California high court upholds gay marriage ban

Another question. What are some of the financial benefits that the State or the Fed might realize in the course of allowing equal marriage rights to same sex partners?

meta4 wrote:Another question. What are some of the financial benefits that the State or the Fed might realize in the course of allowing equal marriage rights to same sex partners?

Not sure about that, but I'm sure Divorce Lawyers are frothing at the mouth...

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

meta4 wrote:Another question. What are some of the financial benefits that the State or the Fed might realize in the course of allowing equal marriage rights to same sex partners?

Not sure about that, but I'm sure Divorce Lawyers are frothing at the mouth...

Frothing... nice!

Hey, you think the SSM's are going to show any different stats for the percentages that end in divorce? I'd predict they'd be lower for two main reasons. The main reasons that most traditional marriages end in divorce... financial conflicts, and children.

meta4 wrote:Another question. What are some of the financial benefits that the State or the Fed might realize in the course of allowing equal marriage rights to same sex partners?

at least for several years, the financial loyalty to politicians who didnt choose non-equality. it adds up to lotsa bucks.

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:If someone can show me how same sex marriage harms them (like Doe) then I would not support legalizing gay marriage or civil unions.

And in the same manner, if you put up the same fight for people who like to have sex with a horse, then I'll be more likely to support legalized gay marriage, since likewise how does beastility harm other people?

So what you are saying is that you have NOTHING ... you are harmed in no manner if two consenting same sex individuals are married ... it is all about the fact that you just disagree with it, there is no harm to anyone.

Thanks Mark ...

At what age do horses reach the age of consent and can verbally state that they want to enter into a monogamous long term relationship with Kroman?

Bman, I hear you wear kilts so the sheep won't hear your zipper.

i had an interesting discussion with some gay friends about the whole marriage issue. some interesting points came up.

one opinion--- it would be perfectly ok to call all of what we currently refer to as "marriages" to be now be called civil unions, available for all consenting adult couples of either gender. let the religious riters have the word "marriage" if it matters so much because it is discussed in their holy graile. let a "marriage" be the word used only to define a religious ceremony. the rr would have their very own word to describe their very own additional special unions. BUT all the devoted christians who are gay, and the clergy who support gay marriage, should also be able to "marry". that would not sit well with most extremist straight christians who are doing battle over the word marriage..also those opting to have the religious ceremony should be required to have a civil union as a seperate occurance in order to be "legally" recognized. the marriage word would refer to a religious celebration, not in and of itself a legal transaction.

someone else said that wont work far as the religious rite is concerned, because it would be like legally changing the meaning of any other word they feel ownership of..they will feel it should only be allowed to happen if they felt it benefited/gave triumphant godly success to their cause. example--the word abortion, known and used during the times the bible refers to, does not appear in the bible so christians should shut up about it. change it to only being called what it is, a medical procedure a female has the legal right to choose, and they would scream and cry about the gov infringing on their right to interpret their book any way they want to. what the religious riters really want is simply to control whether anyone outside of their circle should have the same legal rights they have, because in their minds they deserve special treatment.

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:If someone can show me how same sex marriage harms them (like Doe) then I would not support legalizing gay marriage or civil unions.

And in the same manner, if you put up the same fight for people who like to have sex with a horse, then I'll be more likely to support legalized gay marriage, since likewise how does beastility harm other people?

So what you are saying is that you have NOTHING ... you are harmed in no manner if two consenting same sex individuals are married ... it is all about the fact that you just disagree with it, there is no harm to anyone.

Thanks Mark ...

At what age do horses reach the age of consent and can verbally state that they want to enter into a monogamous long term relationship with Kroman?

Bman, I hear you wear kilts so the sheep won't hear your zipper.

glad all here can participate in such a serious discussion by resorting to proving they really arent any smarter or more mature than a fifth grader.

floridafun wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:If someone can show me how same sex marriage harms them (like Doe) then I would not support legalizing gay marriage or civil unions.

And in the same manner, if you put up the same fight for people who like to have sex with a horse, then I'll be more likely to support legalized gay marriage, since likewise how does beastility harm other people?

So what you are saying is that you have NOTHING ... you are harmed in no manner if two consenting same sex individuals are married ... it is all about the fact that you just disagree with it, there is no harm to anyone.

Thanks Mark ...

At what age do horses reach the age of consent and can verbally state that they want to enter into a monogamous long term relationship with Kroman?

