Prop 8 Trial Re-enactment, Day 3 Chapter 1 (re-edit)

[TheDS4000]

I'm not sure what point this attorney is trying to make.

[SuperGilberto1977]

why they re-inacting this? seems like too much to memorize

[MrBeautifulba1]

You are all evolving into true joy, peace, and awareness.

[Goohuman]

... since that is all that will be decided. Let it be decided by the people. No judge can tell us what to believe or be happy with. For those states that choose "gay marriage" then so be it. They may find over time that they must then clarify what a "family" is as surrogates sue for custody or ancestry studies are done.

If those of us that value the traditional meanings of words are unwilling to compromise our beliefs, then we can move somewhere where we are welcome. And vise-versa.

[poetaviolinista]

@Goohuman You can value it all you want as you want, but that doesn't mean we should be discriminated against. You don't have to marry a person of your same sex, thus holding onto your traditional meaning.

[Goohuman]

@poetaviolinista Homosexuals have been throwing that word "discrimination" around very carelessly. There are no laws suggesting that homosexuals must drink from a separate fountain or are not allowed in some diners, etc. The only way homosexuals are separate from society is by behavior, not race, creed or gender. If you choose to flaunt your sexual preference in public, you have no right to force acceptance or even tolerance. If you behave like a citizen, you will be treated like one.

[poetaviolinista]

@Goohuman Not careless at all. Are you suggesting that being a homosexual deems me a non-citizen? That's funny.

No separate fountain, but no marriage. Which is a simple and basic thing that should be equal.

I laugh inside when people keep telling me I've been given so many rights and I should be grateful. To which I reply: there shouldn't have been any reason to enact into law something that makes me equal. It should've been already accepted.

Flaunt is funny. Straight people kiss. I can't?

[Goohuman]

@poetaviolinista Do you understand the difference between a physical separation (which the Blacks experienced) and the changing of the definition of a word? You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You do not have the right to change the meaning of a word that has so much meaning to our families. Go find your own word. How easy is that.

As for kissing, kiss all you want. I don't have to like it, and I have the right to throw up.

[poetaviolinista]

@Goohuman Go ahead and throw up. That would be hilarious.

It's not really changing the definition of a word. It's just an expansion to produce from it a more homogeneous society.

I obviously understand a physical separation. Are you talking about segregation? I believe I said discrimination.

[Goohuman]

@poetaviolinista Obviously "an expansion" of the meaning is a change.

Marriage is the start of a family. Just because people get married AFTER they have kids, or at 60, or have kids and NEVER get married, does not deny the fact that the best environment for children to be raised in is where both the qualities of man and woman are represented in harmony and love. Our corrupt society can take jabs all day at how that doesn't happen, but it is a noble and worthy goal. We must protect it.

[Goohuman]

... but I believe I skipped over your point. In the 14 odd states that allow same sex marriage, people still recognize the value of the individuals aside from their sexual preference. Is that it?

If so, then I would hope that would go for all states, whether they allow the term "marriage" to apply to such unions or not. How we treat each other or feel about each other should not play a role in the decision process. Let it be the meaning of "marriage" alone that is debated. ...

[Goohuman]

If we are talking same sex unions, I don't see a problem either. That is not the issue.

As far as the labeling thing goes, I can't speak for the entire society, but it is what it is. People come to the same conclusions from many different directions. Some may indeed have seen a means of dividing people with the term "homosexual", but I'm not convinced that was the main reason they are identified with that term. You must admit the homosexual community adopted "gay" quickly and easily.

[Goohuman]

... "Gay" used to strickly mean "happy" or "joyful". The homosexual community referred to themselves as "gay" and very quickly people understood "gay" to then mean a man that was homosexual.

Now it has a completely different understanding and young boys use the term negatively to describe any number of things they don't like.

Labels have a life of their own. No one owns a label for long. They can be manipulated, but people have the final say as to what they mean.

[Goohuman]

To all, homosexuals do serve a purpose. They are the terminal ends where procreation stops. They are not evil, nor bad.

Homosexuality appears to be natures way of controlling population, just like famine, war and disease. Fine. So we kill ourselves off in many different ways.

Just don't tell my children to define themselves by sex.

You homosexuals may not like the opposite sex, but you don't have to define yourselves or our entire society by your weakness.

