Miss California Assailed By Gays For Defending Marriage

Adults are not having a problem with what I wrote, just you...

In speaking to a group it is not uncommon that you have to dumb it down to reach the lowest common denominator, which in this case is you...

That you get freaked out about a pee pee or poo poo is what a child would do...

An adult would laugh...

Quote from jem:

lets just review facts. you were not responding to me. You attempting to have a general discourse among adults.

Yet, you referred to a man's genitals as a pee pee - and then you spoke about "poo poo".
More...
 
my three year old talks like you. I do not have a problem with 3 year old talk coming from a 3 year old.

I get concerned when it comes from people who have trouble condemning child molestation in other cultures.
 
Okay I was wrong, you are on a 3 year old level...

Put down the Bible and have a reasonable adult discussion about the basic constitutional right of a human being to do with themselves or a consenting adult what pleases them individually or mutually with their penises, anuses, mouths, breasts, ears, eyes, vaginas, vibrators, vaginal jelly, anal lubricants, etc.

I doubt you can handle it...and will revert back to the 3 or 5 year old quoting the Bible...

Quote from jem:

my three year old talks like you. I do not have a problem with 3 year old talk coming from a 3 year old.

I get concerned when it comes from people who have trouble condemning child molestation in other cultures.
More...
 
Quote from Landis82:

Really now?

So how would you 'counter' the FACT that a same-sex civil union loses their rights as soon as they move out of the State of California because such rights are not "portable"?

I'm listening.
And please be specific with your reply.
More...

I am waiting for your point. Be specific.

When a gay union leaves CA - how will it be treated differently in the next state? then contrast that with a gay marriage leaving CA.

Please do you best to avoid making conjectures.


Please don't take this as gay bashing. I am trying to get the facts on the table so people can have an informed discourse.

I saw activists on TV in CA - struggle to answer these questions. They made statements similar to yours but then could not back it up.

the mayor of SF never mentioned specifics - when I saw him larry king.

I just want to see the facts.
 
Quote from jem:

I am waiting for your point. Be specific.

When a gay union leaves CA - how will it be treated differently in the next state? then contrast that with a gay marriage leaving CA.

Please do you best to avoid making conjectures.
More...

Example:

If a same sex union couple with a child leaves California for Nebraska, they will not be recognized as the legal parent of that child.

As a result, the child would not be entitled to government benefits if one of the members of the couple become disabled or die. The child would not be guaranteed support payments should the couple split up. And if the parent who adopted the child dies, the other partner wouldn't automatically recieve custody of the child.

Nebraska's Supreme Court last year refused to allow a lesbian to formally adopt the boy whom she and her partner (the birth mother) are rearing. Such "second parent" adoptions, which allow a second adult to assume responsibility for a child without the biological parent losing any rights, are legal for gay and lesbian couples in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont and the District of Columbia. In a dozen other states, some local courts have backed such arrangements.

But it's not legal in Nebraska.
And no amount of civil union contracts will change that.
 
you left out the part about explaining how gay marriage would change that fact.

Does nebraska have to recognize gay marriage.

If the answer is no - and i pretty sure the answer is no - your example fails.


You are arguing for a national gay marriage law.

That is an entirely different argument.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Okay I was wrong, you are on a 3 year old level...

Put down the Bible and have a reasonable adult discussion about the basic constitutional right of a human being to do with themselves or a consenting adult what pleases them individually or mutually with their penises, anuses, mouths, breasts, ears, eyes, vaginas, vibrators, vaginal jelly, anal lubricants, etc.

I doubt you can handle it...and will revert back to the 3 or 5 year old quoting the Bible...
More...

but no one is having that discussion but you.

we are talking about gay marriage.
 
We are talking about gays, marrying.

Why do you want to block that?

Because of the kind of sex gays have with each other...

So, yes it all comes down to sexual preference.

By the way, I don't think two men having sex with each other is natural. I think the natural impulse is to have sex with anything that gets you off...so restricted to one man or one woman is not natural...

Of course, I don't think polluting the air is natural, polluting the water that kills off the natural animals that live in water is not natural, I don't think smoking, drinking, doing drugs, shooting guns, eating dead roasted animals, overeating, living beyond a natural lifespan, invading other sovereign nations, having nuclear bombs, driving in a fast car, driving while drunk, political parties, etc. etc. etc. is natural either...

It is a human rights issues, and human rights should be the same as suggested in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thingy for all people, regardless of where they want to stick their pee pee in the privacy of their own home with themselves or another consenting adult...or whom they want to marry.

Put down the Bible, and try to make an argument for denying human beings to marry, simply because they like to have sex differently than you do...

Quote from jem:

but no one is having that discussion but you.

we are talking about gay marriage.
More...
 
I suspect that jem will quote something from Leonard Susskind out of context or in isolation in support of his argument. He has a system. It works for him.
 
Quote from jem:

You are arguing for a national gay marriage law.

That is an entirely different argument.
More...

Your lack of reading comprehension is absolutely staggering.

Contrary to you, I actually TRADE FOR A LIVING and don't have the time for this.

I believe that I explained (more than adequately) the FACT that civil union rights are NOT portable and that legal guardian rights when a member of the union becomes disabled, splits up, or dies are so far from being closed to the contract of marriage that it's not even worth arguing about.

For some reason, you are unable to fathom this.

But don't let me get in your way of your "pissing" match.

Good day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top