I... I... Do YOU guys even know what you're talking about anymore? Did she seriously just compare Pedophiles to Gay people? OH GOD!!! IT'S ANITA BRYANT 2.0!!!!!!! D:
I resent being told that marriage is only for child rearing, and even more so being told that equal rights are not protected by the constitution the fourteenth amendment covers that just fine ive never been to a wedding ceremony that talked about bearing children. legal marriage is about love and the protections it provides. I live in MA and I never even notice that gays and lesbians have a right to marry the only way it affects MY life is knowin that I CAN marry who i love and am happy with
the studies your referring to mainly and only compare same sex arrangements to heterosexual single parents, divorced, and cohabiting parents NOT two biological married parents and these comparisons are only done at a very young age. there are no studies done on the long term adult achievements of these children like education, jobs, etc . also, these studies happen to be extremely limited especially compared to what is yielded from heterosexual married parents versus all the other arrangments
@emusic255 gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children. what your proposing we do is create extra SPECIAL RIGHTS that exist outside the constitution.
@kenballer00 I am not sure what planet you are from, because it is clear that gay people do not have the right to marry whether or not they have children or raise children. Furthermore, straight people also have the right to marry without the purpose of procreation if they choose.
@kenballer00 Even if your private part was blown off you would have the LEGAL right to marry. However, would not be a valid catholic marriage. Also straight people have the LEGAL right to remarry. Marriages that also would also not be valid catholic marriages. As far as the constitution goes, the constituion does not say anything about either gay people or staight people being allowed to marry.
@leftbehind81 the Bill of Right's Ninth amendment specifically makes these unenumerated rights a part of reality in our country.
since the U.S. Supreme Court are the ultimate interpreters of constitutional law, they have specifically said or implied case after case that marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN is a fundamental civil right and the purpose of it is procreation
@kenballer00 9th Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This does NOT say that straight people have the right to marry or even that marriage is an institution that the government should be in charge of.
the right to marry someone of the opposite sex has been deemed by many supreme court justices within court cases to be a right as well as blacks marrying whites. do i have to show enlighten you with these cases
@kenballer00 Well i am afraid your logic just does not work out my friend. You are saying that giving gay people the right to marry would be giving them 'extra rights' but you seem fine with giving black people 'extra rights' not defined in the constitution. I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying that your logic for denying equal rights to gay people doesnt seemt to work out.
your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. being gay may or may not be a choice but living the gay lifestyle is a choice and that's why we are here. the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race gender etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with
@kenballer00 - Rulings of the SC (which baker v nelson is not... it is a ruling of the Minnesota SC) are not consitutional rights but merely the interpretation of the consitituion in light of a given set of circumstances. Past rulings are not significant other then the presidence they set. The real question is why or why not should someone be allowed or not allowed to marry?
A "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is a decision on the merits that is binding. they clearly outline that summary decisions are in fact decisions on the merits that are binding on all lower FEDERAL courts. there is plenty of evidence to prove this to be a fact. not only are there many court cases that have referenced Baker being Binding precedent but some of them even said that Baker is still valid today as it was back when it was decided
@kenballer00 the SC is not bound by precedent. Lower courts are. Either way it is still only an interpretation of the constitution. It is interesting to hear a conservative now say that we should be reading laws into the constitution when for so long the conservative movement has been saying that we should only read the constitution as the writers understood it to mean.
@kenballer00 And to that point I would say that gay relationships have the same function as straight relationships. Especially when you consider that a higher and higher rate of hetrosexual couples choose not have or raise children. And that more and more gay couples are raising children. So when you boil down what the effective function of marriage is... it is becoming more and more simply a tax break that you are not giving to gay people because they are gay.
also, U.S supreme court's consistent interpretation of a right is indeed a constitutional right. you even referenced "gays" and the "RIGHT to marry" and accused me of denying gays equal rights. equal rights to do what? MARRY
so is marriage a civil right or not and if so , then there is only one right to marry someone of the opposite sex
@kenballer00 My dear, you are not making sense. it is time for you to go to sleep. There are of course consitutional rights... the rights enumerated in the constitution but as you yourself said... just because a right isnt enumerated in the constitution (or even recognized by the government) doesnt mean that it is not a right.
i am afraid that you are the one who is not making sense. you just said that rulings by the supreme court are not constitutional rights and now you are saying they are.
and as i just told and showed you, there is no right to gay marriage according to Baker. if your going to continue to challenge me on the validity of Baker, i am more than happy to give you all the federal and state supreme courts in PM that have said time and time again that Baker is binding precedent
@kenballer00 Please read. i never said and am not saying that rulings of the supreme court are constituional rights. They are opinions on constitutional rights. Of which you must have 5 concurring opinions in order to form a majority that constitutes a ruling.
I am not saying that Baker or any other ruling does not constitute precedent for a lower court to follow.
this is a quote from a federal court called Wilson v. Ake in 2005:
"The Supreme Court has not explicitly or implicitly overturned its holding in Baker or provided the lower courts, including this Court, with any reason to believe that the holding is invalid today."
from Calfornia Supreme court:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v. Nelson, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision"
@kenballer00 My question for you is this, if you believe that the purpose of marriage is simply procreation then why not simply drop the tax incentive for marriage. With the money you could increase the tax break for each dependency. Then the tax law would better incentivize procreation (which marriage is for anyway) and we would have a better system of government and gay people would have nothing to bitch about?
its not my belief that marriage is about procreation but a fact that is based on a centuries worth of law making it a reality. now i am going to assume that you are finally accepting Baker as a SC decision since it seems as though your trying to change the subject to whether we should keep the laws as they are or change it and if thats the case, then thats the state's perogative or up to society in general through the Ballot box to change and decide that not a radical minority group
@kenballer00 First, I didn't ask you what you believed marriage was and your answer has nothing to do with whether or not you should get a tax break just for having heterosexual sex. I dont know why I bother even responding when you dont even read what I say and go off on your own tangent.
@kenballer00 Second, It is not that I can accept or not accept Baker as SC decision. The fact is that Baker is simply not a SC decision and if you spent anytime reading what you reference you would know that. And it doesnt matter anyway other then it proves that you dont know what you are talking about.
even if Baker was never decided, the Loving court was talking about procreation when they said that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very EXISTENCE and SURVIVAL". if you actually go back and read the case, you will notice that they referenced another U.S. supreme court case called Skinner v. Oklahoma along side that famous quote. does this quote sound familiar:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
@kenballer00 then my question is why not simply drop the tax incentive for marriage and increase the tax incentive for raising children. That would even allow for poor families with many children to get a higher tax cut.
your idea is something to think about but my question to you instead is why not marriage recognition from Canada or a state that still has gay marriage where gay couples can go there and come back to have it recognized by the U.S. instead of legally performing them in the U.S.
this would take care of all the complaints by the gay activists without redefining marriage for everyone else in the process
@kenballer00 i guess moving to canada is fine. I know a lot of people that do in fact simply move to canada. but moving to canada simply isnt an option for most people. btw, if you move back it will not be recognized by the us because president clinton signed the defense against marriage act in 1996.
@kenballer00 im not sure there are any states that recognize gay marriages from canada etc that they themselves dont allow gay marriage. But either way, you still do not receive the federal tax incentive.
the qoute i just showed you was from the Skinner v. Oklahoma U.S. supreme court case that the Loving court mentioned right after the qoute they said to make it apparent what they meant. its also the qoute that the Minnesota and U.S supreme court used to justify why gay marriage is not a right based in the Loving case or any case. so it is not just one judge but multiple supreme courts that understand the purpose of marriage
@kenballer00 however the sc must only follow the precedent that it chooses to... which is to say that the sc has the choice to overrule baker or any other past ruling if they feel that a law interferes with someones rights. So you dont have to drag out any more 40 year old rulings, but I do find it interesting that the first ruling you pull out that is supposedely the sc striking down gay marriage is not even a ruling of the sc.
@kenballer00, there is NO such thing as a "gay lifestyle." If there is, can you please describe it to us? I am married, and gay, therefore, marriage is my chosen lifestyle.... And, if you think that sexual orientation doesn't equate to race and gender, how come this appears on many job applications:
We do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation...
@kenballer00, and a woman can choose to live as a male, does that mean she has become a man? Of course not. Our sexual orientation is EQUAL to race and gender in terms of it being an identity issue. The only choice we have is to ignore our orientation, and pretend to be striaght, or be HONEST and live as a gay person. Your ignorance is STAGGERING...
@kenballer00, by the way, your Catholic church is in turmoil right now because of ignorance such as you continue to display. The FACT is that 98 percent of men who molest BOYS are HETEROSEXUAL. The current pope continues to falsely link homosexuality with child molestation. He is paying a heavy price for this error, but doesn't have the integrity to resign as he should. He's a disgrace to your church, and a disgrace as a human being, besides being an ex-Nazi.
if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson,The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did.
so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy
@kenballer00 go to wikipedia and type in: LGBT parenting, and you will see that gay couples DO have children, and we are actually proven to be BETTER as parents than straight parents when compared in matched demographics. Your argument continues to FAIL.... You will LOSE this fight, and I hope we can meet here in ten years WHEN gay marriage is legalized nationally (if not sooner)....
@kenballer00 It also does not say anything about Black people having the right to free speach. Yet we hold that black people are allowed to speak and they are allowed to marry white women if they choose. Something also not in the constitution.
there were certain rights that were assumed to exist in the constitution by the people who wrote them. many supreme court justices have said that , these human rights or unenumerated rights, are recognized by the U.S constitution even though you won't find them defined in the constitution. the justices of the supreme court see them there because they existed when the constitution was written and they were assumed to exist by the people who wrote them
@kenballer00 the right for black people to speak or marry white women (or the free will to choose who they marry at all) were rights certainly NOT assumed to exist by the people that wrote the constitution. That the sc has gone ahead to recognize those rights anyway is truely visionary of the sc to have done.
this is why there has never been a civil rights movement that has ever won it on a state by state level .even if the Majority did take away existing federal constitutional rights by vote from the state constitution after the U.S supreme court handed down one of its decisions, a minority group could easily just go to a federal court and strike it down. so hypothetically if we lived in a pure democracy, then yes that claim would be true, but its false instead
in practice, there is no way to amend the FEDERAL constitution by popular vote.
minorities have that protection on the federal level and thats why we have a federal constitution in the first place. we are bound by the FEDERAL Constitution (not the state constitution) which happens to give us the fundamental right to vote. the state constitution is whatever we make it out to be through democracy.
Democrat Martha Coakley and her team, the entire Democrat Party, assumed that she made her case to the citizens of MA before Republican Scott Brown handily defeated her.
1000Patriot, and what does Martha Coakley have to do with ANYTHING? It is irrelevant. I hope see remains as attorney general because it is more important for gay marriage. She is taking the fight against DOMA to SCOTUS. This is MORE important to me than if she is a senator. Go Martha!
1000Patriot, Sorry, I just "got" what you were saying about Coakley. You were comparing it to Boies' claim of victory. He's not the only one. Maggie Gallagher is also claiming DEFEAT... She says this Libertarian judge is an activist liberal judge who will definitely rule in favor of gays. LOL! He was appointed by GHW Bush! Liberal? I think NOT....
