DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[Ravi]

Actually HIV started with SIV and infected straights and was spread by straights, it wasn't until years later it came to gays in the United States.



>>>>

So how's the SIV Rate with Heteros compared with the HIV Rate with Homos?...

That's right, 3 Decades after it's Appearance it is still Overwhelmingly a Gay Male Disease in the First World.

Let me know when that HeteroHIVPlague get's to us.



peace...

And allowing gays to marry will have what effect on the rate of HIV in the US??

Unless you can explain how allowing two people to join in a committed relationship will cause an increase in the rate of HIV transmission, it is a ridiculous argument.

He's another one that is afraid that if gays can marry, he will be tempted to become gay, and therefore get aids.

 

[Polk]

It's called Manhattan.

They are allowed to escape there.

Oh, that's right. You believe in Concentration Camps.

Come on, no one believes in that...

Thousands Protest in N.C. Against Anti-Gay Pastor :: EDGE on the Net

 

[WinterBorn]

So how's the SIV Rate with Heteros compared with the HIV Rate with Homos?...

That's right, 3 Decades after it's Appearance it is still Overwhelmingly a Gay Male Disease in the First World.

Let me know when that HeteroHIVPlague get's to us.



peace...

And allowing gays to marry will have what effect on the rate of HIV in the US??

Unless you can explain how allowing two people to join in a committed relationship will cause an increase in the rate of HIV transmission, it is a ridiculous argument.

He's another one that is afraid that if gays can marry, he will be tempted to become gay, and therefore get aids.

Yeah, one the posters in this thread has made comments about gays "recruiting". lol Its hard to believe that level of ignorance survives in this day and age.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

As there are no rational answers to this question: 'What harm will befall you personally by same sex marriage equality?' those with the capability for rational thought must dismiss objections to same sex marriage equality as invalid.
If objections are invalid there remains no rational reason to oppose same sex marriage equality.

Those still posing objections have yet to make their case. So, we must then presume that those still posing objections are just objecting to homosexuality altogether.

As homosexuality is a personal choice and has no adverse affects on the institution of marriage or personal lives and is not criminal behavior, those objecting must be seen for what they are: bigots and small minded haters without the capacity for rationality in this area.

Why then are they potent enough to throw roadblocks up in the way of liberty? Do they claim to be Americans? What then about America do they love? It certainly isn't the liberty and freedom we have here.

It's as if we are back in the 1960s arguing for the basic freedoms for African Americans. No rational objections were posed then, and, as a result of the protections of law all Americans now enjoy, we have a stronger nation. We could not, nor should we, hold any moral authority while we allow blatant discrimination based on immutable characteristics like skin color or sexual orientation.

Nosmo- you seem like a rational, decent poster. But this is absurd. Just because the question posed is meaninglerss, does not mean that there are no valid reasons for opposition to gay marriage. What harm would befall you if we could marry donkeys? None? Are you in favor of such legal relationships? Are you a bigot? A small-minded hater? Incapable of rational though on the matter?

I recognize marriage as a contract. Contracts are entered by adults, not animals. The donkey proposition is a strawman.

If it's a simple contract you want then there is no law saying you and your homosexual partner couldn't enter into a legal contract. You just can't call it MARRIAGE!

 

[mal]

So how's the SIV Rate with Heteros compared with the HIV Rate with Homos?...

That's right, 3 Decades after it's Appearance it is still Overwhelmingly a Gay Male Disease in the First World.

Let me know when that HeteroHIVPlague get's to us.



peace...

And allowing gays to marry will have what effect on the rate of HIV in the US??

Unless you can explain how allowing two people to join in a committed relationship will cause an increase in the rate of HIV transmission, it is a ridiculous argument.

He's another one that is afraid that if gays can marry, he will be tempted to become gay, and therefore get aids.

Stop letting your Dog eat Treats out of your Snatch you Miserable Troll.



peace...

 

[mal]

And allowing gays to marry will have what effect on the rate of HIV in the US??

Unless you can explain how allowing two people to join in a committed relationship will cause an increase in the rate of HIV transmission, it is a ridiculous argument.

He's another one that is afraid that if gays can marry, he will be tempted to become gay, and therefore get aids.

Yeah, one the posters in this thread has made comments about gays "recruiting". lol Its hard to believe that level of ignorance survives in this day and age.

Ravi is just Frustrated because she has no Arguments... Just Trolling.

I Support Civil Unions for Gays by the way... Don't let that **** Create a False Impression.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

Nosmo- you seem like a rational, decent poster. But this is absurd. Just because the question posed is meaninglerss, does not mean that there are no valid reasons for opposition to gay marriage. What harm would befall you if we could marry donkeys? None? Are you in favor of such legal relationships? Are you a bigot? A small-minded hater? Incapable of rational though on the matter?

I recognize marriage as a contract. Contracts are entered by adults, not animals. The donkey proposition is a strawman.

