Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

[JRJ]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

You might want to try a different color:}

 

[mrbscott19]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.(for QC)

I was raised by a single mother who also got a PhD while raising my brothers and me. I have no animosity towards alternative families. What I said, and strongly believe, is that the IDEAL was one of each and of the loving variety. I submit this is logical and resisted only because you have an agenda. That agenda is that you believe (also strongly) that nothing can be determined as best or better as it will possibly offend someone and deprive them of their "rights". This I also strongly believe is hogwash!!

Well all I can say is I agree with you except the part where you assume you know what I believe. I also believe that the IDEAL way to raise a child is a mother and a father. But what happens when the conditions aren't IDEAL? This is far from a perfect world and any kid that winds up with 2 gay parents more than likely came from a home with no parents, or at least parents that didn't want said child in the first place. You yourself were not raised under the IDEAL circumstances and I'm sure you believe you turned out ok in spite of it. Both being raised by a single mother and gay parents are not IDEAL, so where do you get off condemning one when you were raised by the other? You turned out ok, right? I can understand your arguement if you think your mom raised you to be some screwed up homophobe, but thats not the case right?

IDEALLY, a child is better off being raised by a gay couple than living in a foster home until they're 18, which is really the only option for gay couples thanks to the laws of nature. But IDEALLY the kids wouldn't be in foster care in the first place now would they?

Oh, and how do you figure that marriage is all about the kids? I know lots of married people who don't have kids and don't plan on having them. Should they not be allowed to get married either?

 

[ob]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

I'm picking up on some homophobia here.I don't mean that in a bad way.

What ever way you meant it is of no consequence. The bottom line is you are incorrect in your evaluation of the post.

The proper course of action for you is to learn from your mistake and refrain from making the same mistake in the future.

Your cooperation and commitment to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Aye aye captain.Whatever you say.:$ Just so we're clear on the matter,the intended translation of my comment was that anyone that showed support for the opening post of this thread would likely be labeled a homophobe.The second sentence in the comment was suppose to be the revealing jest.It was vague,I'll admit.My interpretation of the term homophobe is that ,it's just a made up word that's intended to be a show stopper for those flinging it about.

Thanks for understanding QC.In the future I'll make a better attempt at considering the entire audience.8)

 

[mrbscott19]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

I actually don't give a fig what they call their own special union. Just don't call it a Marriage.

That name has been taken already.

I don't have a problem with this solution either provided they are awarded the same benefits as married couples.

 

[QC]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

Well all I can say is I agree with you except the part where you assume you know what I believe.

I knew that would get me in trouble . . . Assumptions like that got me in trouble with CJY yesterday too. I guess I have to stop that :} With that said, you are contending that other family types can be equal, so you at least to some degree confirm my assumption . . . Sorta, maybe, kinda?

But what happens when the conditions aren't IDEAL?

That wasn't the discussion, nor my point. I brought up my childhood to point out that I do not have some built-in belief that other types of homes cannot be OK. What I said, and believe is that society should encourage the ideal. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, and how do you figure that marriage is all about the kids?

I happen to think marriage without child rearing is somewhat meaningless. I didn't say it was wrong, I just don't understand the point.

Sorry I capped IDEAL . . . that apparently P'd you O too. Frankly, I thought I had overused italics, and caps were the next best thing.

 

[Mark42]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

I'm picking up on some homophobia here.I don't mean that in a bad way.

What ever way you meant it is of no consequence. The bottom line is you are incorrect in your evaluation of the post.

The proper course of action for you is to learn from your mistake and refrain from making the same mistake in the future.

Your cooperation and commitment to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Aye aye captain.Whatever you say.:$ Just so we're clear on the matter,the intended translation of my comment was that anyone that showed support for the opening post of this thread would likely be labeled a homophobe.The second sentence in the comment was suppose to be the revealing jest.It was vague,I'll admit.My interpretation of the term homophobe is that ,it's just a made up word that's intended to be a show stopper for those flinging it about.

Hmmm. Maybe I should have added one of those face things. I wasn't being serious.

 

[puddle jumper]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

All of us are in an same sex marriage. We go home and have the same sex .Quote Robbin Williams8)8)

 

[ob]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

I'm picking up on some homophobia here.I don't mean that in a bad way.