Hey, it sounds fair to me. If 95 percent of the population can vote on the rights of 5 percent, as happened in Prop 8, then why can't ONE gay judge decide a case against pertaining to his OWN people...? And, isn't it interesting that GHW Bush would appoint a Libertarian gay judge? Why is that, do you think? Judge Walker has been praised from BOTH sides of the Prop 8 legal teams fo rhis fairness. He is acting according to the law.
And, the Prop 8 legal team wanted to "redefine" this trial by having TV cameras banned from the courtroom. Know why? It wasn't the imagined "fear" of threats from gays (as if we're violent monsters or something...). No, the fear of the Prop 8 team was that the general public would see that their argument is baseless against gay marriage. They were EMBARRASSED by their own witnesses...
@1000Patriot. Overturning the "will of the people" has been rountinely done in this country, so I don't know why you think it's a big deal. See Romer v. Evans, a Colorado constitutional amendment that was overturned in the Supreme Court, and Prop 14 in CA, which had 67 percent of the vote. It discriminated against blacks in housing. Prop 8 had BARELY a majority, so it will be no "big deal" to overturn it. CAN'T WAIT FOR H8 to be overturned!
@1000Patriot. David Blankenship, the espert witness for the yes on 8 side says about ssm:
Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as "other" and increase the number who are accepted as part of us. In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.
Remember, he was a witness FOR Prop 8! Your case is falling apart!
This judge or these lawyers cannot redefine marriage, Obama cannot redefine marriage, even God cannot redefine marriage. Changing laws does not change what marriage is. When 2 gays or 2 lesbians can procreate gay children, you may have a claim on marriage. You are wasting your time and your life. Really
God never defined marriage in the first place. Marriage was a PAGAN ritual that was stolen by the Christians. Therefore, god has nothing to do with marriage. And, since Atheists are allowed to marry in our country, why is god even mentioned in the same breathe as marriage? Marriage is a LEGAL contract between TWO persons and their government.
Procreation is IRRELEVANT to marriage, a fact that was duly noted by the Federal Judge in the Prop 8 case. His last marriage was between individuals in their 80s and 90s who were incapable of procreating. Therefore, procreation is UNRELATED to the topic of marriage... This has been proven in several courts already. You will have to come up with another excuse to discriminate against gays and lesbians, because the procreation issue is MOOT!
For those of you who feel procreation is essential to marriage, have you ever considered legislation that would demand a couple prove that they can procreate before obtaining a marriage license? How about automatically divorcing couples who don't procreate within a few years of marriage? Or, how about refusing marriage licenses to couples who are beyond childbearing age? Seems fair to me.... You cannot IMPOSE the prerequisite of procreation onto marriage. That's REDEFINING it.
@1000Patriot, OUCH! Are you sure Blakenship wasn't a spy for OUR side?
He said: Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.
@1000Patriot, More "gems" from Blackenship: Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce.
I'm pretty sure David Boies PAID him to say those things. He just handed Prop 8 into our hands. It WILL be history soon!
@1000Patriot, from a website, written by a lawyer sitting in the court: I cant wait to see how Andy Pugno tries to tie together the mess that was the defenses two expert witnesses. Honestly, I figured that after Boies got through with Prof. Miller, that he couldnt top that performance. I was wrong. Blankenhorn was an absolute disaster for the defense. He had no credibility with the Judge, and his continued failure to answer questions wont look good on a written record either.
@1000Patriot Blankenhorn's defensive behavior verged on the histrionic, contrasting sharply with Boies's calm, matter-of-fact approach. At one point, Judge Walker stepped in and instructed Blankenhorn to keep in mind that a fact-finder, meaning a judge or jury, can consider a witness's demeanor when deciding how credible that witness is and how seriously to take his or her testimony. Although Judge Walker delivered it with great diplomacy and tact, this was a fairly sharp rebuke.
@1000Patriot Boies established a couple of key points that gravely undermined Blankenhorn's authority as an expert on marriage. First, Boies elicited testimony that Blankenhorn had not read many leading scholarly articles addressing the question of how society would be affected by allowing SSM. Of the dozens of articles cited in policy statements supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples by leading professional organizations, he admitted that he had read scarcely more than a handful.
So-called sexual orientation expert unable to establish clear, universal definition of this concept (unlike race or sex).
**Expert on marriage admitted that a major historic purpose of marriage was to meet the childs need to be emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world.
Historian admitted people voted for Prop 8 for a range of reasons not an invidious intent to discriminate.
1000Patriot, Maggie Gallagher is already predicting Prop 8 WILL be overturned. She's going around telling everyone that Judge Walker is a liberal, activist judge (who was appointed by G HW Bush! LOL!)....
The Prop 8 proponents asked Judge Walker to accept Blankenhorn as an expert in marriage, fatherhood, and family structures. But as Boies quickly made clear Blankenhorn lacked the usual qualifications for an expert witness in those areas. He has a BS in social science from Harvard and a master's in the unrelated field of labor history from a Univ in England. He has no academic affiliation and has never taught at a college. Judge Walker permitted Blankenhorn to testify...
Miller is a witness FOR Prop 8, BUT: Boies confronted Prof. Miller with several of Prof. Miller's own earlier writings, which were highly critical of the ballot initiative process and particularly highlighted the risk that majorities will use the initiative process to target minority groups. Prof. Miller admitted that ballot measures can, and have, drawn upon anti-minority sentiment.
Blankenhorn testified that he is opposed to allowing same-sex couples to marry because, in his view, that would promote the idea that the purpose of marriage is to serve the needs of adults rather than children. He also claimed that permitting same-sex couples to marry will lead to reduced rates of marriage by heterosexual people, higher rates of divorce, and more children born out of wedlock.
Blankenhorn did not claim to have any scientific data supporting that belief.
Repeatedly, Blankenhorn bridled at Boies's questions and often refused to answer them, leading to several interventions by Judge Walker instructing Blankenhorn to respond. Blankenhorn has acknowledged that letting same-sex couples marry would be beneficial to the couples and their children. He also admitted that there are no studies showing that children of same-sex couples are worse off than children raised by heterosexual parents.
No thanks. I stick to the Alliance Defense Fund information.
Gay-activist psychologist Gregory Herek, Ph.D couldn't answer the most fundamental questions during his testimony.
The so-called expert on "sexual orientation" said Friday during the California Prop 8 federal trial that homosexuality is not a choice, although he said he did not know what the origin of homosexuality was and couldn't think of any studies showing a biological basis.
1000Patriot, OUCH! YOUR witness failed MISERABLY on the stand. He said that gays ARE disciminated against in the work place. Your case is falling apart right in front of your eyes. He also proved that gays are politically powerless.... OUCH!
Greg Herek was one of the most powerful witnesses for our side. So far, your witnesses have either dropped out (NOT for fear of being threatened, but because they helped OUR case), or been shown to be supportive of the case AGAINST Prop 8...! You guys put on a PATHETIC case, and didn't want to world to see it, hence the cry of "victim" to the Supreme Court. Guess what, now you know what it feels like for gay people (FINALLY). We can be fired from our jobs because of our IDENTITY in 41 states.
1000Patriot, there is definitely something wrong with the pro-Prop 8 case. The fact that FOUR of their six witnesses were withdrawn shows that their case is falling apart. The witnesses for THEIR side ended up supporting gay marriage inadvertantly... The have two witnesses left. Dr. Tam was a TOTAL embarrassment, and the Prop 8 team tried their best (unsuccessfully) to distance their campaign from him... He's the laughing stock of the internet... He sounds like YOU as a matter of fact!
@1000Patriot, Anti-gay activists and their organizations are co-opting legitimate scientific research to support their discriminatory political goals. These various offenders have distorted, cherry picked or misquoted research from esteemed academic scholars across the world.
Fortunately, Truth Wins Out (TWO) has started a trend where researchers stand up and demand accountability. When their work has been purposely distorted, they use this site to set the record straight:
Watch these youtube videos. They are depositions of Prop 8 witnesses who withdrew from the Federal case. You can see why four of the six witnesses for the Prop 8 side were withdrawn. Their testimony helps OUR side (pro-gay marriage). This has NOTHING to do with fear of harrassment, like they alleged... LIARS!
Paul Nathanson Deposition in Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Katherine Young Deposition in Perry v. Schwarzenegger
...Reflecting on her own father's emotional absence, she lamented she had difficulty connecting with men. "I have a lot of issues to work out about men." She continued, "I think that (adoption of her son, Parker) helps me to connect in a way that I wasn't able to before. I am so in love with this child, who is a male and his own person." The absence of her mother and father left deep scars in Rosie's life...
In a 1997 Ladies Home Journal article, Rosie recounted the anguish of having to experience a teen-age girl's girl-to-woman rituals without the guiding love of a mother. "It was traumatic," Rosie recalled somberly. "When a girl gets her period and her mom is not there to comfort her, it's incredibly painful." To fill the void, Rosie said she relied on and identified with television shows featuring stable families like "Eight is Enough" and "The Brady Bunch."
@1000Patriot, why is it you don't have the COURAGE to respond to me directly? I've asked you repeatedly to have the courtesy to hit "reply" (It's left of the "spam" link to the right of your screen name). Apparently, you want people to read what you have to say but are somewhat AFRAID of what I have to say in return. Why is this???
I'm sure lots of people experience pain in their early years. As a matter of fact, I had FAR worse pain growing up gay in a fundmentalist Christian household.
1000Patriot, here's some of the tributes to this American HERO (Frank Kameny):
lisztnut writes, "In February 2009, Kamenys home in Washington was designated as a D.C. Historic Landmark by the District of Columbias Historic Preservation Review Board."
_______________________________
Perhaps the pervert has lots of equally perverted fans.
Google: Gay Rights Icon Frank Kameny Says Bestiality OK as Long as the Animal Doesnt Mind
Suggesting that children are gay is BS. They are not fully grown. A child's growth plates are not fully closed until the age of 18 years or older and their cognitive reasoning abilities are not fully developed until they are fully grown adults. Homosexuals are attempting to manipulate our children. They are obsessed with deviant sexual behavior & the exploration, of the next taboo.
Google: "Frank Kameny beast" and read the article, on the Americans for Truth website.
1000Patriot, you are dead WRONG. Sexual orientation is fully formed, according to most child development experts, by the age of TWO at the latest. And, many people agree that it is formed at birth (including me). The Americans for Truth is a rightwing BS organization devoted to "twisting" the truth, instead of looking at REAL science...
1000Patriot, thanks for the info on Frank Kameny. He's a real American HERO. I took the time to write a letter of thanks to him that will be forwarded to him through the American's for Truth website....!
1000Patriot, here's some of the tributes to this American HERO (Frank Kameny):
In February 2009, Kamenys home in Washington was designated as a D.C. Historic Landmark by the District of Columbias Historic Preservation Review Board. On June 29, 2009, John Berry (Director of the Office of Personnel Management) formally apologized to Kameny on behalf of the U.S. government. Berry, who is openly gay, presented Kameny with the Theodore Roosevelt Award, the departments most prestigious award.
The American Academy of Pediatrics states: The current literature and most scholars in the field state that ones sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.
Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a persons fundamental sexual orientation. It would appear that it is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.