[HyperSpeziFisch]

would be cool if you could include the videos that were shown in the court into the reenactment if accessible - or link them in the descriptions.

[Goohuman]

Had no idea how this trial went. Not interested in listening to 4+ hours of this, but it's great to see so many actually watching and commenting.

IMHO, I believe people will move away from this issue just as they moved towards it. As people remember why homosexual behaviour is destructive to a society, they must choose to keep the US going or abandon it for their specific agenda. Morality, integrity, civility etc. We must have them to have freedom.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman I think that people should ask themselves how homophobia contributes to the self destructiveness of homosexuals and how they play into it. Homophobia has done more to destroy society than homosexuals ever have

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 Okay, I need to ask. How do you see the fear of being percieved as a homosexual being destructive to society?

I DO see how it would be destructive to a society of homosexuals. I will give you that.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman It's indirectly destructive to society. When kids are kicked out because they're gay that increases the likelihood of gays being self destructive, getting into drugs--court costs, rehabs, jails, I'm not saying straight people aren't susceptible to this but it is more likely when rejection is present. Also, marriages of gay men to women destroying families when they can't hide it anymore. Those are splinters of the hub of homophobia

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85

Have you ever tried to put a square peg in a round hole?

The fear of not fitting in lives in all of us at one time or another. We all go through the process of finding our "fit" in society. There are a wide range of groups that form in our adolescence, including "jocks", "nerds" and everything inbetween. Sex should not play a role until one is mature enough to cope with the responsibility of sex. Even so, there is a place for homosexuals.

My hangup was being called a "nerd".

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 .. let me add,

Our society is perverted. The open exploitation of our youth by the sex industry is corrupting our view of sex and marriage. Sex has become the goal rather than part of the path of life. The fact that some kids associate with homosexuality before they can even grasp what else they associate with is far more destructive to those young peoples lives than any stigma a society could have on his chosen group. He/she can always find support. The stunting cannot be undone.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman Our society...what I can say is simply that people act as if sex is stigmatized and an unspoken evil as opposed to saying simply: It's a reality of life and to address it head on. That is a part of the destructiveness of sex in general--if we don't understand sex and address it. Added to the stigmatization of homosexuality, it makes it as if it were a double whammy

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 Lots of big issues regarding sex.

It would be wise to allow our children to grow up with a good set of values before delving into the man-made issues around this instinctual attraction.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman The fact is that we can allow those good values. A lot of families do that, but their closed mindedness about discussing sex tends to see a sheltered kid once they discover sex, going out and sampling the buffet so to speak

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 Yes, I remember doing that. Wasn't wise. In retrospect, I would have benefitted from actually valuing those values. They were mentioned, but the importance of respecting women, going through the steps before having sex and recognizing fundamental differences that will cause great strife long after the sex is over would have made my life much MUCH easier.

If there is anything I can offer it is just to take it slow and do not let sex be the reason you are together.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman Hence the openness of sexuality and human relationships. If they were discussed as human and not just 'adult' subjects, then we would be better off.

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 I don't follow. Are you saying 'Hence your need for values leads to the openness of sexuality and human relationships', because that makes no sense at all. Discussing any issue without a foundation of core values is like building on sand. It will keep falling apart until you establish a foundation.

That's what values are.

If you value sex before you value life, you are in for a miserable life with brief moments of great sex. Choose.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman I'm saying that openness with sex is needed. All the way through. It is possible to have a set of core values in place but also to be honest and not use the classic fear tactics we've been used to. I meant also to say that if the importance of valuing women and going through the steps....yahta yahta if we were open with sexuality and human relationships with a balanced, objective viewpoint then we wouldn't have the Pandora Box of sex when people start realizing how the world of sex is

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 Hope you had a merry Christmas.

Yes, openness is good. Honesty is good. That should not be in question.

We can talk around the point, but let me just say that homosexuality is a perversion of natural sex.

Some are more inclined to homosexual relations than heterosexual. We have no right to stop them. They are who they are. But that doesn't mean what they DO is good for our society. It is destructive. It tears us at our core. Especially the politics of it.

[Goohuman]

@Goohuman I think I missed a point:

Fear tactics. What are they?

I think what you refer to is that, when I say, 'homosexuality is destructive' you hear, 'be afraid of homosexuals, they will destroy us'.