What ever way you meant it is of no consequence. The bottom line is you are incorrect in your evaluation of the post.

The proper course of action for you is to learn from your mistake and refrain from making the same mistake in the future.

Your cooperation and commitment to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Aye aye captain.Whatever you say.:$ Just so we're clear on the matter,the intended translation of my comment was that anyone that showed support for the opening post of this thread would likely be labeled a homophobe.The second sentence in the comment was suppose to be the revealing jest.It was vague,I'll admit.My interpretation of the term homophobe is that ,it's just a made up word that's intended to be a show stopper for those flinging it about.

Hmmm. Maybe I should have added one of those face things. I wasn't being serious.

Deja vu.8)

 

[NOSLEEP]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

Ah, yes the homophobia card.
It's common knowledge today. The new definition of "homophobia" is any thought or statement in disagreement with the gay life style.
But the good news is they are not only loosing the mind game. They have hardened their opposition.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

So, how long will organized religion stunt the evoloutionary process with regard to society.....

Personally, to some extent, I hope forever . . .

Well said!
Haut, sometimes you scare me.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

So if gay marriage becomes law, when does polygamy? And from there where does it go? Do you give the same rights and laws to NAMBLA? If your change the laws for one "group" so we can be a progressive society, don't you have to change the laws for all the others? If you don't, then aren't you disciminating against them?

You can't say "Well gay marriage is OK, because I don't have some phobia, then in the next breath say but you can only have on legal wife." Because if you do, then you must have a phobia?

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

 

[Pony]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

Well said Eric. I think your correlation between gay marriage and polygamy is a good one.



Once again I will say that Marriage is more than just a descriptive term that you can just throw at any just any joining of people you want to. It is more than just a name, its more than just the vows you say..............just as Thanksgiving isnt just about the food, and Christmas about the presents.

I am beginning to wonder if more and more people arent thinking that way, and that is leading to the high divorce rate. Maybe society as a whole is taking the meaning away from marriage to the point that gay marriage will be expected........................I hope not.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

Polygamy is bad, why?......JK

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

Polygamy is bad, why?......JK

Now you may be onto something Haut. The nice thing about polygamy is that each wife, with your kids, has her own house. A little bit expensive maybe but, all in all, not a bad idea.8)

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

Common sense in a court room, who da thunk it.

 

[puddle jumper]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

Gay marriage
The problem with not allowing two males or females to get married is like not allowing two people from diffrent
religions or races to get married.As we all know in the past these subjects were hot topics with goverments and religion leaders.As time went on it became part of normal life and we think nothing of it as nothing more than two people who love each other and would like to live there life together as one.Just like your wife and you.
I think thats all thay want.Im ok with it as long as its real
and not just a fad.

As for same sex couples raising children is it not better that an child be raised in a loving home regardless of the parents perfered gender.I think the problem with this does not lie with the gay parents but with the comunity that thinks it is wrong.

To be honest two guys who feal like this towards each other kinda grosses me out but two woman who feal the same,it seems different and kinda cool.Thats probably becouse im a guy.8)
Just my thought on the subject
pj

 

[crunch]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

Common sense in a court room, who da thunk it.

Yep.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

if they wish to call it a civil union and it has the same laws applied for getting into and out of I dont have a problem with same sex civil unions.
however I do have a problem with calling it a marriage as mine and most other religions in the world see the word marriage with religous connotations.
if marriage was as expensive to get into as out of there would be a lot less.

but as far as two same sex people wishing to have the same protections and liabilities under US law I have no issue with.

I just dont want it called a marriage.
the invitations could read"you are invited to the civil unification of yo and yo" however the dissolution would hve to be " the civil union between yo and yo is forthwith disolved on this day let the lawyers start the equitable distribution of the unions property".

I dont fear the gay lifestyle but I also dont like it. but I wont stand in there way of their pursuit of hapiness.

 

[alden135]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

They have hardened their opposition.

Perfect opportunity to take off with this statement, but I won't. :}

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

They have hardened their opposition.

Perfect opportunity to take off with this statement, but I won't. :}

Tsk, tsk, alden.