Yes, it takes REAL courage to admit you are a gay person in a heterosexual world. It's funny how YOU people love to talk about the ONCE A YEAR Pride parades, when gay people suffer through "Straight parades" EVERY DAY! I can't walk down the street or turn on the TV without being bombarded by heterosexual images. Enough already! We are entitled to our once a year celebration of our sexuality... I say we should show it every day, and that's why my spouse and I hold hands in public sometimes.
Big deal. You know several men who didn't acknowledge their ardor towards same-gender sex acts until mid-way through their lives. That simply means that those men made conscious decisions to engage, in perverted sex acts, late in life.
No, you have it wrong ingodwetrust, these men finally had the "courage" to be who they are on the inside, despite all the hatred they faced in society. This takes far more courage than you could ever muster, I guarantee it. Just imagine if you had to "secretly" hide your love for your wife. How would that make you feel? Thank goodness those days are long vanishing. The people who should fear gay marriage are the closet homosexuals who are trapped in heterosexual relationships....
lisztnut wrote, "I'm still praying that one of your kids is gay..."
And you wrote, "The god to whom you pray to must have cloven hooves."
GOOD ONE...LOL!
What is wrong w/these sick freaks, classifying young children in terms of sex practices. Gay 4 year olds? Who thinks like that? Oh, now I remember...pedophiles! Everything in their lives of gays revolves around sex. Liznut actually said his gay sex practices were "the core of his being." Sad isn't it? Keep up the good posts.
No, both you and 1000Patriot are absolutely WRONG. Most experts in the field of child development feel that sexual orientation is formed by the age of TWO at the VERY latest. This is very similar to our handedness. And, our orientation is ours to "discover" in our adolescene. Also, you tend to forget that 2/3rds of all molesters of BOYS are HETEROSEXUAL MEN! Why is it you guys have an obsession with virgins? That's NOT a gay thing, that's a STRAIGHT thing. Virgins are a turn-OFF for gays.
Why is it YOU people dwell on the Pride parades anyway? WHO CARES? We have to suffer through your hetero parade EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY.... And, our once a year event is all you can think about. Turn on the TV and what do you see? Heterosexuality in all its glory- NOT!!
And, what's so funny about praying to a god with "cloven hooves?" That's totally LAME, and not even funny. I worship NO god, because NONE exists...! LOL! I feel sorry for people that waste their lives worshipping something that doesn't exist. It's sad, to be honest with you... What a waste of a life...
lisztnut writes, "I'm still praying that one of your kids is gay..."
*****************************************
My children are all normal. It is not likely that God will answer that particular prayer based on His proscriptions against homosexual behavior. Oh that's right you detest God Almighty and His Son, Jesus Christ the Messiah.
The god to whom you pray to must have cloven hooves.
Well, actually there is NO god, so I was being silly. Everyone knows this... And, yes it is still possible for your sons to come out.. I know a 70 year old woman who recently came out of the closet after a lifetime of denial. Your sons could well be gay, and you just don't know it yet. Can't WAIT.... Will you let me know if one of them comes out?
I also know several men who didn't acknowledge their homosexual orientation until mid-way through their lives. In several cases these men were married to women, and have children. So, it's never too late to come out, Ingodwetrust. There IS hope for you, yet... One of my friends came out at the age of 50, and he has grown children. He now has a male partner, whom he CANNOT marry. He's happier than he's ever been, but he'd like to marry someone he TRULY loves...
I assure you that those opposed to homosexual marriage are not the least bit afraid to show their faces in court.
Are you suggesting that the many violent homosexuals who do not approve in the right to free speech, except for themselves of course, will do harm to those who testify against homosexual marriage?
You can't possibly believe that homosexuals intimidate heterosexuals? I'm sure SCOTUS fears that homosexuals will become drama queens if they know they are on camera.
No, I'm saying that those bigots are worried about being harrassed and yet helped to REMOVE the CIVIL RIGHTS of a group of people. That's rather disingenuous isn't it? Which is worse, a harrassing phone call or a life-altering law that removes rights?
For the record: homosexuals are harrassed on a DAILY basis. Many of us can lose our LIVELIHOOD just for who we are. It's about time YOUR side of this argument feels our pain. It's a GOOD thing, that they now understand us...
You are spreading misinformation again. The Supreme's ban on cameras expires on Wednesday! LOL!
The court's decision is not the final word; the stay sought by same-sex marriage opponents expires Wednesday. The court said that will permit justices "further consideration." This means it is quite possible that cameras will be permitted started on Wednesday...
97 percent of crimes involving sexual orientation are against gay people. Fewer than 3 percent of victims are heterosexual. And, you are crying victim? I think NOT....
So, what are these bigots afraid of in the Prop 8 case? If they truly believe in their viewpoint, it seems to me they should have the courage to remove their "hoods" in front of a camera. It also explains to me why there was not ONE single prominent politician in CA who came out publically in favor of Prop 8 during the campaign. Showing your bigotry isn't so easy when everyone can see your face. That's why the KKK wears hoods...
138,542 sign a petition in favor of allowing cameras in the Prop 8 case, 32 opposed... The "will of the people" is being disrespected by the Supreme Court. I DEMAND they respect the voters on this issue... Imperialist, activist judges....
lisztnut writes, "It's just like YOU people to do something like this. Just like the defenders of Prop 8 who are desperately trying ANYTHING to make sure that people don't see their faces at the Federal trial tomorrow"
****************
Based on today's AP report you can whine to the desperate and bigoted SCOTUS about its decision to block the Prop 8 YouTube feed.
1000Patriot, yes, you exhibit the very same behavior as those bigots who are afraid to show their faces in court. What are they afraid of? If they are truly against gay marriage, why can't they show their faces? Kind of reminds me of YOU, since you are afriad to "reply" to me, but instead do it behind my back...
I'm still praying that one of your kids is gay. Has one of them started listening to Barbra Streisand yet? When I find that this is true, I will switch my religious beliefs from "definitely NO god" to "maybe there's a god..."
I recall that after I revealed that 1/3 of all child molestations were perpetrated by homosexuals, in spite of the fact that they represent only 2% of the population, you went into a snit, & thereafter referred to me, as Hitler, a pedophile & a Nazi.
I was never molested by a priest, although I left the Catholic Church following the priest child molestation cover-up. Ironically a study was conducted (1950 - 2002). It revealed 81% of all those molested were "males'.
@1000Patriot, I will REFUSE to respond to you until you honor my request and hit "reply" to my comments. I only saw this one by mistake because I was responding to KidsInnocence's response. Why are you afraid to let me know when you post responses to my posts? Makes no sense. I have no fear of letting you know my answers to your questions. If you have nothing to hide, then respond to me directly. End of discussion...
lisztnut writes, "...you had changed your screen name from "Ingodwetrust" to "1000Patriot" to disguise the fact that you had spent MONTHS obsessing about child molestation..."
*********************
I do recall discussions regarding the fact that one-third of all child molestations were perpetrated by homosexuals, in spite of the fact that homosexual represent approximately 2% of the population.
Normal humans are born either male or female. Those who are not have birth anomalies.
Each human being is born with a combination of chromosomes and sex/reproduction organs, which define the person's gender. The genitalia is designed to engage in sexual intercourse with the opposite gender.
Those who have urges to engage in sex acts with their own gender, children, pets, parents, etc., and do so, are disordered and perverted. I have to prove nothing. You do.
@1000Patriot, I ask you once again to please hit "reply" when you are responding to me. What are you afraid of? Respond to me DIRECTLY... Yes, you DO have to prove that sexual orientation is not biologically produced, especially if you are going to use this fallicy of "choice" as a reason to deny gays the right to marry. My sexual orientation was formed EXACTLY the same way yours was formed, and so far you've not figured this out.
@1000Patriot, so if having an "urge" (in your words) to engage in sex acts with my own gender is disordered, why is it so natural? Why do 450 species of animals mate with same sex partners for life? Are they perverts? I know why are above animals, but you simply CANNOT say it is disordered and perverted and against nature, when nature exhibits as much homosexual activity as humans do (maybe MORE)...
@1000Patriot. let me ask you a personal question. Our viewers would probably be interested to know you had changed your screen name from "Ingodwetrust" to "1000Patriot" to disguise the fact that you had spent MONTHS obsessing about child molestation, and clearly LOST this argument by presenting junk science. Now, have you ever gotten help for that "issue" you have? We all know you were molested by a Catholic priest as a youngster. It's time to come to terms with this, and move on in life...
@1000Patriot, once again I'd like to ask you to hit "reply" when responding to my comments. Otherwise, I will not know if you've answered me. You are very sneaky, you snake....
It's just like YOU people to do something like this. Just like the defenders of Prop 8 who are desperately trying ANYTHING to make sure that people don't see their faces at the Federal trial tomorrow. DESPERATE! What are they afraid of? People already know they are bigots...
@1000Patriot., sorry 1000Patriot, but you are WRONG. Left handedness has never been proven to be genetic, just like sexual orientation. But, in the words of one scientist, we don't need to find the genes that cause sexual orientation any more than we need the genes that cause eye color, to know they exist. This is as obvious to scientists as the sky is blue. So, send me some research which proves that they have a gene for left handedness, and we'll go from there.
@1000Patriot, please hit "reply" when you respond to my comments, otherwise I will not have any way of knowing that you've commented on my posts. I did NOT send you private comments, I did as I'm supposed to to by responding using the "reply". Please do me the same courtesy, so I can respond to your comments. Apparently, you don't have enough courage to let me know that you've said something to me. Just like YOU people..
Left-handers are more likely to have a left-handed relative. But researchers have yet to find the gene or set of genes that pick one hand over the other.
Most scientists agree that handedness exists on a continuum. The idea helps explain why some people bowl with their left but hold a spoon in their right. Truly ambidextrous people, who have indifferent preference for either hand, are extremely rare.
@1000Patriot, do you also feel that heterosexual "urges" are "chosen" behaviors? If not, then your theory is blown out of the water. Can you tell me when you "chose" to be attracted to women? If so, why did you choose women instead of men? I was raised in the totally straight environment you were raised in, I didn't know I had a "choice." I assumed the ONLY option was women. Why was it that my "natural" attraction was for men ONLY? Explain that, please...
I guess black people couldn't lose gracefully either, when 67 percent of Calfornians voted against their rights to fair housing in 1964. The Supreme Court rightfully "corrected" this voting booth error two years later and invalidated Prop 14. Hopefully they will do the same with Prop 8. The ignorant masses CANNOT remove the rights of the minorities. And, history is on OUR side. Gay marriage WILL be the law within your lifetime. Get used to it...
That's right. Ma7799 wants to IMPOSE his/her religious views on everyone. That's NOT the American way. Every has the FREEDOM to believe, or not believe in an imaginary friend, and marriage is NOT a religious issue, it's a LEGAL issue...
Apparently, you aren't aware that marriage was a PAGAN ritual before the Christians stole it. Marriage is a legal contract between a couple and their government ONLY. If you want an imaginary friend's blessing, that's your personal business, but the government shouldn't validate it, because that's a violation of separation of church and state... Keep YOUR god out of MY government...
