tounges,guns, violence ect. They follow a ad hoc combination of writtings by a group of closed minded/mentally ill mens solitary thoughts from over 2000 years ago!

We need more gay and lesbian attitudes today and less religion! Especially...North American Christian!

[stupidrules3]

Has anyone figured out the impact of these marriages on the divorce courts? It should lead to high drama when the courts get even more backed up with these cases too. Maybe Judge Judy will start officiating these free-for-alls. Reality TV will have a new lineup, "He Said, He Said," "Gay and Lesbian Divorce Court," and "Who gets custody of the strap-on?"

[blackyowe]

A Comparison Between the Roman and Modern Views of Homosexuality.
http://oregonstate.edu/~blakena/cs195/final/Other/Writing/RomanHomosexuality.html

"The Romans did not consider homosexual or heterosexual identities as exclusive from one another. While bisexuality was common, strict homosexuality was all but unknown. "

[blackyowe]

A Comparison Between the Roman and Modern Views of Homosexuality.
http://oregonstate.edu/~blakena/cs195/final/Other/Writing/RomanHomosexuality.html

"The Romans did not consider homosexual or heterosexual identities as exclusive from one another. While bisexuality was common, strict homosexuality was all but unknown. "

[blackyowe]

"There is nothing nobler or more admirable than when two people who see eye to eye keep house as man and wife, confounding their enemies and delighting their friends."

-Homer

[blackyowe]

"We only regard those unions as real examples of love and real marriages in which a fixed and unalterable decision has been taken. If men or women contemplate an escape, they do not collect all their powers for the task. In none of the serious and important tasks of life do we arrange such a "getaway." We cannot love and be limited."

-Alfred Adler

[blackyowe]

The is no reason for a man and man to wed or a women and a women either. All they need is the rights of married people. It''s just a ploy and its ridiculous now that such an enormous segment of the population cohabitates and even has children out of wedlock. We are a nation of ***. Marriage was invented to shelter women and children and provide issue for men to continue the line. There is no reason for *** to even need marriage. Our society is crumbling as we keep lowering the bar. It''s a huge fight for no reason at all. Just give all Gay people the right to have medical benefits and chose who inherits their worldly goods. Marriage is and always will be something that sprang from a biological and religious need. This post modern, new age *** is shallow and and a huge waste of the government and society''s time and money. Gay activists want to destroy marriage that is quite clear.

[charlieot]

BlackYowe,

Your answer is both incomplete and inaccurate...

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, marriage is defined not only as the union of a man and a woman. It is also defined as the combination of two or more elements; same *** marriage would certainly fit that definition.
Additionally, the meaning of words often changes. Very approriately, the definition of the word "gay" has changed significantly in the very same dictionary.

If you wish to argue against the construct commonly called gay or same-*** marriage, you would do well to choose an argument that will hold up under at least minimal scrutiny.

[steeepe]

The Bible has nothing to do with it. Only the Constitution matters. Religious and right-wing bigots should find some place they can have their own country and live by the Old Testament while they wait pointlessly for some supernatural events like the "Rapture". (Make sure you''ve got a big pile of stones to throw at sinners.) How many gay people made a choice to be gay? And what if they did? I never made a choice to be heterosexual. No one has made good argument yet how gay marriage would cause any major problems. We''d be better off if all the moralistic busybodies would just mind their own business.

[blackyowe]

Gay and Lesbian couples have the right to do as they want but sorry they can''t marry. Marriage is the union of a man and women. Give them all the perks but don''t call it marriage its just not. You can wish with all your might you are a tree but you will never have bark or leaves, folks. Time to except reality and hang up this nonsense. No one has the right to change the meaning of a word in the dictionary. Children deserve a man and a women to raise them.

[barbaraf4]

The whole subject of *****sexuality is academic. The fact is that *****sexuals exist in all societies and in all walks of life. It isn''t an illness and it isn''t a chosen lifestyle. It is just a fact of life. The fact that they walk among us recognized or unrecognized is irrelevant. This is not Nazi Germany so they are not required to wear any identifying insignia; they are not born with an "H" tattooed on their foreheads; I am not aware of any who have been struck down by a lightening bolt (although Rosie O''Donnell probably should be).

Denying their existance does not make them non-existent it simply infringes on their right to happiness. We are all entitled to happiness, whatever the definition.

