Calif. Prop 8 overturned by federal judge, headed for appeal

[Jnthn]

Nonetheless, society would benefit with gay marriage. If gays want to settle into a life-long relationship, that is better than for them to gavalanting from bar to bar to have sex, and risk spreading diseases. So gay marriage promotes family values, and we should applaud it.

More naivite!

“Gay” monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. “Monogamous” seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while causal sex continues on the side. Source: Con nell, RW. Crawford, J., Dowsett, GW., Kippax, S., Sinnott, V., Rodden, P., Berg, R., Baxter, D., Waston, L., ” Danger and context: unsafe anal sexual practice among homosexual and bisexual men in the AIDS crisis,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology (1990 ) 26: pp.187-208.



There are a wealth of sobering facts quoted in this post:


http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archiv...-marriage.html


...but of course monkey-boy will flatly ignore them or dismiss them as "gay bashing"


J

[little_monkey]

Given that you don't comprehend rights yourself, describing my superior grasp as "unimpressive" is as effective as being savaged by a dead sheep.

From the guy who believes in absolute right? There is no country on this planet that grants absolute rights to its citizens. Secondly, you`ve fabricated a situation in which you could refuse serving gay couples on the basis of religion. I can see the headlines: MAN REFUSED SERVING GAY COUPLES ON GROUNDS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. SUBTITLE: COURT ADJOURNEYED WHEN THE JUDGE WAS FOUND ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING HIS HEART OUT.

You think you are an intellectual wizzard when in reality you are an intellectual fool. You concoct situations that only exist in your head as smokescreen to hide your hate, resentment, and pathetic insecurities.

Again, no. Just one sin among many.

Your notion of sin comes from your religion. You have no right to impose your religious morality on others.

Unfortunately it's a very high risk sin, with very real risk of early death (including suicide), sexually transmitted infection and mental health issues. And before you try and use this as ammo for your failed "J Hates teh Gays" hypothesis, these are stone cold facts from the CDC.

Then you should have no objection then that gays want to live into a lifelong relationship instead of gavalanting from bar to bar for sex and spreading disease.

Brilliant! You are now reduced to making mysoginistic or homophobic insults! Oh, the rich vein of irony and stupidity you've struck.

It`s an expression. That you associate this with mysoginistic or homophobic insults speaks loudly about your state of mind.

I'd council stopping right now. You're well into a self inflicted death of a thousand cuts.
J

And I thought you believe in rights, in this case, the right to free expression! Oh well, so much for intellectual integrity!

[Alsharad]

Of course, in your thinking, gays are errors. They're unnatural, an abomination in God's eyes. No surprise there.

I am not certain that anyone is an abomination in God's eyes (that's not really relevant here, though). However, make no mistake, homosexuality IS unnatural. It doesn't happen in nature.

Remember that homosexual behavior is more than just same-sex partners. There is an exclusivity there. A person that has sex with both genders is, by definition, a bi-sexual, not a homosexual. Every example in the animal kingdom that I have ever heard of is bi-sexual. There are no exclusively homosexual relationships in nature. Males may engage in same sex acts, but they will always breed when they have a chance.

Ergo, homosexuality does not exist in nature. Homosexuality as a lifestyle IS an anomaly - it is aberrant behavior.

[Jnthn]

From the guy who believes in absolute right? There is no country on this planet that grants absolute rights to its citizens.

Ok; prove it. I want a list by country. Otherwise you're a liar. You're not getting away with naked assertion.

That's what you get for equivocating.

Secondly, you`ve fabricated a situation in which you could refuse serving gay couples on the basis of religion. I can see the headlines: MAN REFUSED SERVING GAY COUPLES ON GROUNDS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. SUBTITLE: COURT ADJOURNEYED WHEN THE JUDGE WAS FOUND ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING HIS HEART OUT.

"Adjourneyed"? Do I really need to continue pointing out that you have a poor grasp of English any more? You mean "adjourned"

But then again that headline is what I'd expect from a nutty extremist driven by hate fuelled emotion. Do continue, please.

You think you are an intellectual wizzard when in reality you are an intellectual fool. You concoct situations that only exist in your head as smokescreen to hide your hate, resentment, and pathetic insecurities.

That's one "z" in wizard, monkey boy. Keep rolling those boners out. I am really loving watching you self destruct.

Your notion of sin comes from your religion. You have no right to impose your religious morality on others.

Yet, you are quite happy to impose your morality on people of religion. Oh the irony. Oh the hypocrisy.

Then you should have no objection then that gays want to live into a lifelong relationship instead of gavalanting from bar to bar for sex and spreading disease.

See my other post. Homosexual men are rarely monogamous. That's a matter of social science fact. You fail.

It`s an expression. That you associate this with mysoginistic or homophobic insults speaks loudly about your state of mind.

I'm fully aware that it's a Shakespearean quote. That doesn't mitigate one iota that you made a derogatory quote based on a woman.

And I thought you believe in rights, in this case, the right to free expression! Oh well, so much for intellectual integrity!

Non sequitur. You really are grasping at straws. I am more than happy for you to continue to make a public ass of yourself. I wanted to give you a chance to limit the barrage of damage you're suffering from.