LOL! You're hilarious. The beauty of our governmental system is that your opinion of my marriage doesn't matter. Know why? You don't sign my tax refund check, nor does your "imaginary friend." The STATE sends my check, and in the eyes of the LAW, I AM married.... That's ALL that matters, isn't it?
And, why is it that a growing number of countries around the world are now acknowledging the need for legal recognition and benefits for gay relationships? This is not a "American" issue, this is a "GLOBAL" issue that will NOT go away. We now have countries on every continent, except Antarctica, with governmental recognition of gay relationships. Austrailia's civil union law went into effect in 2010. Nepal's will soon, and we already had South Africa. You are LOSING ground quickly...
"This is not a "American" issue, this is a "GLOBAL" issue that will NOT go away. "
It is a farce that Amsterdam started in 2002, and the media in America, (which the gays have utilized to push this issue in everyone's face), is having a field day with it. Not to worry, though, since America's family values will overturn these "gay marriage" laws one state at a time.m
ma7799, gat families have always been here, maybe not visible in the hamlet where you live, but we've been here. The difference is, now our families are being legally protected and recognized. Why are you such a bigot? Nobody's forcing you into a gay marriage. Gay mariage doesn't impact your life, so mind your own business. You Christians are all up in everyone's business. You want protections for YOUR lives, but don't give a rat's ass about anyone else's families...
I see, so if someone disagrees with the rights of blacks, then they have the right to vote against it too? Believe it or not, a higher percentage of CA voters voted against the rights of blacks to fair housing in Prop 14 in 1964 than voted against gay marriage in 2008. Is that fair, because the "majority" wanted blacks to be discriminated against? You are a FOOL if you believe that the voters should vote on civil rights issues. You'd better be grateful you aren't a minority...
Apparently you don't understand what a civil right is. Here's a little education for you: The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination. Gays have NOT been afforded the BASIC civil right of marriage, but we WILL get it
Portugal has just become the latest country to pass gay marriage legislation, as of today and it was done the PROPER way, by the a vote in Parliament, and NOT by the general electorate! Europe is once again teaching America how it SHOULD be done...
We are the ONLY country on earth that is foolish enough to allow the civil rights of a gays to be dominated by the "will of the people" at the ballot box. This error WILL be corrected by the courts, and sooner than you think... The case to invalidate Prop 8 is headed to Federal court next week. Be prepared for nationalized gay marriage. It's only a matter of time... And, the sweet thing is that it was all due to the idiots that voted for Prop 8!
"We are the ONLY country on earth that is foolish enough to allow the civil rights of a gays to be dominated by the "will of the people" at the ballot box"
Yes you are right; we should NOT have civil unions at all, nor "gay marriage."
I think you need to move to a country that is a theocracy, such as Iran. You apparently want to live in a country where the laws are dominated by religion. As for me, I'll stay here and fight for my rights until death. We are a democracy that values ALL citizens, gay and straight. If you don't like gay people, move to an Islamic Republic...
If I have to tolerate YOUR relgious beliefs, then you MUST tolerate my gay marriage, because it IS the law. Get used to it... I can accept ANY religious belief you have, but you CANNOT impose that belief on me. My marriage is NONE of your business, so you should not have the right to vote on it. PERIOD...
People once thought lefthandedness was a "perversion" until we learned that it is a naturally occuring variance. The same is true of sexual orientation. It exists in well over 450 species of animals, many of whom mate with same sex partners for life. So you CANNOT call it unnatural. Homosexuality is a natural as the sky, and just as beautiful, too! I thank my lucky stars every day that I was born gay. Wouldn't have it any other way...
"People once thought lefthandedness was a "perversion" until we learned that it is a naturally occuring variance."
That is the most RETARDED comparison concerning ANY political topic! You seriously have not presented a single argument that makes "gay marriage" beneficial. You sound like a "gay power" activist trying to spread your filth worldwide.
You haven't presented even ONE argument why my gay marriage is detrimental, and in fact, this is the dilemma facing those in support of Prop 8 at next week's Federal lawsuit. So far the Prop 8 crowd has yet to produce ANY reason why gay marriage is harmful. In fact, gay marriage HELPS people. And, it helps children. Those of us gay couples who have children will benefit from gay marriage. You, on the other hand, lose absolutely NOTHING because I'm married to my same sex spouse. Get over it.
Can you tell me exactly how religious freedoms are "attacked" by gay marriage? In fact, the opposite is true. There were 4000 churches in California that supported gay marriage, and filed briefs asking the court to invalidate Prop 8. If you want to know the names of these churches, visit this website:
calchurches org It seems to me a ban on gay marriage is an attack on those church's beliefs. You cannot say your religious beliefs trump their beliefs.
And, how, exactly, does gay marriage ruin gender roles? As a matter of FACT, there are studies proving that lesbians are better parents, because their children are more open to non-traditional gender roles. Read this London Times article:
Lesbian Parents Better At Raising Children, Nov. 15, 2009
Your side of this argument has never been able to produce ANY evidence that gays are worse at parenting. In fact, every study so far as shown the opposite. Gays are equal or BETTER parents.
And, while we're at it, please tell me how anyone will lose civil liberties once gay marriage is legalized. Notice I said ONCE gay marriage is legalized. It is inevitable...
lisztnut ""tell me how anyone will lose civil liberties once gay marriage is legalized". Just look in Mass. It is all about introducing kids as young as 4 to the gay lifestyle. Judge Mark Wolf ruled that now that SS"M" is legal in Mass, "public schools are entitled to teach about homosexuality in a positive way". He also ruled that parents could not opt out, a violation of the 14th ammendment, which states that "public schools shall neither promote or INHIBIT the practice of one's religion".
So, why do we let uniformed, unintelligent, and uneducated folks like YOU vote on issues like gay marriage, when you can't even comprehend that sexual orientation is like race, and gender? It's immutable, and innate, and the Catholic church, for all its murderous failings, acknowledges this...
@lisztnut Immutable? Really? What about Anne Heche? and Lindsay Lohan? And Lisa Miller, who came out of the gay life and renounced it? And, and, and. Ya you are right it is set in stone. Why don't you stop talking out of your ass.
Yes, immutable. Anne Heche is a self-proclaimed bisexual. I don't know about the other two.... Just the fact that you said this:
"came out of the gay life" it shows your total ignorance of the topic of sexual orientation. Do you remember choosing heterosexuality? If so, when? And why? Nobody chooses sexual orientation. We only choose whether to be what we're born to be or not. I know DOZENS of gay people who were formerly in straight relationships. Does this make them cured straights?
@lisztnut Ok, genius, since I am so ignorant on why don't you educate me. If gayness is as you claim "immutable", how is it that Lisa came out of the gay lifestyle and renounced it? FYI, I never used the word "cured" so why don't you pay attention. I was born left handed and my mom gently switched the pencil to my other hand, and now I am right handed. Is that immutable too? Humans have all kinds of urges like incest, adultery and bestiality that they can either practice or resist. They CHOOSE.
Ok, KisInnocence, why don't you educate me? How is it that so many former heterosexuals are now able to live their lives as open homosexuals? Why is it that these people felt the "freedom" to finally be themselves, instead of pretending they're something they're not? And, by the way, your innate orientation is still left handed. You are only masking"yourself as a right handed person to conform to your mother's expectations, which I might add are WAY off base. She had NO business doing this.
I... I... Do YOU guys even know what you're talking about anymore? Did she seriously just compare Pedophiles to Gay people? OH GOD!!! IT'S ANITA BRYANT 2.0!!!!!!! D:
MrTrty5 2 months ago
I resent being told that marriage is only for child rearing, and even more so being told that equal rights are not protected by the constitution the fourteenth amendment covers that just fine ive never been to a wedding ceremony that talked about bearing children. legal marriage is about love and the protections it provides. I live in MA and I never even notice that gays and lesbians have a right to marry the only way it affects MY life is knowin that I CAN marry who i love and am happy with
emusic255 1 year ago
the studies your referring to mainly and only compare same sex arrangements to heterosexual single parents, divorced, and cohabiting parents NOT two biological married parents and these comparisons are only done at a very young age. there are no studies done on the long term adult achievements of these children like education, jobs, etc . also, these studies happen to be extremely limited especially compared to what is yielded from heterosexual married parents versus all the other arrangments
kenballer00 1 year ago
@emusic255 gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children. what your proposing we do is create extra SPECIAL RIGHTS that exist outside the constitution.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I am not sure what planet you are from, because it is clear that gay people do not have the right to marry whether or not they have children or raise children. Furthermore, straight people also have the right to marry without the purpose of procreation if they choose.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
the definition of marriage and the purpose of it does not have to be expressly laid out into the constitution for it to exist.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Even if your private part was blown off you would have the LEGAL right to marry. However, would not be a valid catholic marriage. Also straight people have the LEGAL right to remarry. Marriages that also would also not be valid catholic marriages. As far as the constitution goes, the constituion does not say anything about either gay people or staight people being allowed to marry.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
@leftbehind81 the Bill of Right's Ninth amendment specifically makes these unenumerated rights a part of reality in our country.
since the U.S. Supreme Court are the ultimate interpreters of constitutional law, they have specifically said or implied case after case that marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN is a fundamental civil right and the purpose of it is procreation
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 9th Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This does NOT say that straight people have the right to marry or even that marriage is an institution that the government should be in charge of.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
@leftbehind81
the right to marry someone of the opposite sex has been deemed by many supreme court justices within court cases to be a right as well as blacks marrying whites. do i have to show enlighten you with these cases
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Well i am afraid your logic just does not work out my friend. You are saying that giving gay people the right to marry would be giving them 'extra rights' but you seem fine with giving black people 'extra rights' not defined in the constitution. I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying that your logic for denying equal rights to gay people doesnt seemt to work out.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. being gay may or may not be a choice but living the gay lifestyle is a choice and that's why we are here. the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race gender etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 - Rulings of the SC (which baker v nelson is not... it is a ruling of the Minnesota SC) are not consitutional rights but merely the interpretation of the consitituion in light of a given set of circumstances. Past rulings are not significant other then the presidence they set. The real question is why or why not should someone be allowed or not allowed to marry?
leftbehind81 1 year ago
A "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is a decision on the merits that is binding. they clearly outline that summary decisions are in fact decisions on the merits that are binding on all lower FEDERAL courts. there is plenty of evidence to prove this to be a fact. not only are there many court cases that have referenced Baker being Binding precedent but some of them even said that Baker is still valid today as it was back when it was decided
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 the SC is not bound by precedent. Lower courts are. Either way it is still only an interpretation of the constitution. It is interesting to hear a conservative now say that we should be reading laws into the constitution when for so long the conservative movement has been saying that we should only read the constitution as the writers understood it to mean.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
@kenballer00 And to that point I would say that gay relationships have the same function as straight relationships. Especially when you consider that a higher and higher rate of hetrosexual couples choose not have or raise children. And that more and more gay couples are raising children. So when you boil down what the effective function of marriage is... it is becoming more and more simply a tax break that you are not giving to gay people because they are gay.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
@leftbehind81
also, U.S supreme court's consistent interpretation of a right is indeed a constitutional right. you even referenced "gays" and the "RIGHT to marry" and accused me of denying gays equal rights. equal rights to do what? MARRY
so is marriage a civil right or not and if so , then there is only one right to marry someone of the opposite sex
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 My dear, you are not making sense. it is time for you to go to sleep. There are of course consitutional rights... the rights enumerated in the constitution but as you yourself said... just because a right isnt enumerated in the constitution (or even recognized by the government) doesnt mean that it is not a right.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
@leftbehind81
i am afraid that you are the one who is not making sense. you just said that rulings by the supreme court are not constitutional rights and now you are saying they are.
and as i just told and showed you, there is no right to gay marriage according to Baker. if your going to continue to challenge me on the validity of Baker, i am more than happy to give you all the federal and state supreme courts in PM that have said time and time again that Baker is binding precedent
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Please read. i never said and am not saying that rulings of the supreme court are constituional rights. They are opinions on constitutional rights. Of which you must have 5 concurring opinions in order to form a majority that constitutes a ruling.
