very well articulated young man. thank you for being a rational voice in the cacaphony of irrational thinkers.. u r spot on about the FF's. Have u read Madison's and Jefferson's views on religion? im certain you have.. good for u to be well informated...every point is spot on dude!! thanks again.
You sir, are a hypocrite. The majority of the human species believes that marriage is between male and female. California voted and upheld that majority standard. If anyone is pushing their beliefs, it is activist Judges like Walker. Please educate yourself instead of repeating the drivel you eat up from MTV.
@JeremyAlanBrady no state shall enact laws that violate the Constitution. the same laws that protect your rights have been applied here to protect the rights of same sex couples. the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection for all citizens, Prop 8 violated that principle.
even the Proponents of Prop 8 at trial could come up with no rational basis to justify the state treating homosexuals unequally.
its an unambiguous and meticulous ruling, read it.
Same sex couples have NEVER in the history of the planet had the right to call their relationships a marriage. Marriage is between men and women. No rights were violated. Proposition 8 did not violate the 14th amendment. If that is the case, laws forbidding incestuous or polygamous marriage are also unconstitutional.
People who engage in homosexual activity are not treated unequally because EVERYONE is beholden to the same marriage standard of one man and one woman.
@JeremyAlanBrady its not one man's opinion. if you read the ruling, you'll see that it is built on numerous precedents (opinions of previous judges) and is backed up quite clearly by the 14th amendment, which ensures the right to equal protection, and states no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process. the right to marry is fundamental, even Prop 8 proponents agreed to that. it stripped rights away without due process, and created a separate class, which is unconstitutional.
@gothatfunk You don't understand the 14th amendment. Protection is not based on sexual behavior, or any behavior for that matter. Marriage has never been "denied" to people who call themselves homosexual. They can marry under the same rules as everyone else. A union between two people of the same gender has never been marriage. To call it such is insensitive. Is it OK for me to apply and accept an African American college scholarship, even though I am Caucasian?
@JeremyAlanBrady again, if you actually READ the ruling, you will see that there is ample precedent that sexual behaviour (sexuality AND orientation) IS protected by the 14th amendment. there is also ample precedent to establish that marriage is NOT about sex, nor about producing children.
you give yourself away when you say calling samesex union a marriage is "insensitive".
the Constitution protects people's lives, liberty, and rights - NOT their feelings.
The constitution protects people's lives, liberty and rights. I agree with you there. Calling two people of the same gender married however does not protect. In fact, it does the opposite. It threatens families, culture and liberty by validating homosexual behavior. That validation of behavior is in direct conflict with a majority of citizens right to object and continue to express beliefs regarding the inherent dangers and oppositions to homosexual acts.
@JeremyAlanBrady every single point you just made was brought up during the trial, and ALL of them were shown to be fallacious by the EVIDENCE.
i defy you to justify any of that drivel with empirical facts. *HOW* does 'validating homosexual behaviour' threaten anyone's rights? what evidence can you offer that homosexuality is in any way dangerous to society? the trial lawyers couldn't make that case, so if you can, i'm all ears.
p.s. - i referenced our conversation in my recent video "Refuting Prop 8 Supporters", but i didn't say your username in my video, as i am critical of your ideas, not of you as a person, since i don't know you.
Hey. I actually watched your video. I liked it. Even though you were wrong.
Interesting jewelry. And I did read the ruling. It's absolute bullocks.Please be honest with yourself and admit that his homosexuality had influence in his decision. How could it not? As an "oppressed minority" how could he rule against his own group?
And I'll be honest with you, too. I hope gay marriage passes. That way everything will go straight to hell and Jesus will come back sooner.
@JeremyAlanBrady i am being honest. there is no reason to suspect the judgement was biased due to his orientation. since you've read the ruling now, maybe you could show me where this bias is evident? moreover, perhaps you can tell me where the judgement is incorrect? the State of California attourney General didn't defend Prop 8, nor did any state official. what State interest is there in denying gays marriage? even Prop8 proponents in trial couldn't come up with anything, saying "I don't know"
Here is the harm. Institutionalizing the acceptance of homosexual behavior through marriage in effect validates homosexual behavior. Government validation of homosexual behavior threatens my right to object, the right to teach my children values and educate them accordingly. I do not want my children taught in schools that homosexual behavior is valid, healthy or acceptable. I have that right. homosexual marriage threatens that right and the rights of the majority of California.