If it's a simple contract you want then there is no law saying you and your homosexual partner couldn't enter into a legal contract. You just can't call it MARRIAGE!

Isn't it odd how you don't seem to want to answer my question about what my home-state is? You made a comment about it....and yet you can't even seem to identify it.

This is what passes for knowledge with you?

 

[Nosmo King]

Nosmo- you seem like a rational, decent poster. But this is absurd. Just because the question posed is meaninglerss, does not mean that there are no valid reasons for opposition to gay marriage. What harm would befall you if we could marry donkeys? None? Are you in favor of such legal relationships? Are you a bigot? A small-minded hater? Incapable of rational though on the matter?

I recognize marriage as a contract. Contracts are entered by adults, not animals. The donkey proposition is a strawman.

It is not a strawman- it is a valid illustration of the absurdity of your belief that no objection to gay marriage is reasonable or valid if the objector cannot describe personal damage to himself that would occur in the face of gay marriage.

What are the damages? Both personal and societal? There simply aren't any rational objections. If you have one, now's the time to express it.

Neither individual heterosexual marriages would fail, nor society fall apart once same sex marriage equality becomes a reality.

 

[Nosmo King]

Nosmo- you seem like a rational, decent poster. But this is absurd. Just because the question posed is meaninglerss, does not mean that there are no valid reasons for opposition to gay marriage. What harm would befall you if we could marry donkeys? None? Are you in favor of such legal relationships? Are you a bigot? A small-minded hater? Incapable of rational though on the matter?

I recognize marriage as a contract. Contracts are entered by adults, not animals. The donkey proposition is a strawman.

If it's a simple contract you want then there is no law saying you and your homosexual partner couldn't enter into a legal contract. You just can't call it MARRIAGE!

Why not? The word has no magical powers. Same sex marriage equality will not adversely affect you marriage.

And i'm not gay. I'm an american who believes what he was taught: freedom and liberty extend to every American citizen, not just the ones you like.

 

[Ravi]

And allowing gays to marry will have what effect on the rate of HIV in the US??

Unless you can explain how allowing two people to join in a committed relationship will cause an increase in the rate of HIV transmission, it is a ridiculous argument.

He's another one that is afraid that if gays can marry, he will be tempted to become gay, and therefore get aids.

Yeah, one the posters in this thread has made comments about gays "recruiting". lol Its hard to believe that level of ignorance survives in this day and age.

Oddly enough, he pretends to support civil unions. Apparently aids won't spread if civil unions are allowed but it will spread if marriage is allowed.

The "logic" in some of these posts is very amusing.

 

[WinterBorn]

So everyone in the last few pages seems ok with civil unions? And these would have the same benefits as marriage, they just wouldn't be using the word "marriage"?


Wow, who knew all the hoopla, claiming it would destroy the institution, cause the downfall of the US, and would cause the spread of AIDs, was all about what we CALL it.

I never thought semantics was the issue.

 

[Pho_King]

I recognize marriage as a contract. Contracts are entered by adults, not animals. The donkey proposition is a strawman.

It is not a strawman- it is a valid illustration of the absurdity of your belief that no objection to gay marriage is reasonable or valid if the objector cannot describe personal damage to himself that would occur in the face of gay marriage.

What are the damages? Both personal and societal? There simply aren't any rational objections. If you have one, now's the time to express it.

Neither individual heterosexual marriages would fail, nor society fall apart once same sex marriage equality becomes a reality.

Why do you insist that, in order for an argument in favor of restricting a particular group from being married, one has to have valid concerns about being damaged?

One valid reason for favoring the current state of marraige is that a couple hundred years of family law precedent is based upon it, and where family law is concerned, stability is a rather nice thing to have. And to think that introducing a new marital relationship into family law, a relationship in which there can only be a single biological parent, will not shake things up a bit is naive. If you are unable to conceive of how that just might be the case, I can help with that. Now, I won't be personally affected by that, nor would I if my neighbor were permitted to marry a donkey. Which is totally irrelevant.

You are so convinced that you, and consequentially all others who agree with on this issue, have cornered the market on decency that anyone who disagrees with you must be a small-minded homophobic bigot. ANd that seems to be a rather small-minded way to think.

I have yet to give any indication whether I am for or against same-sex marriage. And I do know this: the nearly half of the country that opposes it is not comprised of the small-minded bigots you want them to be.

 

[del]

Nosmo- you seem like a rational, decent poster. But this is absurd. Just because the question posed is meaninglerss, does not mean that there are no valid reasons for opposition to gay marriage. What harm would befall you if we could marry donkeys? None? Are you in favor of such legal relationships? Are you a bigot? A small-minded hater? Incapable of rational though on the matter?

I recognize marriage as a contract. Contracts are entered by adults, not animals. The donkey proposition is a strawman.