I am not saying that Baker or any other ruling does not constitute precedent for a lower court to follow.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
this is a quote from a federal court called Wilson v. Ake in 2005:
"The Supreme Court has not explicitly or implicitly overturned its holding in Baker or provided the lower courts, including this Court, with any reason to believe that the holding is invalid today."
from Calfornia Supreme court:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v. Nelson, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision"
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 My question for you is this, if you believe that the purpose of marriage is simply procreation then why not simply drop the tax incentive for marriage. With the money you could increase the tax break for each dependency. Then the tax law would better incentivize procreation (which marriage is for anyway) and we would have a better system of government and gay people would have nothing to bitch about?
leftbehind81 1 year ago
its not my belief that marriage is about procreation but a fact that is based on a centuries worth of law making it a reality. now i am going to assume that you are finally accepting Baker as a SC decision since it seems as though your trying to change the subject to whether we should keep the laws as they are or change it and if thats the case, then thats the state's perogative or up to society in general through the Ballot box to change and decide that not a radical minority group
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 First, I didn't ask you what you believed marriage was and your answer has nothing to do with whether or not you should get a tax break just for having heterosexual sex. I dont know why I bother even responding when you dont even read what I say and go off on your own tangent.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Second, It is not that I can accept or not accept Baker as SC decision. The fact is that Baker is simply not a SC decision and if you spent anytime reading what you reference you would know that. And it doesnt matter anyway other then it proves that you dont know what you are talking about.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
even if Baker was never decided, the Loving court was talking about procreation when they said that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very EXISTENCE and SURVIVAL". if you actually go back and read the case, you will notice that they referenced another U.S. supreme court case called Skinner v. Oklahoma along side that famous quote. does this quote sound familiar:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 then my question is why not simply drop the tax incentive for marriage and increase the tax incentive for raising children. That would even allow for poor families with many children to get a higher tax cut.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
@leftbehind81
your idea is something to think about but my question to you instead is why not marriage recognition from Canada or a state that still has gay marriage where gay couples can go there and come back to have it recognized by the U.S. instead of legally performing them in the U.S.
this would take care of all the complaints by the gay activists without redefining marriage for everyone else in the process
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 i guess moving to canada is fine. I know a lot of people that do in fact simply move to canada. but moving to canada simply isnt an option for most people. btw, if you move back it will not be recognized by the us because president clinton signed the defense against marriage act in 1996.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
@leftbehind81
first off, i was saying as a hypothetical in the future we can make it be recognized by the U.S.
secondly, DOMA does not keep states from making laws within their own state to recognize marriages from Canada or a state that still has gay marriage
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 im not sure there are any states that recognize gay marriages from canada etc that they themselves dont allow gay marriage. But either way, you still do not receive the federal tax incentive.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
the qoute i just showed you was from the Skinner v. Oklahoma U.S. supreme court case that the Loving court mentioned right after the qoute they said to make it apparent what they meant. its also the qoute that the Minnesota and U.S supreme court used to justify why gay marriage is not a right based in the Loving case or any case. so it is not just one judge but multiple supreme courts that understand the purpose of marriage
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 however the sc must only follow the precedent that it chooses to... which is to say that the sc has the choice to overrule baker or any other past ruling if they feel that a law interferes with someones rights. So you dont have to drag out any more 40 year old rulings, but I do find it interesting that the first ruling you pull out that is supposedely the sc striking down gay marriage is not even a ruling of the sc.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
@kenballer00, there is NO such thing as a "gay lifestyle." If there is, can you please describe it to us? I am married, and gay, therefore, marriage is my chosen lifestyle.... And, if you think that sexual orientation doesn't equate to race and gender, how come this appears on many job applications:
We do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation...
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, and a woman can choose to live as a male, does that mean she has become a man? Of course not. Our sexual orientation is EQUAL to race and gender in terms of it being an identity issue. The only choice we have is to ignore our orientation, and pretend to be striaght, or be HONEST and live as a gay person. Your ignorance is STAGGERING...
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00, by the way, your Catholic church is in turmoil right now because of ignorance such as you continue to display. The FACT is that 98 percent of men who molest BOYS are HETEROSEXUAL. The current pope continues to falsely link homosexuality with child molestation. He is paying a heavy price for this error, but doesn't have the integrity to resign as he should. He's a disgrace to your church, and a disgrace as a human being, besides being an ex-Nazi.
lisztnut 1 year ago
@leftbehind81
if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson,The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did.
so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 go to wikipedia and type in: LGBT parenting, and you will see that gay couples DO have children, and we are actually proven to be BETTER as parents than straight parents when compared in matched demographics. Your argument continues to FAIL.... You will LOSE this fight, and I hope we can meet here in ten years WHEN gay marriage is legalized nationally (if not sooner)....
lisztnut 1 year ago
@kenballer00 It also does not say anything about Black people having the right to free speach. Yet we hold that black people are allowed to speak and they are allowed to marry white women if they choose. Something also not in the constitution.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
there were certain rights that were assumed to exist in the constitution by the people who wrote them. many supreme court justices have said that , these human rights or unenumerated rights, are recognized by the U.S constitution even though you won't find them defined in the constitution. the justices of the supreme court see them there because they existed when the constitution was written and they were assumed to exist by the people who wrote them
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 the right for black people to speak or marry white women (or the free will to choose who they marry at all) were rights certainly NOT assumed to exist by the people that wrote the constitution. That the sc has gone ahead to recognize those rights anyway is truely visionary of the sc to have done.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
this is why there has never been a civil rights movement that has ever won it on a state by state level .even if the Majority did take away existing federal constitutional rights by vote from the state constitution after the U.S supreme court handed down one of its decisions, a minority group could easily just go to a federal court and strike it down. so hypothetically if we lived in a pure democracy, then yes that claim would be true, but its false instead
kenballer00 1 year ago
in practice, there is no way to amend the FEDERAL constitution by popular vote.
minorities have that protection on the federal level and thats why we have a federal constitution in the first place. we are bound by the FEDERAL Constitution (not the state constitution) which happens to give us the fundamental right to vote. the state constitution is whatever we make it out to be through democracy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
Democrat Martha Coakley and her team, the entire Democrat Party, assumed that she made her case to the citizens of MA before Republican Scott Brown handily defeated her.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
1000Patriot, and what does Martha Coakley have to do with ANYTHING? It is irrelevant. I hope see remains as attorney general because it is more important for gay marriage. She is taking the fight against DOMA to SCOTUS. This is MORE important to me than if she is a senator. Go Martha!
Scott Brown is a hunk. I'll grant you that!
lisztnut 2 years ago
1000Patriot, Sorry, I just "got" what you were saying about Coakley. You were comparing it to Boies' claim of victory. He's not the only one. Maggie Gallagher is also claiming DEFEAT... She says this Libertarian judge is an activist liberal judge who will definitely rule in favor of gays. LOL! He was appointed by GHW Bush! Liberal? I think NOT....
lisztnut 2 years ago
We knew months ago that this judge was gay. He has acted all along against the Prop 8 team.
This all case is beyond ridiculous
voteyesonquestion1 1 year ago
Hey, it sounds fair to me. If 95 percent of the population can vote on the rights of 5 percent, as happened in Prop 8, then why can't ONE gay judge decide a case against pertaining to his OWN people...? And, isn't it interesting that GHW Bush would appoint a Libertarian gay judge? Why is that, do you think? Judge Walker has been praised from BOTH sides of the Prop 8 legal teams fo rhis fairness. He is acting according to the law.
lisztnut 1 year ago
And, the Prop 8 legal team wanted to "redefine" this trial by having TV cameras banned from the courtroom. Know why? It wasn't the imagined "fear" of threats from gays (as if we're violent monsters or something...). No, the fear of the Prop 8 team was that the general public would see that their argument is baseless against gay marriage. They were EMBARRASSED by their own witnesses...
lisztnut 1 year ago
lisztnut,
Overturning the "will of the people" is a big deal and homosexual marriage is less popular than ever. We shall see...
1000Patriot 2 years ago
@1000Patriot. Overturning the "will of the people" has been rountinely done in this country, so I don't know why you think it's a big deal. See Romer v. Evans, a Colorado constitutional amendment that was overturned in the Supreme Court, and Prop 14 in CA, which had 67 percent of the vote. It discriminated against blacks in housing. Prop 8 had BARELY a majority, so it will be no "big deal" to overturn it. CAN'T WAIT FOR H8 to be overturned!
lisztnut 2 years ago
@1000Patriot. David Blankenship, the espert witness for the yes on 8 side says about ssm:
Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as "other" and increase the number who are accepted as part of us. In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.
Remember, he was a witness FOR Prop 8! Your case is falling apart!
lisztnut 2 years ago
This judge or these lawyers cannot redefine marriage, Obama cannot redefine marriage, even God cannot redefine marriage. Changing laws does not change what marriage is. When 2 gays or 2 lesbians can procreate gay children, you may have a claim on marriage. You are wasting your time and your life. Really
voteyesonquestion1 1 year ago
God never defined marriage in the first place. Marriage was a PAGAN ritual that was stolen by the Christians. Therefore, god has nothing to do with marriage. And, since Atheists are allowed to marry in our country, why is god even mentioned in the same breathe as marriage? Marriage is a LEGAL contract between TWO persons and their government.
lisztnut 1 year ago
Procreation is IRRELEVANT to marriage, a fact that was duly noted by the Federal Judge in the Prop 8 case. His last marriage was between individuals in their 80s and 90s who were incapable of procreating. Therefore, procreation is UNRELATED to the topic of marriage... This has been proven in several courts already. You will have to come up with another excuse to discriminate against gays and lesbians, because the procreation issue is MOOT!
lisztnut 1 year ago
For those of you who feel procreation is essential to marriage, have you ever considered legislation that would demand a couple prove that they can procreate before obtaining a marriage license? How about automatically divorcing couples who don't procreate within a few years of marriage? Or, how about refusing marriage licenses to couples who are beyond childbearing age? Seems fair to me.... You cannot IMPOSE the prerequisite of procreation onto marriage. That's REDEFINING it.
lisztnut 1 year ago
You need to see this Youtube Video:
Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else
lisztnut 1 year ago
@1000Patriot, OUCH! Are you sure Blakenship wasn't a spy for OUR side?
He said: Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.
lisztnut 2 years ago
@1000Patriot, More "gems" from Blackenship: Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce.
