Prop 8

[LBJefferies]

Oh yes and if I wish to marry my father who's to stop me? And if I wish to marry an animal who's to stop me? And if I wish to marry my sister, who's to stop me.

Slippery isn't it.

I explained to you 3 fucking times how family members already have the same rights as married couples and are essentially married although it is not called that. Because of this, marriage would be redundant and impossible.

You need to shut the fuck up with the slippery slope argument. It's fucking annoying when I try to explain something to you and you just ignore my valid criticisms and continue on with your bullshit.

Guess what Josh, if you want to go about fucking your dad in the ass, no one is going to stop you. The same sex marriage debate has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this so stop with your ignorant straw man argument.

[reelop19]

This is getting really weird. Anywho, this is all going to go to the supreme court where they are still just a tad more conservative than liberal so I wouldn't gt your hopes up that the ruling will stand. But in all seriousness where does it begin or end with some people and the 14th amendment? Next thing you know California is going to allow beastiality

[joshh]

in case you have not noticed you are living in the United States of America, one of the great things about this country is the freedoms it allows its citizens. These rights are guaranteed by the constitution, if you feel your rights have been violated you have the ability to challenge the goverment on that situation. The goverment can not deny it!

Oh yes and if I wish to marry my father who's to stop me? And if I wish to marry an animal who's to stop me? And if I wish to marry my sister, who's to stop me.

Slippery isn't it.

[joshh]

if there is scientific proof that over 1500 species participate in an activity I would not call it unnatural or abnormal. Again not isolated cases, but consistenet from generation to generation. It may seem unnatural to you, but that does not make it so. The proof is right there in front of you all you have to do is read it.

Per the definition it definitely is.
Every species has it's perverts is all that shows.

[CorvallisBMW]

[briansjacobs]

Sure, and that's why marriage should remain the way it is. At least one more reason.

in case you have not noticed you are living in the United States of America, one of the great things about this country is the freedoms it allows its citizens. These rights are guaranteed by the constitution, if you feel your rights have been violated you have the ability to challenge the goverment on that situation. The goverment can not deny it!

[briansjacobs]

And to that degree it's unnatural.


un·nat·u·ral (n-nchr-l)
adj.
1. In violation of a natural law.
2. Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom.
3. Deviating from a behavioral or social norm: an unnatural attachment.
4. Contrived or constrained; artificial: smiled in an unnatural manner.
5. In violation of natural feelings; inhuman.


I'd say 2 and 3 fit quite well.

if there is scientific proof that over 1500 species participate in an activity I would not call it unnatural or abnormal. Again not isolated cases, but consistenet from generation to generation. It may seem unnatural to you, but that does not make it so. The proof is right there in front of you all you have to do is read it.

[joshh]

1.well that is kind of the deffinition of natural
2.someone being born without feet is not common in nature, yes it happens, so does conjoined twins. It is very rare.
3. the study does not point out that it has happened once, it points out that it is common in over 1500 different species and happens over and over.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...new-study.html

And to that degree it's unnatural.


un·nat·u·ral (n-nchr-l)
adj.
1. In violation of a natural law.
2. Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom.
3. Deviating from a behavioral or social norm: an unnatural attachment.
4. Contrived or constrained; artificial: smiled in an unnatural manner.
5. In violation of natural feelings; inhuman.


I'd say 2 and 3 fit quite well.

[Schniddy]

Are they not able to marry someone of the opposite sex as we can? Right, then they are equal.

You guys just love comparing animals to humans. Sorry, but there are freaks in every race/animal species.

I see you have a fundamental problem reading. Sounds like that's the real problem. Good luck analyzing anything with that reading comprehension.

Hilary Clinton wanted me to tell you that your view points are 100% fundamentally wrong, and illogic.

[ck_taft325is]

Heh, if gays want to be different (yes folks, homosexuality is a choice like anything else) and choose to be so, why would they want to be married so much? There where and are laws in place that are "everything but married". Including tax breaks, etc.

If you want children, you've got to have them the way they are made. In my opinion. Now, before anyone brings up, "What if a heterosexual couple cannot concieve," etc, etc... I'd say there's ways to go about it but, two guys are not fit to raise a child. Same as two women are not the full equation. Just like a guy skipping out on a girl, the equation is not complete. Or vise versa. There's a balance in parenting.

No one without kids should comment on child rearing. Sorry, you've no place or right to speak on it. You can sit there and criticize all you want, but it's just peanuts from the gallery until you've had a munchkin.

On topic, there's no reason for them to demand the "married" title beyond that they've been told they can't have it. I really think it's a lot simplier than people make it. Do I care if someone's gay? Not in the slightest. By my personal beliefs, you're just sinning like everyone else does, can and will. I don't dislike nor distrust them because of their sexual bent. Do I believe it's "un-natural" as Joshh here likes to claim? No, I believe there are perverts everywhere and they are no different. That's just the way they show it. What they've chosen as it where.

I can't stand the villification of hetero-marrieds though. Or Christians. Specially on this matter. Don't use the wack-jobs as cannon fodder to demonize the rest of anyone. Same as I wont use the roving gay rape gangs in San Fransico as evidence against all gays.

[pureaudio]

Joshh would soo be on the bottom

Rock his world and maybe you can sway his opinion on the gays.

[briansjacobs]

Just leave the two of you alone in a room for a while...

Joshh would soo be on the bottom

[briansjacobs]

That's the weakest argument I have ever heard. So because it happens in nature makes it natural. So someone who is born without feet is now natural. No it's unnatural and very rare. But no matter how you look at it the kid born with no feet is a perversion of the way the human body is supposed to be. And so are gays....a perversion of the way it's supposed to be. It's that simple.

1.well that is kind of the deffinition of natural
2.someone being born without feet is not common in nature, yes it happens, so does conjoined twins. It is very rare.
3. the study does not point out that it has happened once, it points out that it is common in over 1500 different species and happens over and over.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...new-study.html

[Farbin Kaiber]

Just leave the two of you alone in a room for a while...

[joshh]

exactly, so no one can hear this case. Straight people dont trust a gay and gays dont trust a straight. There is no one unbiased on this and no one will be happy until their unbiased person is the one deciding the case. Sound about right?

Sure, and that's why marriage should remain the way it is. At least one more reason.