Miss California Assailed By Gays For Defending Marriage

[Landis82]

Quote from jem:

Showing that gays are disadvantage in adoption is not the same as showing that gay marriage is superior to a gay civil union.

---

thousands of dollars my foot.

I bet any gay person could ask a few friends and get directed to a civil union package of forms for a few dollars.

if not I have a business idea for you.

Your last post shows that you clearly have NO CLUE what you are talking about. It's truly amazing how ignorant you are regarding the tremendous benefits conferred by a marriage contract. Furthermore, if you have ever established a "Family Trust" with a bypass trust/agreement you would know how incredibly naive your above statement is.

I thought that you were an informed participant in this discussion and thread, but that was a poor assumption on my part. Your last post clearly shows that you have no clue.

You are now on ignore.
Not worth my time.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"as an american - you can pretty much choose to have sex with any consenting adult. Gay marriage has nothing to do with that freedom."

Gay marriage has everything to do with freedom from discrimination.

Being gay is either genetic, like race, or a choice. If it is genetic, like race then of course you cannot legally deny any race or genetic condition the rights of another race.

If it is a choice to be gay, then it is exactly like a choice to be a Catholic, or practice Judaism, Buddhism, etc.

It is wrong to discriminate on the basis of creed.

creed Show phonetics
noun [C] (ALSO credo) FORMAL
a set of beliefs which expresses a particular opinion and influences the way you live

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=18187&dict=CALD

Your denial of allowing people who have a gay "creed" to marry is discrimination against a minority group (yes, creed makes one group a minority group from the majority group).

Bottom line, this is your personal religion trying to impose its value structure on another creed, and that is not right in a secular society in which the government and laws based on the Constitution are secular...

Quote from jem:

on the contrary.


my point - which was illustrated by mercor is that there is no reason to allow gays to get special treatment over any other group that wishes to change the definition.

the sex of a sex partner is a choice. No reason to give that choice any special protection in my opinon.

as an american - you can pretty much choose to have sex with any consenting adult. Gay marriage has nothing to do with that freedom. Why change the definition of marriage. Civil unions should be perfectly adequate.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"Homo's should be asking for marriage for any two people who ever they are."

That is exactly what they are doing...

Quote from Mercor:

This is the reason Homo marriage is invalid. Are you a Homo if you don't have sex.

Two guys may be best buddies and live together, Are they Homo?

Isn't Homo only about the sex.

To get married no proof of love is needed. You only need to prove you are male and female. How do you prove to the state that you are Homo unless you get into ugly stereotypes or prove you are having sex.

Homo's should be asking for marriage for any two people who ever they are.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"I see that status as being for different form being a women or being black."

Discrimination on the basis of religion is wrong, and religion is just another creed.

The gays have a different creed than you when it comes to sex, so the above is meaningless, as we are not supposed to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, creed, gender, age, etc.

You are clearly a bigot who wishes to deny basic human rights and freedom to a group simply because they subscribe to a different creed. This is unconstitutional...

Quote from jem:

My opposition is based on the fact that I do not wish to see the definition changed because any change would be arbitrary. Why not 6 women and a man?

And because gays in my opinion are not a true minority class.

people choose to have sex with a partner. The sex of the partner is a choice.

I see that status as being for different form being a women or being black.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from jem:

you were the one who made the statement ....I just said prove it. so far you have not. Why should I have to prove your point?

Quote from Landis82:

Your last post shows that you clearly have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

You are now on ignore.
Not worth my time.

Landis82's favorite tactic is to put those on ignore who catch him making a fool out of himself and call him out. Flustered, he slings ad hominem and puts the person on ignore. Reminiscent of the resident troll, yesirree...

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"the sex of a sex partner is a choice. No reason to give that choice any special protection in my opinon."

The decision to be a Catholic, practice the religion of Judaism, Buddhism, etc. is a choice, and is granted protection under the law to have that freedom and practice it.

Gays deserve the same right to be protected as do Catholics to practice and express their religion.

Imagine if we denied a Catholic man or a Catholic woman the right to "marry God" by becoming a priest or nun...

You are just hung up on gay sex, that is the bottom line, and your hangup is based on your own personal religious beliefs, which essentially means you are denying human rights on the foundation of your own religion.

Fundamentally you are on the wrong side of this issue, as this is bigotry and discrimination on the basis of adult choice of lifestyle and creed...

Quote from jem:

on the contrary.


my point - which was illustrated by mercor is that there is no reason to allow gays to get special treatment over any other group that wishes to change the definition.

the sex of a sex partner is a choice. No reason to give that choice any special protection in my opinon.

as an american - you can pretty much choose to have sex with any consenting adult. Gay marriage has nothing to do with that freedom. Why change the definition of marriage. Civil unions should be perfectly adequate.

 

[Barth Vader]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

If you can show in the Constitution where gay marriage is banned, or where churches should define marriage (what about a gay church---).

So the right of gay marriage is implied because it is Constitutionally supported freedom of privacy.

Really ??

Would you care to speculate on what the moral standards of the framers of the Constitution or the society in general at that point in time would have been regarding this sin ?

For you to infer that the founding documents would have been in favor of, or granted protection to such behavior is a real stretch.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

The moral status of the framers allowed for slavery, denied women and minority rights, allowed child labor, denied common people the right to vote, etc.

We have evolved from their ignorant prejudices to allowing men and women, regardless of race, creed, color to fulfill their desire for freedom and equality under the law...

Quote from Barth Vader:

Really ??

Would you care to speculate on what the moral standards of the framers of the Constitution or the society in general at that point in time would have been regarding this sin ?

For you to infer that the founding documents would have been in favor of, or granted protection to such behavior is a real stretch.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Race and gender are protected because they're not elective. Religion and sexual orientation are choices.

If you think religious freedom is boundless than see how far you get with a public display of Devil worship or animal sacrifice.

You've refused to answer this before. How can a Court allow same sex marriage but then uphold laws prohibiting incestuous marriage?

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

The moral status of the framers allowed for slavery, denied women and minority rights, allowed child labor, denied common people the right to vote, etc.

We have evolved from their ignorant prejudices to allowing men and women, regardless of race, creed, color to fulfill their desire for freedom and equality under the law...

 

[maxpi]

Did that queer blogger ever apologize for calling the gal a "dumb bitch"? What a boorish pos that tool sucker is.. most gays are boorish and unapologetic about everything though... Homo life was considered a mental disorder until they harassed the psychologists by invading their annual meetings and disrupting them and got them to change that... They harass politicians, Gov. Davis had a pair of them that bought a house near the Gov's mansion and left the windows open while they had what they call sex, I'd call it sexually addictive behaviors personally because sex is a male female thingy...