Bman, I hear you wear kilts so the sheep won't hear your zipper.

glad all here can participate in such a serious discussion by resorting to proving they really arent any smarter or more mature than a fifth grader.

Glad we can't have a serious discussion without bringing up the religious right too.

I have a question for you Floridafun in regards to abortion, and I don't want to get into a big long tangent lest we hijack this thread, but since you mentioned abortion...

Answer me this...WHY do the pro-choice advocates always say that the procedure is an "emotional, difficult decision" that the woman has. Why is that if it's NOT a life (since they think life begins at birth)? I know when I had a medical procedure done to remove a kidney stone, it wasn't emotional or difficult at all.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:I have a question for you Floridafun in regards to abortion, and I don't want to get into a big long tangent lest we hijack this thread, but since you mentioned abortion...

Answer me this...WHY do the pro-choice advocates always say that the procedure is an "emotional, difficult decision" that the woman has. Why is that if it's NOT a life (since they think life begins at birth)? I know when I had a medical procedure done to remove a kidney stone, it wasn't emotional or difficult at all.

If most republicans cared for life outside of the womb as much as inside the womb maybe we could find some common ground but people like Newt and Limbo want to count ketchup as their daily veggie if on reduced lunches, people like Newt and Limbo want to eliminate after school programs seems like the right wing only cares about life INSIDE the womb to try to win political contests.

Bman wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:I have a question for you Floridafun in regards to abortion, and I don't want to get into a big long tangent lest we hijack this thread, but since you mentioned abortion...

Answer me this...WHY do the pro-choice advocates always say that the procedure is an "emotional, difficult decision" that the woman has. Why is that if it's NOT a life (since they think life begins at birth)? I know when I had a medical procedure done to remove a kidney stone, it wasn't emotional or difficult at all.

If most republicans cared for life outside of the womb as much as inside the womb maybe we could find some common ground but people like Newt and Limbo want to count ketchup as their daily veggie if on reduced lunches, people like Newt and Limbo want to eliminate after school programs seems like the right wing only cares about life INSIDE the womb to try to win political contests.

That answer's chit was clearly weak and was so voted.

By the way, I boosted your shindex level up a bit by going back thru the sports threads and giving you + signs for positive comments on THE OSU!!!

floridafun wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:If someone can show me how same sex marriage harms them (like Doe) then I would not support legalizing gay marriage or civil unions.

And in the same manner, if you put up the same fight for people who like to have sex with a horse, then I'll be more likely to support legalized gay marriage, since likewise how does beastility harm other people?

So what you are saying is that you have NOTHING ... you are harmed in no manner if two consenting same sex individuals are married ... it is all about the fact that you just disagree with it, there is no harm to anyone.

Thanks Mark ...

At what age do horses reach the age of consent and can verbally state that they want to enter into a monogamous long term relationship with Kroman?

Bman, I hear you wear kilts so the sheep won't hear your zipper.

glad all here can participate in such a serious discussion by resorting to proving they really arent any smarter or more mature than a fifth grader.

I don't think a fifth grader would have gotten that joke unless they were attending a school that passed out condoms.

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:If someone can show me how same sex marriage harms them (like Doe) then I would not support legalizing gay marriage or civil unions.

And in the same manner, if you put up the same fight for people who like to have sex with a horse, then I'll be more likely to support legalized gay marriage, since likewise how does beastility harm other people?

So what you are saying is that you have NOTHING ... you are harmed in no manner if two consenting same sex individuals are married ... it is all about the fact that you just disagree with it, there is no harm to anyone.

Thanks Mark ...

At what age do horses reach the age of consent and can verbally state that they want to enter into a monogamous long term relationship with Kroman?

Bman, I hear you wear kilts so the sheep won't hear your zipper.

glad all here can participate in such a serious discussion by resorting to proving they really arent any smarter or more mature than a fifth grader.

I don't think

fixed that for ya kromie ;-)

floridafun wrote:

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:If someone can show me how same sex marriage harms them (like Doe) then I would not support legalizing gay marriage or civil unions.

And in the same manner, if you put up the same fight for people who like to have sex with a horse, then I'll be more likely to support legalized gay marriage, since likewise how does beastility harm other people?

So what you are saying is that you have NOTHING ... you are harmed in no manner if two consenting same sex individuals are married ... it is all about the fact that you just disagree with it, there is no harm to anyone.

Thanks Mark ...

At what age do horses reach the age of consent and can verbally state that they want to enter into a monogamous long term relationship with Kroman?