I suggest everyone simply get over it, because no amount of wailing and chest-beating will make this go away.

[elz523]

This is a dream come true for the CONS. They know their religious nut friends, whom they have deceived into voting against thier best interests for the past 12 years, will continue to vote for Republicans based on this. Of course, as with the abortion issue, the CONS will do nothing to change the current situation since it is not in their best interest to take this issue out of the public eye. It keeps their base stirred up and voting for Republicans.

Please remember, this really isn''t anyone''s business. As already mentioned, a legal marraige is a contract between two people and really nothing more. Your church can regulate and promote its religious weddings any way it chooses, but the state should not impose religious views on its citizens.

[barbaraf4]

"Marriage:One man and one woman enter a contract sanctioned by the state." Posted by mediapreachr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I guess this rules out divorce too

[charlieot]

To try an inject a bit of sanity...
Arguing the moral and religious pro''s and con''s of this issue is mostly pointless. Neither side is even willing to acknowledge that reasonalble people can diagree on moral grounds.

Instead, I would suggest debating this from a legal and logical standpoint...
I can find very little precedent (a significant legal concept) to support a ban on the legal construct we call marriage. On the other hand, there is significant precedent for overturning such bans. Rulings on interracial marriage, discrimination and privacy which greatly resemble rulings against bans on gay marriage abound. In general, courts are loathe to overturn precedent; previous rulings are the foundation of many legal concepts.
Additionally, I can find no arguments based on logic which support continuing bans on gay marriage (as a legal entity). Moral arguments, while heartfealt, are less grounded in practicality that in emotion.

So, can anyone provide legitimate, objective legal or logical arguments devoid of personal beliefs and biases?

[mcvet]

It would be ok if gay people just went about their business and did what they wanted to do and love each other and they just want to be happy like everybody else. However, give them an inch and they want a foot. My complaint is don''''t try to teach our children that being gay is ok and that you were born gay. that''''s the biggest lie...that''''s stright from hell. If you want to legislate your deviant sexual behavior that''''s not ok with me. And don''''t try to compare homosexuality with the black experience because it''''s not the same.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by popcorns2 at 07:05 AM : May 17, 2008
+ report abuse

This is STUPID! People I remember when those Chemical''s within my body started to make me aware of the fact that I was a MALE... You could have told me ANYTHING, built a wall 20 foot high around that Female and I would have ignored your words and taken that wall down with my bare hands. THIS is garbage!! People who, for whatever reason, aren''t born with or the body does not allow that situation to happen are NOT second class citizens.

[mcvet]

Marriage:One man and one woman enter a contract sanctioned by the state.
The result of this union is CHILDREN-allowing the State to continue to exist.
Doesn''''t matter how you try members of the same s e x cannot reproduce-eventually they DIE off and their property goes to the state.
What goes on in your home behind close doors or who you choose to associate with is nobody''''s business BUT
Do not interfere with the basic institutions of society.
SAY NO to radical homosexual activists.Vote YES come this November to add California to the list of the 26.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by mediapreachr at 04:44 AM : May 17, 2008
+ report abuse

So what''s next? Are we going to say those couples who can''t have kids are not allowed to marry? You people need to adjust the foil on your heads here. Marriage is a CONTRACT between two people to live together PLAIN and simple. The rest of the garbage is the Religious Reich trying to toss RELIGION and THEIR warped views into the process. Sieg Heil and Amen

[slim1h2o]

I''m not G/ay, but it is no business of mine if two men, or two women get married. It''s highly doubtful that will cause the total destruction of the U.S.

Less than 1% of the population can''t destroy America.
Unless you are talking about the Bushit regime, then maybe.

Land of the Free? ...One would hope so, no matter how much you agree or disagree!

[naucoming4u]

One man and one woman, what a bunch of hokey! The republicans need cannon fodder, *** can''''t produce the needed material used to fight unnecessary wars so the "children" of the republicans don''''t have to dirty their hands but can still live the good life as the poor and middle class give up their children so you can have your McMansion, Suv, etc!
Love is between two people, no matter what their gender. God loves everyone!!!

Posted by nuffera at 07:03 AM : May 17, 2008
..........

Excellent!

That post pretty much wraps up this debate!

The End.

[kevboom]

"Gay Marriage Opponents Vow To Fight Ruling"

In other words, hateful people who don''t have a life of their own, vow to continue sticking their holier than thou face in other people''s business.