No, I don't suggest you fear them. I am only making the point that, like many other things we tolerate in our society (ie video games, TV and porn etc), homosexuality is also destructive. That doesn't mean we ban them. They are citizens and free people. No fear, but we don't teach it's right.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman Then again, I dare to ask: How is homosexuality or homosexuals destructive? What do they do that's destructive? Drug use, partying, etc can be said of straight people too. I doubt that there is one that can't apply to straight people too--which is often overlooked when people talk about the 'destructiveness' of homosexuality

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 How is homosexuality destructive to a society?

You named a few factors, but not the key issue. Drugs, permiscuity, cheating, lying, etc are not limited to homosexuals. They are more and more common in our society. That doesn't make them harmless though.

Homosexuality is by it's nature destructive to the whole concept of family. Homosexuals can't create life by themselves. They define themselves by sex, not life. I tell you from personal experience, THAT is destructive. ...

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman First of all. many heterosexuals define themselves by sex and people don't look at that as destructive. Second, homosexuals can create life with a member of the opposite sex that doesn't make it destructive--you might as well say infertile straight couples are. Next, straight parents don't always raise straight children same with gays and gay kids.Your reiteration of the recruitment theory is laughable. Next. how is this going to tear apart the family by building their own?

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85

Please try to understand the truth in what I am saying. What I spelled out was a simple model of family and how it naturally grows and procreates. In contrast is a model of "family" including homosexuality. It is clear to anyone willing to admit it that the models are very different and "families" based on homosexuality cannot work on their own.

You have many objections because there are many variations. We are all different. But the model is basically the same for all.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman You didn't answer my ? how is this going to tear apart the family by building their own?

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 If you call a bird an animal with wings and feathers, then remove the wings and add 2 more legs, is it still a bird? No. Its some graphed together creature that cannot create another of itself. You create two creatures (that survive the operation) and mate them, you get a bird.

That is a physical example of what you do to the idea of family when you put two of the same sex together. That is how the idea of family is destroyed. Hope that helps.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman The only difference is that the parents are of the same sex. They can reproduce just not with eachother, so that is not a comparable example. Gays may have children from previous marriages, or adopt. Would you rather a man marry a woman and then come to terms that he's gay--he has a family acc to ur definition but he's not happy and he's going to tear his family apart when he starts living with a man and exploring his sexuality. I'd rather he be gay from the start than do that

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 So you acknowledge that homosexuals cannot reproduce unless they break the boundries of a "marriage" relationship. What you dismiss as "not a comparable example" is the very point we are talking about. A marriage is a contract. Faithfully keeping that contract means homosexuals cannot ever have children naturally. Therefore they cannot have a family or a next generation. They are a dead leaf on the tree of life.

When will you come to terms with that fact?

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85

... and to answer your question as to what I would rather have, I'd rather homosexuals stay faithful to one another rather than jumping into bed with anyone or anything that they see. I'd rather they leave "family" and "marriage" to those who will use their equipment to have families and keep it within the marriage.

This world is full of permiscuity. Lets not redefine our language to justify it.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman You are assuming that heterosexuals are faithful by saying that 'family' and marriage stablize and make those who are nonmonogamous monogamous once again. You're simply saying that gays are promiscuous so they shouldn't marry and they shouldn't marry because they're promiscuous. Circular reasoning doesn't help. Next. the example was taking one thing and replacing it with something else. Homosexuals don't plan to replace marriage with something else, gays just want to marry their lovers

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 No, I am not. And I specifically pointed out that this world is full of permiscuity. Of course that applies to heterosexuals as well. It is the reason marriages end. In fact, it is the MAIN REASON marriages end.

I do not excuse permiscuity for ANY reason. It is called "CHEATING" when in a relationship. It destroys marraiges in every culture. We should never justify it by redefining marraige. "Swingers" is an attempt to normalize this dangerous behaviour too.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman and you act like gays are the only ones that are promiscuous, obviously you are contradicted. Yes, a gay couple can't have a child in their union, so there's adoption and artificial insemination. These are not new as infertile couples have been using them. Nothing in the marriage contract talks about having children. If that was the only need for marriage, you can annul a marriage because a woman is infertile or the guy is shooting blanks...good try

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 How do you know how I'm "acting"? Just stick to the point. Do not argue by putting words in my mouth and then telling me those words are wrong.

We covered this point repeatedly.