Bman, I hear you wear kilts so the sheep won't hear your zipper.

glad all here can participate in such a serious discussion by resorting to proving they really arent any smarter or more mature than a fifth grader.

I don't think

fixed that for ya kromie ;-)

You're almost as clever as bman. Almost....

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:I have a question for you Floridafun in regards to abortion, and I don't want to get into a big long tangent lest we hijack this thread, but since you mentioned abortion...

Answer me this...WHY do the pro-choice advocates always say that the procedure is an "emotional, difficult decision" that the woman has. Why is that if it's NOT a life (since they think life begins at birth)? I know when I had a medical procedure done to remove a kidney stone, it wasn't emotional or difficult at all.

i would suspect partly because bearing children is so romanticized as making their parents life "complete". maybe they think of the zygote as a glob of tissue which is the potential start of an eventual life...which i agree with. i havent had an abortion tho. i have talked to women who felt it was a difficult decision but had no regrets. i have never personally talked to any who have regretted making the choice.

and serious question back to you. how can anyone who thinks its ok to practice birth control feel its never ok to abort? same thing..preventing an act of fertilization that is likely/possible to occur naturally (without any interferance) may in turn become that zygote.

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:If someone can show me how same sex marriage harms them (like Doe) then I would not support legalizing gay marriage or civil unions.

And in the same manner, if you put up the same fight for people who like to have sex with a horse, then I'll be more likely to support legalized gay marriage, since likewise how does beastility harm other people?

So what you are saying is that you have NOTHING ... you are harmed in no manner if two consenting same sex individuals are married ... it is all about the fact that you just disagree with it, there is no harm to anyone.

Thanks Mark ...

At what age do horses reach the age of consent and can verbally state that they want to enter into a monogamous long term relationship with Kroman?

Bman, I hear you wear kilts so the sheep won't hear your zipper.

glad all here can participate in such a serious discussion by resorting to proving they really arent any smarter or more mature than a fifth grader.

I don't think

fixed that for ya kromie ;-)

You're almost as clever as bman. Almost....

wow!! a major compliment to ME from YOU??? thanks!

floridafun wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:I have a question for you Floridafun in regards to abortion, and I don't want to get into a big long tangent lest we hijack this thread, but since you mentioned abortion...

Answer me this...WHY do the pro-choice advocates always say that the procedure is an "emotional, difficult decision" that the woman has. Why is that if it's NOT a life (since they think life begins at birth)? I know when I had a medical procedure done to remove a kidney stone, it wasn't emotional or difficult at all.

i would suspect partly because bearing children is so romanticized as making their parents life "complete". maybe they think of the zygote as a glob of tissue which is the potential start of an eventual life...which i agree with. i havent had an abortion tho. i have talked to women who felt it was a difficult decision but had no regrets. i have never personally talked to any who have regretted making the choice.

and serious question back to you. how can anyone who thinks its ok to practice birth control feel its never ok to abort? same thing..preventing an act of fertilization that is likely/possible to occur naturally (without any interferance) may in turn become that zygote.

One of my wife's friends did have one many years ago. Still regrets it to this day. Not saying that everyone feels that way, just an example. I think that one of the reasons many say it's an "emotional, difficult decision" is because deep down, they know it's a life, but that's my opinion.

As for your serious question back...it all depends on the type of birth control that is being used. Birth control that is used AFTER the sperm and egg have united is no good in my book because life has begun IMO.

so preventative birth control doesnt prevent the development of life for which sexual intercourse is the primary function?
i thought most anti-abortion people were on the same page about being pro-family which means opposed to destruction of potential family members..is conciously altering the potential that you were given naturally not accomplishing the same end result as an abortion?
it seems to me that any form of birth control would be a very selective decision. like a vegetarian that doesnt eat meat but wears lotsa leather clothing or accessories..

floridafun wrote:so preventative birth control doesnt prevent the development of life for which sexual intercourse is the primary function?
i thought most anti-abortion people were on the same page about being pro-family which means opposed to destruction of potential family members..is conciously altering the potential that you were given naturally not accomplishing the same end result as an abortion?
it seems to me that any form of birth control would be a very selective decision. like a vegetarian that doesnt eat meat but wears lotsa leather clothing or accessories..

ZING!