I'm pretty sure David Boies PAID him to say those things. He just handed Prop 8 into our hands. It WILL be history soon!
lisztnut 2 years ago
@1000Patriot, from a website, written by a lawyer sitting in the court: I cant wait to see how Andy Pugno tries to tie together the mess that was the defenses two expert witnesses. Honestly, I figured that after Boies got through with Prof. Miller, that he couldnt top that performance. I was wrong. Blankenhorn was an absolute disaster for the defense. He had no credibility with the Judge, and his continued failure to answer questions wont look good on a written record either.
lisztnut 2 years ago
@1000Patriot Blankenhorn's defensive behavior verged on the histrionic, contrasting sharply with Boies's calm, matter-of-fact approach. At one point, Judge Walker stepped in and instructed Blankenhorn to keep in mind that a fact-finder, meaning a judge or jury, can consider a witness's demeanor when deciding how credible that witness is and how seriously to take his or her testimony. Although Judge Walker delivered it with great diplomacy and tact, this was a fairly sharp rebuke.
lisztnut 2 years ago
@1000Patriot Boies established a couple of key points that gravely undermined Blankenhorn's authority as an expert on marriage. First, Boies elicited testimony that Blankenhorn had not read many leading scholarly articles addressing the question of how society would be affected by allowing SSM. Of the dozens of articles cited in policy statements supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples by leading professional organizations, he admitted that he had read scarcely more than a handful.
lisztnut 2 years ago
1000Patriot, The Boies/Olson team is claiming victory:
Youtube video:
Perry Trial Press Conference - 1/27/10
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisztnut,
So-called sexual orientation expert unable to establish clear, universal definition of this concept (unlike race or sex).
**Expert on marriage admitted that a major historic purpose of marriage was to meet the childs need to be emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world.
Historian admitted people voted for Prop 8 for a range of reasons not an invidious intent to discriminate.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
1000Patriot, Maggie Gallagher is already predicting Prop 8 WILL be overturned. She's going around telling everyone that Judge Walker is a liberal, activist judge (who was appointed by G HW Bush! LOL!)....
lisztnut 2 years ago
The Prop 8 proponents asked Judge Walker to accept Blankenhorn as an expert in marriage, fatherhood, and family structures. But as Boies quickly made clear Blankenhorn lacked the usual qualifications for an expert witness in those areas. He has a BS in social science from Harvard and a master's in the unrelated field of labor history from a Univ in England. He has no academic affiliation and has never taught at a college. Judge Walker permitted Blankenhorn to testify...
lisztnut 2 years ago
Miller is a witness FOR Prop 8, BUT: Boies confronted Prof. Miller with several of Prof. Miller's own earlier writings, which were highly critical of the ballot initiative process and particularly highlighted the risk that majorities will use the initiative process to target minority groups. Prof. Miller admitted that ballot measures can, and have, drawn upon anti-minority sentiment.
lisztnut 2 years ago
Blankenhorn testified that he is opposed to allowing same-sex couples to marry because, in his view, that would promote the idea that the purpose of marriage is to serve the needs of adults rather than children. He also claimed that permitting same-sex couples to marry will lead to reduced rates of marriage by heterosexual people, higher rates of divorce, and more children born out of wedlock.
Blankenhorn did not claim to have any scientific data supporting that belief.
lisztnut 2 years ago
Repeatedly, Blankenhorn bridled at Boies's questions and often refused to answer them, leading to several interventions by Judge Walker instructing Blankenhorn to respond. Blankenhorn has acknowledged that letting same-sex couples marry would be beneficial to the couples and their children. He also admitted that there are no studies showing that children of same-sex couples are worse off than children raised by heterosexual parents.
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisztnut,
No thanks. I stick to the Alliance Defense Fund information.
Gay-activist psychologist Gregory Herek, Ph.D couldn't answer the most fundamental questions during his testimony.
The so-called expert on "sexual orientation" said Friday during the California Prop 8 federal trial that homosexuality is not a choice, although he said he did not know what the origin of homosexuality was and couldn't think of any studies showing a biological basis.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
1000Patriot, OUCH! YOUR witness failed MISERABLY on the stand. He said that gays ARE disciminated against in the work place. Your case is falling apart right in front of your eyes. He also proved that gays are politically powerless.... OUCH!
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisztnut,
What about that "expert" witness, Dr. Gregory M. Herek? Enjoy!
Google: ADF Update on Prop 8 Trial: Day 9
1000Patriot 2 years ago
Greg Herek was one of the most powerful witnesses for our side. So far, your witnesses have either dropped out (NOT for fear of being threatened, but because they helped OUR case), or been shown to be supportive of the case AGAINST Prop 8...! You guys put on a PATHETIC case, and didn't want to world to see it, hence the cry of "victim" to the Supreme Court. Guess what, now you know what it feels like for gay people (FINALLY). We can be fired from our jobs because of our IDENTITY in 41 states.
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisztnut writes, "Watch these youtube videos. They are depositions of Prop 8 witnesses who withdrew from the Federal case".
************************************
No need to. I am following the case on the Alliance Defense Fund website and it is very interesting.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
1000Patriot, there is definitely something wrong with the pro-Prop 8 case. The fact that FOUR of their six witnesses were withdrawn shows that their case is falling apart. The witnesses for THEIR side ended up supporting gay marriage inadvertantly... The have two witnesses left. Dr. Tam was a TOTAL embarrassment, and the Prop 8 team tried their best (unsuccessfully) to distance their campaign from him... He's the laughing stock of the internet... He sounds like YOU as a matter of fact!
lisztnut 2 years ago
Some court gems from Dr. Tam. He sounds just like 1000Patriot (did you coach him?):
1 Marriage will lead to diseases
2 Boys will experiment with gay lifestyle
3 Gay marriage will lead to legalized prostitution
4 Homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children (we both know this AIN'T true!)
5 I rely on the NARTH for my info on gay lifestyle
Unfortunately, he said all of this, and the Prop 8 lawyers were MORTIFIED! If anyone will lose their case for them its Dr Tam.
lisztnut 2 years ago
1000Patriot, for an "unbiased" view on the Prop 8 trial see:
Prop8trialtracker com
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisznut,
Google:
Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings:
Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality
1000Patriot 2 years ago
@1000Patriot, Anti-gay activists and their organizations are co-opting legitimate scientific research to support their discriminatory political goals. These various offenders have distorted, cherry picked or misquoted research from esteemed academic scholars across the world.
Fortunately, Truth Wins Out (TWO) has started a trend where researchers stand up and demand accountability. When their work has been purposely distorted, they use this site to set the record straight:
respectmyresearchcom
lisztnut 2 years ago
Watch these youtube videos. They are depositions of Prop 8 witnesses who withdrew from the Federal case. You can see why four of the six witnesses for the Prop 8 side were withdrawn. Their testimony helps OUR side (pro-gay marriage). This has NOTHING to do with fear of harrassment, like they alleged... LIARS!
Paul Nathanson Deposition in Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Katherine Young Deposition in Perry v. Schwarzenegger
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisznut, Part II Rosie O'Donnell
...Reflecting on her own father's emotional absence, she lamented she had difficulty connecting with men. "I have a lot of issues to work out about men." She continued, "I think that (adoption of her son, Parker) helps me to connect in a way that I wasn't able to before. I am so in love with this child, who is a male and his own person." The absence of her mother and father left deep scars in Rosie's life...
And yet she adopted a male child... Sick.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
lisznut, Part I Rosie O'Donnell
In a 1997 Ladies Home Journal article, Rosie recounted the anguish of having to experience a teen-age girl's girl-to-woman rituals without the guiding love of a mother. "It was traumatic," Rosie recalled somberly. "When a girl gets her period and her mom is not there to comfort her, it's incredibly painful." To fill the void, Rosie said she relied on and identified with television shows featuring stable families like "Eight is Enough" and "The Brady Bunch."
1000Patriot 2 years ago
@1000Patriot, why is it you don't have the COURAGE to respond to me directly? I've asked you repeatedly to have the courtesy to hit "reply" (It's left of the "spam" link to the right of your screen name). Apparently, you want people to read what you have to say but are somewhat AFRAID of what I have to say in return. Why is this???
I'm sure lots of people experience pain in their early years. As a matter of fact, I had FAR worse pain growing up gay in a fundmentalist Christian household.
lisztnut 2 years ago
1000Patriot, here's some of the tributes to this American HERO (Frank Kameny):
lisztnut writes, "In February 2009, Kamenys home in Washington was designated as a D.C. Historic Landmark by the District of Columbias Historic Preservation Review Board."
_______________________________
Perhaps the pervert has lots of equally perverted fans.
Google: Gay Rights Icon Frank Kameny Says Bestiality OK as Long as the Animal Doesnt Mind
1000Patriot 2 years ago
KidsInnocence,
Suggesting that children are gay is BS. They are not fully grown. A child's growth plates are not fully closed until the age of 18 years or older and their cognitive reasoning abilities are not fully developed until they are fully grown adults. Homosexuals are attempting to manipulate our children. They are obsessed with deviant sexual behavior & the exploration, of the next taboo.
Google: "Frank Kameny beast" and read the article, on the Americans for Truth website.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
1000Patriot, you are dead WRONG. Sexual orientation is fully formed, according to most child development experts, by the age of TWO at the latest. And, many people agree that it is formed at birth (including me). The Americans for Truth is a rightwing BS organization devoted to "twisting" the truth, instead of looking at REAL science...
lisztnut 2 years ago
1000Patriot, thanks for the info on Frank Kameny. He's a real American HERO. I took the time to write a letter of thanks to him that will be forwarded to him through the American's for Truth website....!
lisztnut 2 years ago
1000Patriot, here's some of the tributes to this American HERO (Frank Kameny):
In February 2009, Kamenys home in Washington was designated as a D.C. Historic Landmark by the District of Columbias Historic Preservation Review Board. On June 29, 2009, John Berry (Director of the Office of Personnel Management) formally apologized to Kameny on behalf of the U.S. government. Berry, who is openly gay, presented Kameny with the Theodore Roosevelt Award, the departments most prestigious award.
lisztnut 2 years ago
@1000Patriot
The American Academy of Pediatrics states: The current literature and most scholars in the field state that ones sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.
lisztnut 2 years ago
Royal College of Psychiatrists:
Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a persons fundamental sexual orientation. It would appear that it is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisztnut writes, "No, you have it wrong ingodwetrust, these men finally had the "courage" to be who they are on the inside..."
***************************************
Oh geez! Now homosexuals are claiming that they are courageous for "finally" engaging is sexual perversion. LOL
1000Patriot 2 years ago
Yes, it takes REAL courage to admit you are a gay person in a heterosexual world. It's funny how YOU people love to talk about the ONCE A YEAR Pride parades, when gay people suffer through "Straight parades" EVERY DAY! I can't walk down the street or turn on the TV without being bombarded by heterosexual images. Enough already! We are entitled to our once a year celebration of our sexuality... I say we should show it every day, and that's why my spouse and I hold hands in public sometimes.