Anyway, if you think what I said equates to an opposition to free expression, that's yet another evidence that your English comprehension is poor.

J

[little_monkey]

Oh this gets better and better. The clown can't differentiate between promiscuity, adultery and polygamy!

A guy is married to two women (polygamy). Another guy is married to one, and has a mistress. Besides a few formalities, there is little difference. What you fear is to recognize that monogamous relationships only suits certain people, it`s more the exception than the rule. In many countries, this is recognized, and men have many wifes or a wife with several concubines. It`s fine if you want to live in a monogamous relationship, but why should that be imposed on everyone? The fact is that in the US, where monogamy is the law, people have many sexual partners, regardless of the law.

By that titanic leap of logic, gay marriages are failures because they end in divorce.

Heretosexual couples don`t fare so well.

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce,

http://www.divorcerate.org/

So if gays want to marry, and then divorce, they won`t be doing any worse than heretosexual couples.

[little_monkey]

I am not certain that anyone is an abomination in God's eyes (that's not really relevant here, though). However, make no mistake, homosexuality IS unnatural. It doesn't happen in nature.

You`re wrong there.

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...gayanimal.html

[Jnthn]

A guy is married to two women (polygamy). Another guy is married to one, and has a mistress. Besides a few formalities, there is little difference.

So, let me get this right:

It's like polygamy only it's not.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You utter utter idiot. You cannot even protect a consistent argument in the space of two posts. It cannot be polygamy if the person is only married to one person!

You are utterly deluded and have reduced yourself to a joke.

What you fear is to recognize that monogamous relationships only suits certain people, it`s more the exception than the rule. In many countries, this is recognized, and men have many wifes or a wife with several concubines. It`s fine if you want to live in a monogamous relationship, but why should that be imposed on everyone? The fact is that in the US, where monogamy is the law, people have many sexual partners, regardless of the law.

But it was you who were singing the praises of the benefits of monogamous homosexual marriage!

Again, you can't even sustain an argument in consecutive posts!

Heretosexual couples don`t fare so well.

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce,

http://www.divorcerate.org/

So if gays want to marry, and then divorce, they won`t be doing any worse than heretosexual couples.

Unsurprisingly you haven't grasped my argument once again. You really are as dumb as a dog running into the back of a parked car.

I really hope you're not allowed to use sharp implements. I genuinely worry about any harm you'll inflict on yourself.

J

[little_monkey]

Ok; prove it. I want a list by country. Otherwise you're a liar. You're not getting away with naked assertion.

The burden of proof is on you. You`re the one who believes in absolute rights. Now show me one country that grants absolute rights to its citizens.

"Adjourneyed"? Do I really need to continue pointing out that you have a poor grasp of English any more? You mean "adjourned"
That's one "z" in wizard, monkey boy. Keep rolling those boners out. I am really loving watching you self destruct.

That`s all you can do: spot my spelling mistakes. Little brains are amused by little things.

Yet, you are quite happy to impose your morality on people of religion. Oh the irony. Oh the hypocrisy.

There`s no irony. Religious morality is based on ignorance and outdated concepts. We have progressed in the last 100,000 years. And morality has evolved along it, except for people like you.

I'm fully aware that it's a Shakespearean quote. That doesn't mitigate one iota that you made a derogatory quote based on a woman.

Again, that you see it as derogatory speaks loudly about your state of mind.

You really are grasping at straws. I am more than happy for you to continue to make a public ass of yourself.

The one who is making a public ass of himself is you with your hate, cowardness, antiquated morality, and intellectual foolishness

[little_monkey]

But it was you who were singing the praises of the benefits of monogamous homosexual marriage!

I think you`re drunk. If gays want to marry and stay in a monogamous relationship, it`s their call, not mine. But you insisting on preventing them to even get married is callous on your part.

Unsurprisingly you haven't grasped my argument once again. You really are as dumb as a dog running into the back of a parked car.

I really hope you're not allowed to use sharp implements. I genuinely worry about any harm you'll inflict on yourself.

J

You`re the one who is confused. If people, gay and heretosexual, want to get married and stay in a monogamous relationship, that`s fine. But you don`t want gays to get married in the first place. You`re an idiot. I also say if people, gay and heretosexual, want polygamous relationships, it should be allowed. These people are doing it anyway by having extra-marital affairs. Why do we need to force people in one straightjacket?

[Rainbow Brite]

I think you`re drunk. If gays want to marry and stay in a monogamous relationship, it`s their call, not mine. But you insisting on preventing them to even get married is callous on your part.

You`re the one who is confused. If people, gay and heretosexual, want to get married and stay in a monogamous relationship, that`s fine. But you don`t want gays to get married in the first place. You`re an idiot. I also say if people, gay and heretosexual, want polygamous relationships, it should be allowed. These people are doing it anyway by having extra-marital affairs. Why do we need to force people in one straightjacket?

Like I said earlier, government should be stripped of all power to grant marriages in the first place, it's a throwback to functions of a church state. If citizens give government the power to validate and license marriages, or religions, or anything of that personal nature, then they are asking for trouble. That should maybe happen in China, but not in a free society.