JeremyAlanBrady even if i accepted those sentiments as valid, you still failed to answer the question. you have given me your personal interest. you have not identified any State interest. don't feel bad, the lawyers couldn't either.
also, your argument is not valid, you can continue to teach your children that homosexuality is unnatural, or whatever. them being allowed to marry won't change that, and denying them marriage won't make them go away.
State interests for denying homosexual marriage are the same as denying incestuous or polygamous marriage. Why are these groups of people not allowed to marry? Is it also a violation of civil rights? This is universal tradition. Marriage between homosexuals violates the precedents of tradition. If it is accepted, any objection will be labeled as "hate speech" which has a chilling effect to opposition. Schools have already implemented homosexual themed curriculums in San Francisco.
@JeremyAlanBrady incest risks birth defects, so can be said to be a risk to public health. as for polygamy, if its between mutually consenting adults, i see no issue. that day will come too.
the Constitution says nothing about tradition, and many Courts have ruled that tradition is not a basis for legislating. that argument was exhaustively dealt with in trial, and shown to be hollow. if tradition mattered, women would still be subordinate to men in marriage, and wouldn't be allowed to vote.
OK, if yer down with plural marriage, I suppose I could be cool with fags getting together and calling each other married. See, faggots and fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims have more in common then you thought! But until that day comes...no fag marriage. It ain't fair to the terrorists! And it isn't equal protection under the law.
umm. no. Tradition is absolutely a basis for legislation. Especially under our system of law. Precedent is a legal philosophy which our country is based on. Precedent is absolute in that marriage is between men and women in California, as well as in the overwhelming majority of time, cultures, nations and tradition.
Homosexual marriage is a failure, a rejection on the marriage based society. Marriage is not based on love, but on families which homosexuals cannot naturally create.
You have also proven my point exactly. Any objection to homosexual agendas is labeled hate speech with labels such as "bigotry". Walker was also 100 % incorrect in his statement that morality has nothing to do with legislation. It has everything to do with legislation. His opinion is one rooted in his own homosexual deviancy, not legal precedent and certainly not the 14th amendment. To say such is a construed interpretation of the law.
@gothatfunk indeed gays are here to stay!! out n proud.. n heterosexists like Jeremy need to get over themselves. we wont go away this time.....We shall overcome
@JeremyAlanBrady and what about MY right to Object to your personal behavior. u two faced ignorant slut!! homosexual behavior IS valid because it's part of the human condition. u dont have the right! just as u dont have the right to deny blacks or women or any group from being who they are n those arguments WERE made by myopic minded people like u in the past. gay marriage DOES NOT threaten ur rights. u have to prove that n u cant.
@JeremyAlanBrady LMAO i KNEW the crazy christian would come out in you eventually.. poor Jesus.. has to suffer even more because of idiots like u who claim to follow him. Jesus save me from your followers.. your hatefilled, angry, fascist, bitter, opressive, arrogant and obnoxious and fearfilled...followers. why do u persecute Jesus? u Peter. u pharisee Judas. just LIVE the gospel of love thats all jesus wanted u to do. stop worryin bout the spintler in my eye wrry bout the tree trunk in yours.
@JeremyAlanBrady and just because they believe in "marriage between one man and woman", doesnt mean they are right to limit other peoples choices. I am not a hypocrite nor do I watch MTV. I would love to challenge you to a debate on ANY topic you want. Let me know,ass.
The reason that governments have historically limited marriage is not because of so-called bigoted values. Marriage costs government money in the form of tax benefits and other advantages. So why does the government grant marriages if they are so expensive? What is the benefit that the state obtains?
Children. Marriages between men and women are LIKELY to produce children, which is beneficial. Homosexual relationships do not.
Contrary to popular belief, marriage is not about "love".
@JeremyAlanBrady you cannot say governments have restricted, because it was recognized in many ancient cultures and even more so in modern countries. Majority of Europe, canada and south american countries like Argentina. China is also starting a set of laws to protect gay citizens and recognize civil unions. You are right about the taxes, but seeing as how americans pay the most in income tax and the rest of the civilized world accepts gay unions, we are the wrong ones. Greed.
Marriage was never recognized by any ancient culture as anything but between men and women. Where are you getting your information from? Imaginationland?
Cultures that did embrace homosexuality (though never homosexual marriage) eventually crumbled. Look at ancient Greece. Look at Rome. What happened to those societies? They were conquered by stronger ideals and faded into obscurity.
Homosexuality is a death sentence to societies. History is proof.