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisztnut,
Big deal. You know several men who didn't acknowledge their ardor towards same-gender sex acts until mid-way through their lives. That simply means that those men made conscious decisions to engage, in perverted sex acts, late in life.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
No, you have it wrong ingodwetrust, these men finally had the "courage" to be who they are on the inside, despite all the hatred they faced in society. This takes far more courage than you could ever muster, I guarantee it. Just imagine if you had to "secretly" hide your love for your wife. How would that make you feel? Thank goodness those days are long vanishing. The people who should fear gay marriage are the closet homosexuals who are trapped in heterosexual relationships....
lisztnut 2 years ago
1000Patriot
lisztnut wrote, "I'm still praying that one of your kids is gay..."
And you wrote, "The god to whom you pray to must have cloven hooves."
GOOD ONE...LOL!
What is wrong w/these sick freaks, classifying young children in terms of sex practices. Gay 4 year olds? Who thinks like that? Oh, now I remember...pedophiles! Everything in their lives of gays revolves around sex. Liznut actually said his gay sex practices were "the core of his being." Sad isn't it? Keep up the good posts.
KidsInnocence 2 years ago
No, both you and 1000Patriot are absolutely WRONG. Most experts in the field of child development feel that sexual orientation is formed by the age of TWO at the VERY latest. This is very similar to our handedness. And, our orientation is ours to "discover" in our adolescene. Also, you tend to forget that 2/3rds of all molesters of BOYS are HETEROSEXUAL MEN! Why is it you guys have an obsession with virgins? That's NOT a gay thing, that's a STRAIGHT thing. Virgins are a turn-OFF for gays.
lisztnut 2 years ago
Why is it YOU people dwell on the Pride parades anyway? WHO CARES? We have to suffer through your hetero parade EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY.... And, our once a year event is all you can think about. Turn on the TV and what do you see? Heterosexuality in all its glory- NOT!!
lisztnut 2 years ago
And, what's so funny about praying to a god with "cloven hooves?" That's totally LAME, and not even funny. I worship NO god, because NONE exists...! LOL! I feel sorry for people that waste their lives worshipping something that doesn't exist. It's sad, to be honest with you... What a waste of a life...
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisztnut writes, "I'm still praying that one of your kids is gay..."
*****************************************
My children are all normal. It is not likely that God will answer that particular prayer based on His proscriptions against homosexual behavior. Oh that's right you detest God Almighty and His Son, Jesus Christ the Messiah.
The god to whom you pray to must have cloven hooves.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
Well, actually there is NO god, so I was being silly. Everyone knows this... And, yes it is still possible for your sons to come out.. I know a 70 year old woman who recently came out of the closet after a lifetime of denial. Your sons could well be gay, and you just don't know it yet. Can't WAIT.... Will you let me know if one of them comes out?
lisztnut 2 years ago
I also know several men who didn't acknowledge their homosexual orientation until mid-way through their lives. In several cases these men were married to women, and have children. So, it's never too late to come out, Ingodwetrust. There IS hope for you, yet... One of my friends came out at the age of 50, and he has grown children. He now has a male partner, whom he CANNOT marry. He's happier than he's ever been, but he'd like to marry someone he TRULY loves...
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisztnut,
I assure you that those opposed to homosexual marriage are not the least bit afraid to show their faces in court.
Are you suggesting that the many violent homosexuals who do not approve in the right to free speech, except for themselves of course, will do harm to those who testify against homosexual marriage?
You can't possibly believe that homosexuals intimidate heterosexuals? I'm sure SCOTUS fears that homosexuals will become drama queens if they know they are on camera.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
No, I'm saying that those bigots are worried about being harrassed and yet helped to REMOVE the CIVIL RIGHTS of a group of people. That's rather disingenuous isn't it? Which is worse, a harrassing phone call or a life-altering law that removes rights?
For the record: homosexuals are harrassed on a DAILY basis. Many of us can lose our LIVELIHOOD just for who we are. It's about time YOUR side of this argument feels our pain. It's a GOOD thing, that they now understand us...
lisztnut 2 years ago
You are spreading misinformation again. The Supreme's ban on cameras expires on Wednesday! LOL!
The court's decision is not the final word; the stay sought by same-sex marriage opponents expires Wednesday. The court said that will permit justices "further consideration." This means it is quite possible that cameras will be permitted started on Wednesday...
lisztnut 2 years ago
97 percent of crimes involving sexual orientation are against gay people. Fewer than 3 percent of victims are heterosexual. And, you are crying victim? I think NOT....
lisztnut 2 years ago
As of mid-1996 homosexuals could lose their jobs in 41 states in the USA. And, YOU cry victim...
lisztnut 2 years ago
So, what are these bigots afraid of in the Prop 8 case? If they truly believe in their viewpoint, it seems to me they should have the courage to remove their "hoods" in front of a camera. It also explains to me why there was not ONE single prominent politician in CA who came out publically in favor of Prop 8 during the campaign. Showing your bigotry isn't so easy when everyone can see your face. That's why the KKK wears hoods...
lisztnut 2 years ago
138,542 sign a petition in favor of allowing cameras in the Prop 8 case, 32 opposed... The "will of the people" is being disrespected by the Supreme Court. I DEMAND they respect the voters on this issue... Imperialist, activist judges....
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisztnut writes, "It's just like YOU people to do something like this. Just like the defenders of Prop 8 who are desperately trying ANYTHING to make sure that people don't see their faces at the Federal trial tomorrow"
****************
Based on today's AP report you can whine to the desperate and bigoted SCOTUS about its decision to block the Prop 8 YouTube feed.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
1000Patriot, yes, you exhibit the very same behavior as those bigots who are afraid to show their faces in court. What are they afraid of? If they are truly against gay marriage, why can't they show their faces? Kind of reminds me of YOU, since you are afriad to "reply" to me, but instead do it behind my back...
lisztnut 2 years ago
I'm still praying that one of your kids is gay. Has one of them started listening to Barbra Streisand yet? When I find that this is true, I will switch my religious beliefs from "definitely NO god" to "maybe there's a god..."
lisztnut 2 years ago
Lisztnut Part II:
I recall that after I revealed that 1/3 of all child molestations were perpetrated by homosexuals, in spite of the fact that they represent only 2% of the population, you went into a snit, & thereafter referred to me, as Hitler, a pedophile & a Nazi.
I was never molested by a priest, although I left the Catholic Church following the priest child molestation cover-up. Ironically a study was conducted (1950 - 2002). It revealed 81% of all those molested were "males'.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
@1000Patriot, I will REFUSE to respond to you until you honor my request and hit "reply" to my comments. I only saw this one by mistake because I was responding to KidsInnocence's response. Why are you afraid to let me know when you post responses to my posts? Makes no sense. I have no fear of letting you know my answers to your questions. If you have nothing to hide, then respond to me directly. End of discussion...
lisztnut 2 years ago
Part I:
lisztnut writes, "...you had changed your screen name from "Ingodwetrust" to "1000Patriot" to disguise the fact that you had spent MONTHS obsessing about child molestation..."
*********************
I do recall discussions regarding the fact that one-third of all child molestations were perpetrated by homosexuals, in spite of the fact that homosexual represent approximately 2% of the population.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
lisztnut,
Normal humans are born either male or female. Those who are not have birth anomalies.
Each human being is born with a combination of chromosomes and sex/reproduction organs, which define the person's gender. The genitalia is designed to engage in sexual intercourse with the opposite gender.
Those who have urges to engage in sex acts with their own gender, children, pets, parents, etc., and do so, are disordered and perverted. I have to prove nothing. You do.
Next.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
@1000Patriot, I ask you once again to please hit "reply" when you are responding to me. What are you afraid of? Respond to me DIRECTLY... Yes, you DO have to prove that sexual orientation is not biologically produced, especially if you are going to use this fallicy of "choice" as a reason to deny gays the right to marry. My sexual orientation was formed EXACTLY the same way yours was formed, and so far you've not figured this out.
lisztnut 2 years ago
@1000Patriot, so if having an "urge" (in your words) to engage in sex acts with my own gender is disordered, why is it so natural? Why do 450 species of animals mate with same sex partners for life? Are they perverts? I know why are above animals, but you simply CANNOT say it is disordered and perverted and against nature, when nature exhibits as much homosexual activity as humans do (maybe MORE)...
Next....
lisztnut 2 years ago
@1000Patriot. let me ask you a personal question. Our viewers would probably be interested to know you had changed your screen name from "Ingodwetrust" to "1000Patriot" to disguise the fact that you had spent MONTHS obsessing about child molestation, and clearly LOST this argument by presenting junk science. Now, have you ever gotten help for that "issue" you have? We all know you were molested by a Catholic priest as a youngster. It's time to come to terms with this, and move on in life...
lisztnut 2 years ago
@1000Patriot, once again I'd like to ask you to hit "reply" when responding to my comments. Otherwise, I will not know if you've answered me. You are very sneaky, you snake....
It's just like YOU people to do something like this. Just like the defenders of Prop 8 who are desperately trying ANYTHING to make sure that people don't see their faces at the Federal trial tomorrow. DESPERATE! What are they afraid of? People already know they are bigots...
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisznut,
Sexual orientation is certainly an "urge"/perverted desire.. it is "chosen" deviant "behavior".
Left-handedness is genetic, while homosexual behavior and other sexual deviations are choices, made by the disordered.
Please do not send me private comments again.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
@1000Patriot., sorry 1000Patriot, but you are WRONG. Left handedness has never been proven to be genetic, just like sexual orientation. But, in the words of one scientist, we don't need to find the genes that cause sexual orientation any more than we need the genes that cause eye color, to know they exist. This is as obvious to scientists as the sky is blue. So, send me some research which proves that they have a gene for left handedness, and we'll go from there.
lisztnut 2 years ago
@1000Patriot, please hit "reply" when you respond to my comments, otherwise I will not have any way of knowing that you've commented on my posts. I did NOT send you private comments, I did as I'm supposed to to by responding using the "reply". Please do me the same courtesy, so I can respond to your comments. Apparently, you don't have enough courage to let me know that you've said something to me. Just like YOU people..
lisztnut 2 years ago
@1000Patriot, this is from a scientific paper:
Left-handers are more likely to have a left-handed relative. But researchers have yet to find the gene or set of genes that pick one hand over the other.
Most scientists agree that handedness exists on a continuum. The idea helps explain why some people bowl with their left but hold a spoon in their right. Truly ambidextrous people, who have indifferent preference for either hand, are extremely rare.
lisztnut 2 years ago
@1000Patriot, do you also feel that heterosexual "urges" are "chosen" behaviors? If not, then your theory is blown out of the water. Can you tell me when you "chose" to be attracted to women? If so, why did you choose women instead of men? I was raised in the totally straight environment you were raised in, I didn't know I had a "choice." I assumed the ONLY option was women. Why was it that my "natural" attraction was for men ONLY? Explain that, please...
lisztnut 2 years ago
"The case to invalidate Prop 8 is headed to Federal court next week."
It is valid because it is the vote of the people. You just cannot lose gracefully, can you?
ma7799 2 years ago
I guess black people couldn't lose gracefully either, when 67 percent of Calfornians voted against their rights to fair housing in 1964. The Supreme Court rightfully "corrected" this voting booth error two years later and invalidated Prop 14. Hopefully they will do the same with Prop 8. The ignorant masses CANNOT remove the rights of the minorities. And, history is on OUR side. Gay marriage WILL be the law within your lifetime. Get used to it...
lisztnut 2 years ago
I guess lisznut has nothing better to do than be a loudmouth activist and upset the family structure and the rest of our society to feel better
ma7799 2 years ago
And I guess ma7799 has nothing better to do then have biggotted Christian views and rather hate then tolerate.
