@ballpeen said:

They wouldn't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Nobody is saying Homosexuals should be property.

Who will arrange the cotton once it's been picked???????

WSS

@pbj said:

They would say they should both be property.

They wouldn't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Nobody is saying Homosexuals should be property.

@pbj said:

Looking at the wording only, that's exactly what they are doing. Whether the right of marriage to exist solely between a man & a woman is a "right," that's another argument.

Religiously, spiritually, I agree with the decision, but politically & matter-of-factly, I'd prefer the government not have any jurisdiction over the union between my wife and I nor any other two consenting adults.

It also makes sense, to me, that homosexuals should receive health insurance via a working partner, and should be able to file taxes jointly, I just don't know how you make that work logistically w/o allowing civil union (which is what I prefer the gov't to refer to my relationship with my wife as). And again, I don't condone the lifestyle, and will teach my children that it is abnormal, but that they should treat them with the same respect as any other stranger/adult/acquaintance.

I think it's a ridiculous notion to define who I am using my sexuality as the forerunner, and find it equally ridiculous when homosexuals do the same. You want it to be a norm in society? Make it a norm within yourself first.

@ballpeen said:

Ask the founding fathers if blacks should be equal to whites. Ask them what the role of women should be.

@pbj said:

And if homosexuality is the same as N-N or S-S, and it can't happen in nature... then why does it happen in nature? By your logic their wouldn't be homosexuals, but there definitely are.

Our government isn't intended to be void of God. Ask the founding fathers if they though homo was cool.

Say, we haven't heard Heck whine about California being

a right wing attack machine.

Surprise !

EVEN in CALIFORNIA - they voted down "gay marriage".

EVEN the CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AGREED.

mz the pussy, you're just wrong on this issue, and I still wish I could unthank your post

with the SLUR "Retarded" in it.

LD and ED and MH kids do NOT deserve to be held up to ridicule

as to slur someone you disagree with.

You should know better than that, seriously..

@pumpkin-eater said:

So.

Couples sign a partnership agreement and perform a ceremony in whatever church they choose that accepts their choice.

If the Roman Catholic church says no too bad.

Go to Universal Life.

Problem solved?

WSS

Oh boy' they will breath a sigh of relief and have another parade.

Sounds like Prop 8 was put into place just in time.

I wonder if the people who advertised the names of all who donated money for the prop 8 will be held liable for googling their names and addresses and putting them on the internet so they would be harassed.

what a vindictive bunch of people, and all they say is their about free love.

@mr.-t said:

That's something a Retarded 4th grader would say. Grow up.

@calfoxwc said:

Marriage is an officially and lawfully recognized union of a man and a woman.

N and S poles attract.

This example you bring up again and again is so pathetic.

And I thought you rejected science...

Look at DNA, look at the complexity of several factors

of human self-actualization.

It isn't cut and dried like my "magnetic" analogy...

but it justifies not accepting anomalies as standard,

normal and Godly and universal.

God has a lot to do with it, it's on coins, etc, and

this country was created as being influenced by God, in terms

of inalienable rights, most notably, freedom of religion.

The separation of church and state does not mean the state

can infringe on the rights of Americans to express and follow their religious beliefs

and activities. It just means the state cannot impose a religion on society.

But God can be deemed Holy and Omnipresent etc, in terms of many different religions.

God has everything to do with it.

And if homosexuality is the same as N-N or S-S, and it can't happen in nature... then why does it happen in nature? By your logic their wouldn't be homosexuals, but there definitely are.

It is not just a "contract". It's a natural, Godly bond with official acknowlegement

from the state.

Gay marriage - not natural, not Godly.

N and S poles attract.

Natural law.

But to try to justify N-N or S-S attractions is not.

Doesn't naturally exist in science.

Male-female magnetism.

A looooot of folks in liberal goofy California agree, and so does their

Supreme Court.

Real marriage got law.

Between a man and a woman.

Not m-m,w-w,m-sheep,f-orangutan,m-two w, w - 2 m,

OR w or m and two giraffes...

OR three m or three w...

get a grip. Society spoke and so did the Cali Supreme Court.

Game over, God and Californians WIN.

N - S attracts, S - N attracts.

Like I said - natural, universal law.

Society has the RIGHT to protect itself from serious abuse.

There are greater things in life to bitch about and this is not one of them.

@westside-steve said:

"Seeing the light" and "looking directly into the light" are different things.

@westside-steve said:

BTW isn't it ironic how the "will of the people " shifts from bad to good depending on what you want?

I'm not claiming the vote was unfair or anything, Steve. The people have had their say, and I happen to disagree with the way it went down. So what.

mz. said:

You lifted Cals balls and there it was!!!!

(sorry)

BTW isn't it ironic how the "will of the people " shifts from bad to good depending on what you want?

WSS

mz. said:

Now you get it.