Thank you for pointing out that, indeed, some couples have their marriages annulled because the man or woman is infertile. That is true. It wasn't my point, but it does bring more validity to it.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman I never said that: I said that if marriage were about kids, then you could. Bottom line is that you can't come up with a real, solid reason for denying gays marriage that you can't apply to heterosexuals. s

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 Was revisiting this conversation, which I put on the back burner before Christmas, and just wanted to address your last point.

You stated that I haven't given you a reason to deny marriage that doesn't apply to heterosexuals.

I would agree heterosexuals get married and may not have kids, or they may "sleep around", but in those cases the marriage often ends. The hope is that they will start a family, not just have sex.

Homosexuals can't have a family by definition.

[Goohuman]

@Goohuman Moreover, only a very few homosexuals adopt or use artificial insemination. Many of my homosexual friends do not want kids. They want a sex partner and that is it. They want to explore the boundries of sex, not raise a child.

I've heard of a lesbian couple that attempted to have a child with a surogate. They ended up including the surogate into the family. Why? Did they not have that special bond a mother has with a child? It sounded like an experiment as they talked. Strange.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman "Moreover, only a very few homosexuals adopt or use artificial insemination" How do you know? How do you know that many don't want kids? Have you surveyed them? Do you know any same sex parents with kids? Why do you assume that men can't raise children? That's an insult to men and the many single fathers out there

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 Yes, infertility is indeed grounds for divorce all by itself. Look it up.

There is nothing homosexuality is more about than sex. Homosexuals are by definition about sex. Much more so than heterosexuals. Don't get me wrong. I love sex too, but I don't define my life by it. Family is more important than sex for me. Sex was more important until I had kids. Homosexuals don't have that issue.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman It is a reason many couples divorce but it is not legally grounds for divorce. The reason why people believe homosexuals define themselves by sex is because people always have defined homosexuals by sex not we ourselves. Society has labeled homosexuals that way. They say: Homosexuals are defined by behavior, that is not true it is romantic attraction. Gay people live life too, for some it's about sex, and for some it's about more than that. That's not fair to say in the least.

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 First of all I want to apologize. This conversation is taking on a personal nature and I do want to steer clear of any personal offense in discussion of the topic. I started it by talking about myself so I accept the responsibility for this deviation. It is bad for reason and logic to use emotional arguments, which come naturally from talking about one's self. My bad.

That being said, it is clear we both have had a great deal of experience in the homosexual community....

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman And when gays adopt children, they are ready for a family. They have settled into their relationship, they have prepared, most of their circle are other straight parents. One may stay at home while the other works so the kids can have a steady influence in the home. Gay family life is pretty traditional. You keep talking about sex and that gays are defined by it and again I said it is not true. The enduring pattern of attraction is what classifies us not our acting out on it

[Goohuman]

... and we both have a great deal of personal information to back our perspectives. I hope you would agree that the subject itself, however, is far greater than any one persons opinion regardless of the knowledge that person has. Ultimately we are talking about the good of the people of one state, or the entire nation, to live with the law that homosexual unions can be called "marriages" or not.

It would become a law, not just an opinion ...2

[Goohuman]

2... So let us tackle that first issue objectively.

Understanding that homosexuals are no different than anyone else except that they prefer sex with their own gender, how else can you define homosexuals? There is no other way to do it. No doubt they dispise the insinuation that they are deviant, as would a nerd or goth or anyone else. They are who they are. I see no harm in homosexuals defining themselves by their behaviour. ...3

[Goohuman]

3... will have to finish later .. work calls. ...

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman Seeing this objectively is very difficult when we see that real lives are hinging on cases like this. Yet, I can understand that there are people who feel that homosexuality is defined by behavior but the fact is that society labeled it that way so that they could put an us vs. them mentality into the minds of many. It has been seen in states that allow same sex unions that things haven't changed much aside from who can now marry whom

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman If you're implying that because they can't have kids in their union that can apply to sterile couples, and they are able to get married and one can't annull the marriage because of infertility. Sex is a big part of the heterosexual identity but heteros aren't DEFINED by it as people define homosexuals. Next, homosexuals aren't sterile, they just can't have a baby with each other--just like sterile couples. So that is not a valid reason to deny marriage to gay couples in the least

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 You keep bringing up exceptions to the norm to support normality of the exception to marriage.