Knuckles194 2 years ago
Sounds like Knuckles is intolerant of Christians, so that makes him a "bigot!"
ma7799 2 years ago
Sounds like ma7799 would rather believe in something that has no proof of existence rather then treat people equally, so that make ma7799 an "idiot"!
Knuckles194 2 years ago
That's right. Ma7799 wants to IMPOSE his/her religious views on everyone. That's NOT the American way. Every has the FREEDOM to believe, or not believe in an imaginary friend, and marriage is NOT a religious issue, it's a LEGAL issue...
lisztnut 2 years ago
"That's right. Ma7799 wants to IMPOSE his/her religious views on everyone."
Majority rules, as do family values.
"marriage is NOT a religious issue, it's a LEGAL issue... "
It has always been a religious issue.
ma7799 2 years ago
Apparently, you aren't aware that marriage was a PAGAN ritual before the Christians stole it. Marriage is a legal contract between a couple and their government ONLY. If you want an imaginary friend's blessing, that's your personal business, but the government shouldn't validate it, because that's a violation of separation of church and state... Keep YOUR god out of MY government...
lisztnut 2 years ago
. "Keep YOUR god out of MY government... "
Keep YOUR perversion to yourself and away from the public
ma7799 2 years ago
I have NO perversions. I have the very same lifestyle choice that many heterosexuals have. I'm MARRIED... The perversion is in your TINY BRAIN...
lisztnut 2 years ago
Your "marriage" is a farce that will pass
ma7799 2 years ago
LOL! You're hilarious. The beauty of our governmental system is that your opinion of my marriage doesn't matter. Know why? You don't sign my tax refund check, nor does your "imaginary friend." The STATE sends my check, and in the eyes of the LAW, I AM married.... That's ALL that matters, isn't it?
lisztnut 2 years ago
And, why is it that a growing number of countries around the world are now acknowledging the need for legal recognition and benefits for gay relationships? This is not a "American" issue, this is a "GLOBAL" issue that will NOT go away. We now have countries on every continent, except Antarctica, with governmental recognition of gay relationships. Austrailia's civil union law went into effect in 2010. Nepal's will soon, and we already had South Africa. You are LOSING ground quickly...
lisztnut 2 years ago
"This is not a "American" issue, this is a "GLOBAL" issue that will NOT go away. "
It is a farce that Amsterdam started in 2002, and the media in America, (which the gays have utilized to push this issue in everyone's face), is having a field day with it. Not to worry, though, since America's family values will overturn these "gay marriage" laws one state at a time.m
ma7799 2 years ago
When your god can sign my tax refund, then and ONLY then will I care about the religious aspect of marriage. It is LEGAL...
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisztnut you are amazing
Knuckles194 2 years ago
ma7799, gat families have always been here, maybe not visible in the hamlet where you live, but we've been here. The difference is, now our families are being legally protected and recognized. Why are you such a bigot? Nobody's forcing you into a gay marriage. Gay mariage doesn't impact your life, so mind your own business. You Christians are all up in everyone's business. You want protections for YOUR lives, but don't give a rat's ass about anyone else's families...
lisztnut 2 years ago
"The difference is, now our families are being legally protected and recognized. "
They never will be except by politicians and redicals like yourself that are trying to feel more normal.
"Why are you such a bigot?"
This does not involve race.
"Gay mariage doesn't impact your life, so mind your own business. "
It will effect our entire society and creak down the American family. If someone disagrees with it, they have the right to vote against it.
ma7799 2 years ago
I see, so if someone disagrees with the rights of blacks, then they have the right to vote against it too? Believe it or not, a higher percentage of CA voters voted against the rights of blacks to fair housing in Prop 14 in 1964 than voted against gay marriage in 2008. Is that fair, because the "majority" wanted blacks to be discriminated against? You are a FOOL if you believe that the voters should vote on civil rights issues. You'd better be grateful you aren't a minority...
lisztnut 2 years ago
"You are a FOOL if you believe that the voters should vote on civil rights issues."
"Gay marriage" is not a civil rights issue.
ma7799 2 years ago
Apparently you don't understand what a civil right is. Here's a little education for you: The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination. Gays have NOT been afforded the BASIC civil right of marriage, but we WILL get it
lisztnut 2 years ago
Portugal has just become the latest country to pass gay marriage legislation, as of today and it was done the PROPER way, by the a vote in Parliament, and NOT by the general electorate! Europe is once again teaching America how it SHOULD be done...
lisztnut 2 years ago
We are the ONLY country on earth that is foolish enough to allow the civil rights of a gays to be dominated by the "will of the people" at the ballot box. This error WILL be corrected by the courts, and sooner than you think... The case to invalidate Prop 8 is headed to Federal court next week. Be prepared for nationalized gay marriage. It's only a matter of time... And, the sweet thing is that it was all due to the idiots that voted for Prop 8!
lisztnut 2 years ago
"We are the ONLY country on earth that is foolish enough to allow the civil rights of a gays to be dominated by the "will of the people" at the ballot box"
Yes you are right; we should NOT have civil unions at all, nor "gay marriage."
ma7799 2 years ago
I think you need to move to a country that is a theocracy, such as Iran. You apparently want to live in a country where the laws are dominated by religion. As for me, I'll stay here and fight for my rights until death. We are a democracy that values ALL citizens, gay and straight. If you don't like gay people, move to an Islamic Republic...
lisztnut 2 years ago
"I'll stay here and fight for my rights until death."
You have the same rights as I do.
"If you don't like gay people, move to an Islamic Republic... "
It's not a dislike; but an OPINION! Get it right.
ma7799 2 years ago
If I have to tolerate YOUR relgious beliefs, then you MUST tolerate my gay marriage, because it IS the law. Get used to it... I can accept ANY religious belief you have, but you CANNOT impose that belief on me. My marriage is NONE of your business, so you should not have the right to vote on it. PERIOD...
lisztnut 2 years ago
"If I have to tolerate YOUR relgious beliefs, then you MUST tolerate my gay marriage, because it IS the law"
Being gay is not a religion, nor do we need to tolerate it, because Prop 8 passed.
ma7799 2 years ago
People once thought lefthandedness was a "perversion" until we learned that it is a naturally occuring variance. The same is true of sexual orientation. It exists in well over 450 species of animals, many of whom mate with same sex partners for life. So you CANNOT call it unnatural. Homosexuality is a natural as the sky, and just as beautiful, too! I thank my lucky stars every day that I was born gay. Wouldn't have it any other way...
lisztnut 2 years ago
"People once thought lefthandedness was a "perversion" until we learned that it is a naturally occuring variance."
That is the most RETARDED comparison concerning ANY political topic! You seriously have not presented a single argument that makes "gay marriage" beneficial. You sound like a "gay power" activist trying to spread your filth worldwide.
ma7799 2 years ago
You haven't presented even ONE argument why my gay marriage is detrimental, and in fact, this is the dilemma facing those in support of Prop 8 at next week's Federal lawsuit. So far the Prop 8 crowd has yet to produce ANY reason why gay marriage is harmful. In fact, gay marriage HELPS people. And, it helps children. Those of us gay couples who have children will benefit from gay marriage. You, on the other hand, lose absolutely NOTHING because I'm married to my same sex spouse. Get over it.
lisztnut 2 years ago
"You haven't presented even ONE argument why my gay marriage is detrimental"
-It ruins gender roles
-Is an attack on religious freedoms
-Forces people to give up civil liberties
-Redefines marriage
"You, on the other hand, lose absolutely NOTHING because I'm married to my same sex spouse."
Your "marriage" is a circus. get over it
ma7799 2 years ago
Can you tell me exactly how religious freedoms are "attacked" by gay marriage? In fact, the opposite is true. There were 4000 churches in California that supported gay marriage, and filed briefs asking the court to invalidate Prop 8. If you want to know the names of these churches, visit this website:
calchurches org It seems to me a ban on gay marriage is an attack on those church's beliefs. You cannot say your religious beliefs trump their beliefs.
lisztnut 2 years ago
And, how, exactly, does gay marriage ruin gender roles? As a matter of FACT, there are studies proving that lesbians are better parents, because their children are more open to non-traditional gender roles. Read this London Times article:
Lesbian Parents Better At Raising Children, Nov. 15, 2009
Your side of this argument has never been able to produce ANY evidence that gays are worse at parenting. In fact, every study so far as shown the opposite. Gays are equal or BETTER parents.
lisztnut 2 years ago
And, while we're at it, please tell me how anyone will lose civil liberties once gay marriage is legalized. Notice I said ONCE gay marriage is legalized. It is inevitable...
lisztnut 2 years ago
lisztnut ""tell me how anyone will lose civil liberties once gay marriage is legalized". Just look in Mass. It is all about introducing kids as young as 4 to the gay lifestyle. Judge Mark Wolf ruled that now that SS"M" is legal in Mass, "public schools are entitled to teach about homosexuality in a positive way". He also ruled that parents could not opt out, a violation of the 14th ammendment, which states that "public schools shall neither promote or INHIBIT the practice of one's religion".
KidsInnocence 2 years ago
So, why do we let uniformed, unintelligent, and uneducated folks like YOU vote on issues like gay marriage, when you can't even comprehend that sexual orientation is like race, and gender? It's immutable, and innate, and the Catholic church, for all its murderous failings, acknowledges this...
lisztnut 2 years ago
@lisztnut Immutable? Really? What about Anne Heche? and Lindsay Lohan? And Lisa Miller, who came out of the gay life and renounced it? And, and, and. Ya you are right it is set in stone. Why don't you stop talking out of your ass.
KidsInnocence 2 years ago
Yes, immutable. Anne Heche is a self-proclaimed bisexual. I don't know about the other two.... Just the fact that you said this:
"came out of the gay life" it shows your total ignorance of the topic of sexual orientation. Do you remember choosing heterosexuality? If so, when? And why? Nobody chooses sexual orientation. We only choose whether to be what we're born to be or not. I know DOZENS of gay people who were formerly in straight relationships. Does this make them cured straights?
lisztnut 2 years ago
"Do you remember choosing heterosexuality? "
We do not need to because it is normal.
ma7799 2 years ago
@lisztnut Ok, genius, since I am so ignorant on why don't you educate me. If gayness is as you claim "immutable", how is it that Lisa came out of the gay lifestyle and renounced it? FYI, I never used the word "cured" so why don't you pay attention. I was born left handed and my mom gently switched the pencil to my other hand, and now I am right handed. Is that immutable too? Humans have all kinds of urges like incest, adultery and bestiality that they can either practice or resist. They CHOOSE.
KidsInnocence 2 years ago
Ok, KisInnocence, why don't you educate me? How is it that so many former heterosexuals are now able to live their lives as open homosexuals? Why is it that these people felt the "freedom" to finally be themselves, instead of pretending they're something they're not? And, by the way, your innate orientation is still left handed. You are only masking"yourself as a right handed person to conform to your mother's expectations, which I might add are WAY off base. She had NO business doing this.
lisztnut 2 years ago