Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

Originally posted by Annee
I think I'll go back and re-visit the ignorance thread.

All citizens shall be afforded the same equal rights.

Personal belief - - is not relevant in who shall and who shall not be afforded equal rights.

Your personal views on homosexuality - - is not relevant to equal rights.

Equal rights is not special rights.

Same gender attraction is biological - - the same as opposite gender attraction. There is no legitimate precedence to exclude a naturally born minority - because you don't like it.

I dont remember marriage being a right. can you show me where that one is at?

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
Thousands of years of procreation by their ancestors gone to waste because being gay is promoted as normal and equal.

That's because it is. It's just as normal as being straight.. Tell us all a time in your life when you had to choose between being attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex? A time never existed because you were automatically attracted to the opposite sex (judging by your post). Some people are automatically attracted to the same sex. Some people are attracted to both sexes. It's nothing you or anyone else can control. It's nature. Just because there are less gay people, doesn't mean that it's not normal, nor equal, as you so eloquently put it.

I'm not gay, but I'll fight for a gay person's rights just as I would a straight person's. Because you are all still people. Living, breathing human beings.

And it takes a lowly human being to discriminate against another human being based solely on their race, religion, sex, or which sex they're attracted to.



Great thread, Annee. LOVE your signature.

reply to post by MasterAndrew

What about all the ancestors that fought tooth and nail to survive then one branch of the family tree just stops because being gay is acceptable. It's kinda like abortions, life killer. :/

That's the Most ignorant statement I have ever heard against gay marriage.

You're saying the rights of dead people( for their DNA to continue to thrive in this world) outweighs the rights of the living (the right to marry who they want and be happy)

It also equates to saying that someone MUST have children (against their will even) in order for their ancestors DNA to continue to remain on this planet.

reply to post by Annee


Your right!

The only thing I'm mad about is the vote was on the ballet two times, and people voted for it.

So does our vote really matter?

That's the right thing to be mad about.

The government has no business involving itself in personal relationships.

Marriage as a state sanctioned institution is bull and should be ended immediately.

Next time you hear some a-hole say "by the power vested in me by the state of blah blah" you should crack him over the head with a heavy blunt object.

Originally posted by camaro68ss

I dont remember marriage being a right. can you show me where that one is at?

This is about Equality for all citizens (I'm sticking to citizens - even though it may apply to non-citizens)

The original purpose of LEGAL Government Marriage - - - isn't particularly honorable.

However - - since the government did do this - - - it must be a right of all citizens.

We are a secular government - - therefore there is no God belief involved or attached to - - LEGAL Government marriage.

A LEGAL Government marriage affords certain privileges. These privileges must be for all citizens wishing to join together as one unit/household in the form of a couple partnership. (Do not dissect the wording. It is by intent in simplest form)

reply to post by leo123


Explanation: Marriage isn't EXPLICITLY mentioned at all in the US Constitution!

Personal Disclosure: I'd rather the institution of marriage was cheapened than the US Constitution being cheapened. The Constitution TRUMPS marriage any day!

Originally posted by leo123

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by leo123
reply to post by Annee

 

Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

Talk about a conflict of interest!

The argument is not about being gay or straight.

It is about equal rights.

What about my right not to have the institution of marriage cheapened?

Because that is exactly what allowing gays to marry does to the institution of marriage.

edit on 14-6-2011 by leo123 because: (no reason given)

IMO the "institution of marriage", so called, is cheapened by nosy strangers.. and isn't worth one Federal Reserve note.

If 2 strangers are living happy lives, it doesn't affect your day.. and having your opinion of marriage bruised, frankly, is nothing anyone but you needs to be concerned with... why should anyone care what you think?.. or is your value judgement the only possible one?

I just married a spirit Animal named Inga.. swung a rubber chicken over my head and farted.. ceremony complete.. did you feel a ripple in the "marriage force".. lol, did CNN breaking news announce my awesome event caused the institution of marriage to lose 5 "institution value" points??. lol.. surely igniting a shocking firestorm of controversy!.. some entertaining inflammatory rhetoric from the bobble head MSM blah blahs from the fake "right" and phoney "left" to follow.. (yawn)

So gays want the same things that straights do....

Isn't that a do unto others kind of approach?

What a "Sentimental Philosophy"

It's a lot different when the shoes on the other foot eh?

Next thing you know the Gays will want freedom of expression.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The government has no business involving itself in personal relationships.

Marriage as a state sanctioned institution is bull and should be ended immediately.

Your personal belief on LEGAL marriage is irrelevant.

Why the government chose to involve themselves in LEGAL marriage is also irrelevant.

It IS - - and it must be for the right of every citizen.

Originally posted by whaaa
So gays want the same things that straights do....

Same LEGAL Rights.

Not things.

reply to post by Annee


I wish I could support you on this, but anyone that thinks "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

is a "Sentimental Philosophy" gets no respect from me!

Originally posted by ImnotMelvin
reply to post by Annee

 

Your right!

The only thing I'm mad about is the vote was on the ballet two times, and people voted for it.

So does our vote really matter?

That's the right thing to be mad about.

We are not a democracy.

We are a democratic republic. Minorities are protected from the majority.

This is great news. I'm happy to hear about each step toward marriage equality!

Originally posted by camaro68ss
I dont understand how a judge can overturn the will of the people

To prevent Tyranny of the Majority.

NO
H8

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by Annee

 

I wish I could support you on this, but anyone that thinks "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

is a "Sentimental Philosophy" gets no respect from me!

If you are going to address me. Make sense.

How is LEGAL Equal Rights a Sentimental Philosophy?

Just another step on the slippery slope of normalizing everything, no wonder we are headed in the direction we are. Funny, Judges should only recluse themselves when it helps the under dog, not the majority, typical nonsense.

Its about what Id expect from a "judge" in california

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Just another step on the slippery slope of normalizing everything, no wonder we are headed in the direction we are. Funny, Judges should only recluse themselves when it helps the under dog, not the majority, typical nonsense.

You have every right to your personal feelings.

In law and equal rights - you don't.

The "under dog"? Interesting analogy. So does that make you the persecutor? Persecuting a victim of injustice? Who's only crime is being born homosexual?

1: a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest
2: a victim of injustice or persecution

Originally posted by Homedawg
Its about what Id expect from a "judge" in california

Anyone besides me hate stereotyping?

You must be a Redneck . . . if . . .

reply to post by Annee


And you DONT 'stereotype"?..."redneck"??...Seems something doesnt apply if you dont want it to?