Are sterile heterosexuals the norm? Of course not.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman I am only bringing up the same exceptions in heterosexual unions that you use to say that gays shouldn't get married.

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 Pardon. That last comment was not accurate. Infirtility is a grounds for divorce, it is not a reason to marry. Infirtility does not support homosexual marriage. I've never heard of a couple getting married knowing that one or the other can not have kids. I've heard of some marry knowing there will be problems, but with hope they can be overcome.

As I said before, the homosexuals I know want a sex partner, not a child. Their focus is on sex.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman Yes it is. Infertility is not grounds for divorce alone. Being gay is not all about sex, anymore than being heterosexual is. The only difference seems to me to be that homosexuals are more open and honest about sex

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman WE...never covered anything...YOU never proved anything to me

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85 BTW, you say "many heterosexuals define themselves by sex". Who are you refering to?

There is no straight party, no straight pride parades, no bills protecting straights, killing a heterosexual because he is heterosexual would not constitute a "hate crime" (what violent crime is NOT hate anyway?).

If you mean you've heard people say "I'm heterosexual", then I guess you have a point, but I think you know that is not what I'm talking about. You would be avoiding the issue.

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman Homosexuality is not destructive. The way people go out of their way to demonize gay people is destructive and in turn has a part in leading individual homosexuals to destructive behaviors. The more you demonize people, the more self hatred manifests in destructive behaviors--THAT tears us to our core. Gays and lesbians want what heterosexuals have--the right to live their lives like their straight counterparts. There's no getting around that and marriage is a part of that

[Goohuman]

@vidhead85

... to justify homosexuality as normal you must remove the concept of family. Family is a mother and a father having kids and raising them up to become new mothers and fathers.

If you try to include homosexuality in that pattern you get, two men/women join together, adopt some unwanted/orphaned child or inseminate a female (outside of the homosexual relationship) to create life, raise that child to become (and this is where it gets really odd) like themselves? or what?

[vidhead85]

@Goohuman Next. why are you thinking that straight parents raise children like them--I am not like my parents in many interests and tastes. To say that gay parents will raise them to be like them as far as sexual preference is stupid and shows how little you know about sexuality

[deathofasellout]

A bunch of people who only know hate. They know nothing of love. Their is no heaven for folks like these.

[DblOSmith]

Oh, damn. I think the shit's gonna get real in this one! :)

[grappleaddict]

This is a pretty creative thing these people have done. I'd love it if they did this sort of thing for SCOTUS cases. I bet they get an Oscar nomination for web based media.

[Modelliere]

@virusmakers, you're a fucking uneducated asshole. it makes me so depressed that i share a country with someone like you. especially when you discriminate towards gays, but allow lesbians to find love because it's "hot" to you. you selfish bastard. i hope you never find love or happiness with a partner.

[mattfisher100]

The judge no name is confused what wrong with courts, Is this the sacremento court cause they are no we are a very great a nation and its sad but, lable noone my grandparents say its like if you make a bad choice and your friends point the finger you drop it anway their no use making the mistake again I hope we fight this. and it can occur in small steps. PEACE

[samgd9]

The words (Intolerant) and (Opinion) are two different terms (obviously) with two different definitions that walk a thin line my friend ... Your statement is not entirely true. Someone can have an OPINION that gays are lesser than that is sad but the choice they have. When that person attempts to force the OPINION that gays are lesser than and should be treated lesser than it becomes intolerance. That is what is being attempted here. It is kind of scary and humorous to watch.

[BlackRepublican2010]

Its NONSENSE to think anyone with a different opinion that yours is intolerant or judgmental or hateful or has a phobia.

[EthanFilms]

@BlackRepublican2010 It's good to hear a republican say that. Music to my ears.

[gothenburgmark]

Like it or not, homosexuality is an aberantion, like it or not. And the majority of the world's inhabitants, by far, agree with such. It is not now, nor will it ever be completely accepted as normal behavior.

[RaHaHaMen]

@gothenburgmark That's absolute bullshit. And did you mean aberration?

Homosexuality is as old and as natural as heterosexuality. Homosexuality has been observed in nature, and if that's not natural then nothing is.

You bigots have had it your own way for too fucking long. We cannot progress as a species while this type of ignorant phobia controls our lives.