@JeremyAlanBrady Obscurity? Rome and ancient greece and the native americans of southern and northern america are left to obscurity? You are silly. The civilizations are important and well known around the world. You are arguing that those civilizations fell because of gay marriage, I just want to make sure thats what your saying. When in reality they fell due to the implementation of a capitalistic society, I.E true monetary currency. Also other economic means contributed.
Yes. Rome and ancient Greece and the native americans of southern and northern america are left to obscurity.They have either become extinct because of moral deficiencies and hubris (in the case of Greece and Rome) or have been assimilated by other cultures. Homosexuality is not the direct cause of a dying society, but a key symptom, along with giant anthropomorphic monuments, bloated government systems, overspending and violence as entertainment.
@JeremyAlanBrady u idiot greece didnt crumble because of homosexuality. look at the historical facts fool!!! Ignorance.. like yours IS the death sentence to society and history is the proof of THAT.
@JeremyAlanBrady An argument to your statements, according to many studies anywhere between 12 and 23% of americans are gay with a higher number being "bi" allowing gay marriage would increase the wedding industry and increase revenues and sales tax, also would increase the amount of adopted children and educated adopted children.
Just because a family has a child doesnt mean that child will be a contributor to society, so there are holes in your argument.
There are also holes in your argument. What benefit does calling relationships between homosexuals "marriage" serve? To what benefit does it serve society? I see none.
Sexuality has nothing to do with marriage. It's irrelevant. The issue is gender and the definition of marriage as between men and women, regardless of "sexual orientation" or some other label that you choose to place on yourself. All children have potential to benefit society. Gay marriages serve no benefit.
@JeremyAlanBrady The canadian government changed the definition of marriage, look it up. Why? Because people make words, words do not make people, we have changed the definition of words all the time, we do not conform to the definitions already in place. You MAY be right about them not serving a benifit to society, but luckily we live in the greediest nation on the planet where we would rather let people starve than help them, so if gay people want the term, let them have it.
@Jinreeso righ on Jeremy!! we do live in the greediest nation.. (well i left n now in eureope but serving w/ our military as civ) but words DO change meaning and its time this word Marriage" change to be inclusive. something many americans seems to hate is inclusivity ...well conservative crazy christians do anyway...they seem to hate Jesus' words "love your neighbor" and to do good...they r driven by blind self righteousness, greed and arrogance these self proclaimed christians
@JeremyAlanBrady of course u can't see 'what benefit it serves to society" bcuz u r blinded by ur prejudice. the issue is NOT about Gender.. love knows no gender just as it knows no race when that lame argument was made against interracial marriage in the 60's. marriage is a legal arrangement as well as loving arrangement but one can live w/o marraige if one CHOOSES but society cant legislate against it. its called PREJUDICE. something some americans LOVE to be it seems.
@JeremyAlanBrady excellent point marriage is NOT about Love..we agree on that..rather it is a legal finanical arrangement. however the procreation argument is not mute (seeing as we are 6billion humans n growing on the planet) there are many ways to form family and so that does not leave out same gender couples by adoption or surogate birth. it will benefit society $ and socially as it has in many countries already proven. cant argue w/ facts folks. hard as u try to.
So a GAY judge who has self interests in the case that he is judging, is allowed to overthrow the law the people voted into power? California is truly the land of fruits and nuts.
You know your country is in trouble when judges go against the people, when the congress goes against the people (i.e. Obamacare), and when the President goes against the people (i.e. back door ammnesty). Talk about a dark time in the history of the United States of America.
@lcromy He should have technically dismissed himself, but do you know how many judges are bias towards issues that never step aside from the case? Two wrongs do not make a right, but if its a big deal then the district court will over turn his verdict. Yes, a judge can over turn the people it doesnt matter it 1 billion people voted, if the law is not constitutionally legal judges can do it. America is in trouble, but it has been since Regan, im sorry, but its true.
very well articulated young man. thank you for being a rational voice in the cacaphony of irrational thinkers.. u r spot on about the FF's. Have u read Madison's and Jefferson's views on religion? im certain you have.. good for u to be well informated...every point is spot on dude!! thanks again.
Pisces31660 1 year ago
You sir, are a hypocrite. The majority of the human species believes that marriage is between male and female. California voted and upheld that majority standard. If anyone is pushing their beliefs, it is activist Judges like Walker. Please educate yourself instead of repeating the drivel you eat up from MTV.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady no state shall enact laws that violate the Constitution. the same laws that protect your rights have been applied here to protect the rights of same sex couples. the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection for all citizens, Prop 8 violated that principle.
even the Proponents of Prop 8 at trial could come up with no rational basis to justify the state treating homosexuals unequally.
its an unambiguous and meticulous ruling, read it.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
@gothatfunk
Same sex couples have NEVER in the history of the planet had the right to call their relationships a marriage. Marriage is between men and women. No rights were violated. Proposition 8 did not violate the 14th amendment. If that is the case, laws forbidding incestuous or polygamous marriage are also unconstitutional.