If it's a simple contract you want then there is no law saying you and your homosexual partner couldn't enter into a legal contract. You just can't call it MARRIAGE!

tissue?

 

[Pho_King]

So everyone in the last few pages seems ok with civil unions? And these would have the same benefits as marriage, they just wouldn't be using the word "marriage"?


Wow, who knew all the hoopla, claiming it would destroy the institution, cause the downfall of the US, and would cause the spread of AIDs, was all about what we CALL it.

I never thought semantics was the issue.

Many would. For many, they believe it is wholly appropriate for our government to have the ability to look at the entire spectrum of relationships people arrange themselves in and decide that there is one relationship that is more beneficial to society than the rest, and worthy of being set apart and given special considerations.

 

[bodecea]

Nosmo- you seem like a rational, decent poster. But this is absurd. Just because the question posed is meaninglerss, does not mean that there are no valid reasons for opposition to gay marriage. What harm would befall you if we could marry donkeys? None? Are you in favor of such legal relationships? Are you a bigot? A small-minded hater? Incapable of rational though on the matter?

I recognize marriage as a contract. Contracts are entered by adults, not animals. The donkey proposition is a strawman.

If it's a simple contract you want then there is no law saying you and your homosexual partner couldn't enter into a legal contract. You just can't call it MARRIAGE!

So, you want all those laws, statutes, ruling in legal books CHANGED for you because you believe you OWN the word "marriage".

 

[Dante]

BOSTON — An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004



Boston court: Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional - BostonHerald.com

i guess the judges forgot to read the bible.

The train left the station when Margaret Marshall issued her ruling. Her profile in courage is admirable.

 

[Dante]

I recognize marriage as a contract. Contracts are entered by adults, not animals. The donkey proposition is a strawman.

If it's a simple contract you want then there is no law saying you and your homosexual partner couldn't enter into a legal contract. You just can't call it MARRIAGE!

So, you want all those laws, statutes, ruling in legal books CHANGED for you because you believe you OWN the word "marriage".

 

[BDBoop]

What the SCOTUS called "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival" is a Right that EVERY American of Consenting Age has...

The Right to Marriage.

Because some Choose to Defy their Natural Design and Equipment is not Society's Burden.

Homosexual Coupling and Heterosexual Coupling are Inherently and Naturally Unequal.

One Produces Life and the other does not yet ALL of us are Equipped and Designed for one of them.



peace...

Yep isn't that just like the left to support more people who do not want to pull their weight and share the burden of helping the human race survive?

Help the human race survive? Are you this stupid in real life?

Yes, ma'am. He really, really is.

 

[Nosmo King]

It is not a strawman- it is a valid illustration of the absurdity of your belief that no objection to gay marriage is reasonable or valid if the objector cannot describe personal damage to himself that would occur in the face of gay marriage.

What are the damages? Both personal and societal? There simply aren't any rational objections. If you have one, now's the time to express it.

Neither individual heterosexual marriages would fail, nor society fall apart once same sex marriage equality becomes a reality.

Why do you insist that, in order for an argument in favor of restricting a particular group from being married, one has to have valid concerns about being damaged?

One valid reason for favoring the current state of marraige is that a couple hundred years of family law precedent is based upon it, and where family law is concerned, stability is a rather nice thing to have. And to think that introducing a new marital relationship into family law, a relationship in which there can only be a single biological parent, will not shake things up a bit is naive. If you are unable to conceive of how that just might be the case, I can help with that. Now, I won't be personally affected by that, nor would I if my neighbor were permitted to marry a donkey. Which is totally irrelevant.

You are so convinced that you, and consequentially all others who agree with on this issue, have cornered the market on decency that anyone who disagrees with you must be a small-minded homophobic bigot. ANd that seems to be a rather small-minded way to think.

I have yet to give any indication whether I am for or against same-sex marriage. And I do know this: the nearly half of the country that opposes it is not comprised of the small-minded bigots you want them to be.

Without evidence of harm, objections are groundless. It's a way of extending personal bigotry through law.

The argument is really about the access to the convenience of the American system of contract law. There are those who maintain that same sex marriage is possible if those wishing to marry jump through elaborate legal hoops rather than enjoy the ease and convenience of obtaining a marriage license. That's legal discrimination: something America has learn not only retards our strength and unity as a nation, but is inherently wrong and inconsistent with our national identity and values.

the only reason such access to law should be made is if these actions pose a clear threat to our nation. As of this post, no one has been able to provide any reason why same sex marriage equality would or could tear our nation asunder or even threaten their individual marriages and rights.

 

[Dante]

So everyone in the last few pages seems ok with civil unions? And these would have the same benefits as marriage, they just wouldn't be using the word "marriage"?


Wow, who knew all the hoopla, claiming it would destroy the institution, cause the downfall of the US, and would cause the spread of AIDs, was all about what we CALL it.

I never thought semantics was the issue.

semantics? more like a dirty white sheet