[AlexanderKeeley]

@RaHaHaMen Brother RaHaHaMen you sound like you have alot of agrivation in your heart. Please understand I say this with Love in Mine. Homosexuality is no more natural than Poligamy. It is a matter of controlling ones UN-natural Desiers. With your logic then the idea of Men being with multiple women WHILE MARRIED is also natural. Correct?No,it is a desier that needs to be brought under the controle of God,and be allowed to removed with the help of friends and loved ones.It must be all done Love.

[RaHaHaMen]

@AlexanderKeeley That is absolutely untrue. Many other animals display same sex relations. That is what I mean by existing in nature and therefore natural. A long time time ago, some bigots with power either didn't understand it or didn't like it, and they decided this rule for us. That is unnatural.

I certainly don't think marriage is natural. This is another unnatural state imposed on us by religious control. Men naturally seek out new partners to spread their seed.

[RaHaHaMen]

@RaHaHaMen Before the inventions of religion or society, a man and woman would experience a honeymoon period of about 2 to 4 years, long enough to create a child and provide for the woman during her pregnancy. When the child could walk and begin to fend for itself, the 'honeymoon' sensation (chemicals released by the brain) would wear off and the man would seek out a new mate. Waning hormones in older couplings would lead to longer relationships. And the fear of STD's.

[GregorEzpo]

@RaHaHaMen disease and mental illness are also as old and natural as anything.  What is your point?

[TheAmazingSatirist]

@GregorEzpo

You don't let ill and crazy people get married? You descriminate on them? No, of course you don't. What's YOUR fucking point, you bigotted immoral peace of shit?

[GregorEzpo]

@TheAmazingSatirist It is a shame you either don't know how to read, or are too full of your own shit to do so without injecting your own infantile twist on things. If you could pull your fat head out of your loose asshole and wipe the shit out of your eyes you'd see my comment wasn't anti-gay at all. I was simply pointing out that to make a good case fr gay marriage it is fruitless to go down the road of "natural" because it doesn't denote worth. Equality for all is how you should tackle it.

[GregorEzpo]

@TheAmazingSatirist It is overly emotional, uneducated, and pitifully dim people like you that make it hard for intelligent homosexuals the marriage rights they deserve. I am not even gay. You seem like more of a hinder to gay rights than a fundamentalist Christian. You are like a wanna be guard dog, that thinks it's a bulldog, but is actually a little chihuahua pissing off everyone. Lash out and bark if you like, but gay rights needs calm people with facts; not someone yelling like an idiot.

[GregorEzpo]

@TheAmazingSatirist - Oh, and on the point of not letting mentally ill people get married, no, it is against the law. Look it up child.

[TheAmazingSatirist]

@GregorEzpo

Only if they lack legal capacity. Even if you would want to argue that homosexuality is a mental illness, you can't deny them legal capacity. That's a matter of medical and legal fact.

The argument you brought forward, why ever, falls flat. Furthermore, to point out that HS is 'natural' is a counterargument to the propably oldest anti gay pseudo argument that there is: That it is 'not natural'.

I want to apologize for the overreaction, this topic is really...touching.

[samgd9]

What is the bizarre point that this attorney is trying to make? People treat gay people better then they did, so lets NOT let them marry?

[Brent1700]

They have to be dickwads, it's their job! And I agree, it's very east coast. lol

[dillonph]

Why are the State of California attorneys such dickwads, they should move to the east coast!!

[infernaldarklord]

@dillonph i, as someone from the east coast, am offended by this statement. D:

[virusmakers]

@infernaldarklord no fags allowed in america get lost to homo-land were alls gays should be i think that called the neverland ranch...lulz

[infernaldarklord]

@virusmakers jeeze that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what i said. you're pretty damn sad.

[virusmakers]

@infernaldarklord yea it does..homo

[infernaldarklord]

@virusmakers lol, no it doesn't.  i was stating that not everyone from the east coast is a dickwad. had nothing to do with homosexuality in the least.

[virusmakers]

@infernaldarklord homo

[infernaldarklord]

@virusmakers oh yay, a troll.

[virusmakers]

@infernaldarklord I know who you are....your a homo fucking faggot

[infernaldarklord]

@virusmakers well i'm a girl so it's socially acceptable for me.

go cry in a corner.

btw calling someone who doesn't think homosexuality is wrong a "homo" isn't all that insulting.

[virusmakers]

@infernaldarklord my bad sorry didnt no u was a girl lesbian are hot im kool with that