People who engage in homosexual activity are not treated unequally because EVERYONE is beholden to the same marriage standard of one man and one woman.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady wrong. nice try. read the ruling, its pretty straight forward.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
@gothatfunk
No. You are wrong. One man's opinion is not the law of the land. The ruling was wrong and incorrect.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady its not one man's opinion. if you read the ruling, you'll see that it is built on numerous precedents (opinions of previous judges) and is backed up quite clearly by the 14th amendment, which ensures the right to equal protection, and states no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process. the right to marry is fundamental, even Prop 8 proponents agreed to that. it stripped rights away without due process, and created a separate class, which is unconstitutional.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
@gothatfunk You don't understand the 14th amendment. Protection is not based on sexual behavior, or any behavior for that matter. Marriage has never been "denied" to people who call themselves homosexual. They can marry under the same rules as everyone else. A union between two people of the same gender has never been marriage. To call it such is insensitive. Is it OK for me to apply and accept an African American college scholarship, even though I am Caucasian?
Think about it.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady again, if you actually READ the ruling, you will see that there is ample precedent that sexual behaviour (sexuality AND orientation) IS protected by the 14th amendment. there is also ample precedent to establish that marriage is NOT about sex, nor about producing children.
you give yourself away when you say calling samesex union a marriage is "insensitive".
the Constitution protects people's lives, liberty, and rights - NOT their feelings.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
@gothatfunk
The constitution protects people's lives, liberty and rights. I agree with you there. Calling two people of the same gender married however does not protect. In fact, it does the opposite. It threatens families, culture and liberty by validating homosexual behavior. That validation of behavior is in direct conflict with a majority of citizens right to object and continue to express beliefs regarding the inherent dangers and oppositions to homosexual acts.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady every single point you just made was brought up during the trial, and ALL of them were shown to be fallacious by the EVIDENCE.
i defy you to justify any of that drivel with empirical facts. *HOW* does 'validating homosexual behaviour' threaten anyone's rights? what evidence can you offer that homosexuality is in any way dangerous to society? the trial lawyers couldn't make that case, so if you can, i'm all ears.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
p.s. - i referenced our conversation in my recent video "Refuting Prop 8 Supporters", but i didn't say your username in my video, as i am critical of your ideas, not of you as a person, since i don't know you.
watch?v=3GQJKf3_AJE
gothatfunk 1 year ago
@gothatfunk
Hey. I actually watched your video. I liked it. Even though you were wrong.
Interesting jewelry. And I did read the ruling. It's absolute bullocks.Please be honest with yourself and admit that his homosexuality had influence in his decision. How could it not? As an "oppressed minority" how could he rule against his own group?
And I'll be honest with you, too. I hope gay marriage passes. That way everything will go straight to hell and Jesus will come back sooner.
oops.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady i am being honest. there is no reason to suspect the judgement was biased due to his orientation. since you've read the ruling now, maybe you could show me where this bias is evident? moreover, perhaps you can tell me where the judgement is incorrect? the State of California attourney General didn't defend Prop 8, nor did any state official. what State interest is there in denying gays marriage? even Prop8 proponents in trial couldn't come up with anything, saying "I don't know"
gothatfunk 1 year ago
@gothatfunk
Here is the harm. Institutionalizing the acceptance of homosexual behavior through marriage in effect validates homosexual behavior. Government validation of homosexual behavior threatens my right to object, the right to teach my children values and educate them accordingly. I do not want my children taught in schools that homosexual behavior is valid, healthy or acceptable. I have that right. homosexual marriage threatens that right and the rights of the majority of California.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
JeremyAlanBrady even if i accepted those sentiments as valid, you still failed to answer the question. you have given me your personal interest. you have not identified any State interest. don't feel bad, the lawyers couldn't either.
also, your argument is not valid, you can continue to teach your children that homosexuality is unnatural, or whatever. them being allowed to marry won't change that, and denying them marriage won't make them go away.