If people want a spiritual union, go to clergy or one of those ULC ministers. If people want benefits of a legal partnership for inheritance, power of attorney, or other reasons, go to a lawyer and draw up some contracts.

If your child, or gay/straight lover, or a homeless person, or whoever, requires assistance for health care and such, there should be ways to get that as well without requiring marriage. All tax breaks for married people should be abolished.

There, that solves that argument.

[Jnthn]

The burden of proof is on you. You`re the one who believes in absolute rights. Now show me one country that grants absolute rights to its citizens.

In other words, you can't. So that's another lie you've been caught in.

That`s all you can do: spot my spelling mistakes. Little brains are amused by little things.

Far from it. In addition to pointion out your problems with spelling, I've demonstrated your problems with English comprehension, your tendency to lie, and your inability to grasp the concept of rights.

There`s no irony. Religious morality is based on ignorance and outdated concepts. We have progressed in the last 100,000 years. And morality has evolved along it, except for people like you.

And you don't understand irony easier.

Again, that you see it as derogatory speaks loudly about your state of mind.

I think he doth complain too much.

The one who is making a public ass of himself is you with your hate, cowardness, antiquated morality, and intellectual foolishness

And you're back to the "yo mama too" level of rebuttal. I'm beginning to notice a pattern here. You really are circling the plughole.

J

[Jnthn]

I think you`re drunk.

Prove it.

Oh wait. All you'll do is say it's my responsibility to prove it despite you who is making an assertion.

Let's cut to the chase then: You're a liar.

If gays want to marry and stay in a monogamous relationship, it`s their call, not mine. But you insisting on preventing them to even get married is callous on your part.

I provide a published, peer reviewed reference (and more in the link) that demonstrates that promiscuity and infedelity are the norm and you ignore it. Way to miss the point monkey boy.

You`re the one who is confused. If people, gay and heretosexual, want to get married and stay in a monogamous relationship, that`s fine. But you don`t want gays to get married in the first place. You`re an idiot.

I have no problems whatsoever with a gay person getting married. But since marriage is by definition heterosexual, they'd have to find an opposite sex parner.

I also say if people, gay and heretosexual, want polygamous relationships, it should be allowed. These people are doing it anyway by having extra-marital affairs. Why do we need to force people in one straightjacket?

Oh dear. Still conflating adultery and polygamy.

May I recommend a wonderful book to you? It's called a Dictionary. It helps answer tricky questions by providing definitions of what words mean, words like polygamy. A fascinating read. You can add it to your bookshelf next to your copies of "Janet and John go fishing" and the simplified English edition of "How to look foolish on the World Wide Web"

Anyway, despite he hilarity that ensues from reading your screed, I do need to attend to some more taxing activities. Laundry just won't fold itself.

But don't think I'm bowing out. I don't want to let my favourite chew toy escape into the skirting board.



J

[little_monkey]

In other words, you can't. So that's another lie you've been caught in.

No, you are the one who claims that absolute rights exist. The burden of proof is on you. You just can't. Until you show evidence, then what you are proposing is pure fantasy.

Far from it. In addition to pointion out your problems with spelling, I've demonstrated your problems with English comprehension, your tendency to lie, and your inability to grasp the concept of rights.
And you don't understand irony easier.
I think he doth complain too much.
nd you're back to the "yo mama too" level of rebuttal. I'm beginning to notice a pattern here. You really are circling the plughole.

J

pointion Wow, you're slipping.
I guess you have nothing substantial to add to your pathetic profile, except nit-picking.

[little_monkey]

Like I said earlier, government should be stripped of all power to grant marriages in the first place, it's a throwback to functions of a church state. If citizens give government the power to validate and license marriages, or religions, or anything of that personal nature, then they are asking for trouble. That should maybe happen in China, but not in a free society.

I don't think that governments are going to go out of the business of keeping track of its citizens in regard to marriages. It's not going to happen today, and neither tomorrow.

If people want a spiritual union, go to clergy or one of those ULC ministers. If people want benefits of a legal partnership for inheritance, power of attorney, or other reasons, go to a lawyer and draw up some contracts.

But getting married at city hall, it's just as good. It confers every right and priviledge of a marital status. Most gay people, that's what they want. For those gays who want a religious marriage they are in a bind as very few denominations, if there are any, are going to do for them.

All tax breaks for married people should be abolished.

That is another matter. The tax breaks are there to encourage people to have children. Every country, except China, has a policy of increasing its population. The greater the population, the greater the clout in the international scene.

There, that solves that argument.

Wishful thinking.

[Jnthn]

No, you are the one who claims that absolute rights exist. The burden of proof is on you. You just can't. Until you show evidence, then what you are proposing is pure fantasy.

Keep telling yourself that. It means at least one person will believe you

pointion

Wow, you're slipping..

Yep, a typo, but not on the same class as your unfamiliarity with judicial terminology.

I guess you have nothing substantial to add to your pathetic profile, except nit-picking

Sez monkey boy while picking nits. Lay that irony on with a trowel.

J