gays are here to stay. deal with it.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
@gothatfunk
State interests for denying homosexual marriage are the same as denying incestuous or polygamous marriage. Why are these groups of people not allowed to marry? Is it also a violation of civil rights? This is universal tradition. Marriage between homosexuals violates the precedents of tradition. If it is accepted, any objection will be labeled as "hate speech" which has a chilling effect to opposition. Schools have already implemented homosexual themed curriculums in San Francisco.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady incest risks birth defects, so can be said to be a risk to public health. as for polygamy, if its between mutually consenting adults, i see no issue. that day will come too.
the Constitution says nothing about tradition, and many Courts have ruled that tradition is not a basis for legislating. that argument was exhaustively dealt with in trial, and shown to be hollow. if tradition mattered, women would still be subordinate to men in marriage, and wouldn't be allowed to vote.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
@gothatfunk
OK, if yer down with plural marriage, I suppose I could be cool with fags getting together and calling each other married. See, faggots and fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims have more in common then you thought! But until that day comes...no fag marriage. It ain't fair to the terrorists! And it isn't equal protection under the law.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady out of arguments, i see. i shall declare victory, and move along. i hope you overcome your bigotry, someday.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
@gothatfunk
umm. no. Tradition is absolutely a basis for legislation. Especially under our system of law. Precedent is a legal philosophy which our country is based on. Precedent is absolute in that marriage is between men and women in California, as well as in the overwhelming majority of time, cultures, nations and tradition.
Homosexual marriage is a failure, a rejection on the marriage based society. Marriage is not based on love, but on families which homosexuals cannot naturally create.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@gothatfunk
@gothatfunk
You have also proven my point exactly. Any objection to homosexual agendas is labeled hate speech with labels such as "bigotry". Walker was also 100 % incorrect in his statement that morality has nothing to do with legislation. It has everything to do with legislation. His opinion is one rooted in his own homosexual deviancy, not legal precedent and certainly not the 14th amendment. To say such is a construed interpretation of the law.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@gothatfunk indeed gays are here to stay!! out n proud.. n heterosexists like Jeremy need to get over themselves. we wont go away this time.....We shall overcome
Pisces31660 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady and what about MY right to Object to your personal behavior. u two faced ignorant slut!! homosexual behavior IS valid because it's part of the human condition. u dont have the right! just as u dont have the right to deny blacks or women or any group from being who they are n those arguments WERE made by myopic minded people like u in the past. gay marriage DOES NOT threaten ur rights. u have to prove that n u cant.
Pisces31660 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady LMAO i KNEW the crazy christian would come out in you eventually.. poor Jesus.. has to suffer even more because of idiots like u who claim to follow him. Jesus save me from your followers.. your hatefilled, angry, fascist, bitter, opressive, arrogant and obnoxious and fearfilled...followers. why do u persecute Jesus? u Peter. u pharisee Judas. just LIVE the gospel of love thats all jesus wanted u to do. stop worryin bout the spintler in my eye wrry bout the tree trunk in yours.
Pisces31660 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady and just because they believe in "marriage between one man and woman", doesnt mean they are right to limit other peoples choices. I am not a hypocrite nor do I watch MTV. I would love to challenge you to a debate on ANY topic you want. Let me know,ass.
Jinreeso 1 year ago
@Jinreeso
The reason that governments have historically limited marriage is not because of so-called bigoted values. Marriage costs government money in the form of tax benefits and other advantages. So why does the government grant marriages if they are so expensive? What is the benefit that the state obtains?
Children. Marriages between men and women are LIKELY to produce children, which is beneficial. Homosexual relationships do not.
Contrary to popular belief, marriage is not about "love".
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady you cannot say governments have restricted, because it was recognized in many ancient cultures and even more so in modern countries. Majority of Europe, canada and south american countries like Argentina. China is also starting a set of laws to protect gay citizens and recognize civil unions. You are right about the taxes, but seeing as how americans pay the most in income tax and the rest of the civilized world accepts gay unions, we are the wrong ones. Greed.
Jinreeso 1 year ago
@Jinreeso
Marriage was never recognized by any ancient culture as anything but between men and women. Where are you getting your information from? Imaginationland?
Cultures that did embrace homosexuality (though never homosexual marriage) eventually crumbled. Look at ancient Greece. Look at Rome. What happened to those societies? They were conquered by stronger ideals and faded into obscurity.
Homosexuality is a death sentence to societies. History is proof.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady Obscurity? Rome and ancient greece and the native americans of southern and northern america are left to obscurity? You are silly. The civilizations are important and well known around the world. You are arguing that those civilizations fell because of gay marriage, I just want to make sure thats what your saying. When in reality they fell due to the implementation of a capitalistic society, I.E true monetary currency. Also other economic means contributed.
Jinreeso 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jinreeso
Yes. Rome and ancient Greece and the native americans of southern and northern america are left to obscurity.They have either become extinct because of moral deficiencies and hubris (in the case of Greece and Rome) or have been assimilated by other cultures. Homosexuality is not the direct cause of a dying society, but a key symptom, along with giant anthropomorphic monuments, bloated government systems, overspending and violence as entertainment.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@Jinreeso damn u know ur shit Jeremy...it was economic reasons that the ancient socieites collapsed. u go Jeremy...
Pisces31660 1 year ago
@Jinreeso damn u know ur shit. it was economic reasons that the ancient socieites collapsed.
Pisces31660 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady u idiot greece didnt crumble because of homosexuality. look at the historical facts fool!!! Ignorance.. like yours IS the death sentence to society and history is the proof of THAT.
Pisces31660 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady An argument to your statements, according to many studies anywhere between 12 and 23% of americans are gay with a higher number being "bi" allowing gay marriage would increase the wedding industry and increase revenues and sales tax, also would increase the amount of adopted children and educated adopted children.
Just because a family has a child doesnt mean that child will be a contributor to society, so there are holes in your argument.
Jinreeso 1 year ago
@Jinreeso
There are also holes in your argument. What benefit does calling relationships between homosexuals "marriage" serve? To what benefit does it serve society? I see none.
Sexuality has nothing to do with marriage. It's irrelevant. The issue is gender and the definition of marriage as between men and women, regardless of "sexual orientation" or some other label that you choose to place on yourself. All children have potential to benefit society. Gay marriages serve no benefit.
JeremyAlanBrady 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady The canadian government changed the definition of marriage, look it up. Why? Because people make words, words do not make people, we have changed the definition of words all the time, we do not conform to the definitions already in place. You MAY be right about them not serving a benifit to society, but luckily we live in the greediest nation on the planet where we would rather let people starve than help them, so if gay people want the term, let them have it.
Jinreeso 1 year ago
@Jinreeso righ on Jeremy!! we do live in the greediest nation.. (well i left n now in eureope but serving w/ our military as civ) but words DO change meaning and its time this word Marriage" change to be inclusive. something many americans seems to hate is inclusivity ...well conservative crazy christians do anyway...they seem to hate Jesus' words "love your neighbor" and to do good...they r driven by blind self righteousness, greed and arrogance these self proclaimed christians
Pisces31660 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady of course u can't see 'what benefit it serves to society" bcuz u r blinded by ur prejudice. the issue is NOT about Gender.. love knows no gender just as it knows no race when that lame argument was made against interracial marriage in the 60's. marriage is a legal arrangement as well as loving arrangement but one can live w/o marraige if one CHOOSES but society cant legislate against it. its called PREJUDICE. something some americans LOVE to be it seems.
Pisces31660 1 year ago
@Jinreeso correct AGAIN Jeremy. u know ur facts...holes in his argument? his argument is SWISS CHEESE!!!
Pisces31660 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jinreeso correct AGAIN . u know ur facts...holes in his argument? his argument is SWISS CHEESE!!!
Pisces31660 1 year ago
@JeremyAlanBrady excellent point marriage is NOT about Love..we agree on that..rather it is a legal finanical arrangement. however the procreation argument is not mute (seeing as we are 6billion humans n growing on the planet) there are many ways to form family and so that does not leave out same gender couples by adoption or surogate birth. it will benefit society $ and socially as it has in many countries already proven. cant argue w/ facts folks. hard as u try to.
Pisces31660 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So a GAY judge who has self interests in the case that he is judging, is allowed to overthrow the law the people voted into power? California is truly the land of fruits and nuts.
You know your country is in trouble when judges go against the people, when the congress goes against the people (i.e. Obamacare), and when the President goes against the people (i.e. back door ammnesty). Talk about a dark time in the history of the United States of America.
lcromy 1 year ago 4
@lcromy He should have technically dismissed himself, but do you know how many judges are bias towards issues that never step aside from the case? Two wrongs do not make a right, but if its a big deal then the district court will over turn his verdict. Yes, a judge can over turn the people it doesnt matter it 1 billion people voted, if the law is not constitutionally legal judges can do it. America is in trouble, but it has been since Regan, im sorry, but its true.
Jinreeso 1 year ago
@lcromy "Talk about a dark time in the history of the United States of America."
this is nothing compared to 1968.
gothatfunk 1 year ago