Bman wrote:

floridafun wrote:so preventative birth control doesnt prevent the development of life for which sexual intercourse is the primary function?
i thought most anti-abortion people were on the same page about being pro-family which means opposed to destruction of potential family members..is conciously altering the potential that you were given naturally not accomplishing the same end result as an abortion?
it seems to me that any form of birth control would be a very selective decision. like a vegetarian that doesnt eat meat but wears lotsa leather clothing or accessories..

ZING!

pro-lifers and pro-abortionists both use contraceptives so you are making a comparison at a micro level. Bottom line, if you don't want kids, the men should keep their zippers shut and the women should keep their legs closed.

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

floridafun wrote:so preventative birth control doesnt prevent the development of life for which sexual intercourse is the primary function?
i thought most anti-abortion people were on the same page about being pro-family which means opposed to destruction of potential family members..is conciously altering the potential that you were given naturally not accomplishing the same end result as an abortion?
it seems to me that any form of birth control would be a very selective decision. like a vegetarian that doesnt eat meat but wears lotsa leather clothing or accessories..

ZING!

pro-lifers and pro-abortionists both use contraceptives so you are making a comparison at a micro level. Bottom line, if you don't want kids, the men should keep their zippers shut and the women should keep their legs closed.

So does that mean if you and your spouse do not want kids anymore that you need to keep your zipper shut? Do you? This is post now tops Markwes' for the most stupid post on the planet earth. Congrats Kroman!

Bman wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

floridafun wrote:so preventative birth control doesnt prevent the development of life for which sexual intercourse is the primary function?
i thought most anti-abortion people were on the same page about being pro-family which means opposed to destruction of potential family members..is conciously altering the potential that you were given naturally not accomplishing the same end result as an abortion?
it seems to me that any form of birth control would be a very selective decision. like a vegetarian that doesnt eat meat but wears lotsa leather clothing or accessories..

ZING!

pro-lifers and pro-abortionists both use contraceptives so you are making a comparison at a micro level. Bottom line, if you don't want kids, the men should keep their zippers shut and the women should keep their legs closed.

So does that mean if you and your spouse do not want kids anymore that you need to keep your zipper shut? Do you? This is post now tops Markwes' for the most stupid post on the planet earth. Congrats Kroman!

Due to circumstances you don't know about it is now not possible for us to have anymore kids. Again, you are the epitome of liberal values....NO CLASS.

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

floridafun wrote:so preventative birth control doesnt prevent the development of life for which sexual intercourse is the primary function?
i thought most anti-abortion people were on the same page about being pro-family which means opposed to destruction of potential family members..is conciously altering the potential that you were given naturally not accomplishing the same end result as an abortion?
it seems to me that any form of birth control would be a very selective decision. like a vegetarian that doesnt eat meat but wears lotsa leather clothing or accessories..

ZING!

pro-lifers and pro-abortionists both use contraceptives so you are making a comparison at a micro level. Bottom line, if you don't want kids, the men should keep their zippers shut and the women should keep their legs closed.

So does that mean if you and your spouse do not want kids anymore that you need to keep your zipper shut? Do you? This is post now tops Markwes' for the most stupid post on the planet earth. Congrats Kroman!

Due to circumstances you don't know about it is now not possible for us to have anymore kids. Again, you are the epitome of liberal values....NO CLASS.

But you are having no sex correct since you seem to be of the approach that sex is for procreation only ...

BTW Kroman, I don't care if you think I have class or not because I think you are devoid of them also.

Bman wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

floridafun wrote:so preventative birth control doesnt prevent the development of life for which sexual intercourse is the primary function?
i thought most anti-abortion people were on the same page about being pro-family which means opposed to destruction of potential family members..is conciously altering the potential that you were given naturally not accomplishing the same end result as an abortion?
it seems to me that any form of birth control would be a very selective decision. like a vegetarian that doesnt eat meat but wears lotsa leather clothing or accessories..

ZING!

pro-lifers and pro-abortionists both use contraceptives so you are making a comparison at a micro level. Bottom line, if you don't want kids, the men should keep their zippers shut and the women should keep their legs closed.

So does that mean if you and your spouse do not want kids anymore that you need to keep your zipper shut? Do you? This is post now tops Markwes' for the most stupid post on the planet earth. Congrats Kroman!

Due to circumstances you don't know about it is now not possible for us to have anymore kids. Again, you are the epitome of liberal values....NO CLASS.

But you are having no sex correct since you seem to be of the approach that sex is for procreation only ...

BTW Kroman, I don't care if you think I have class or not because I think you are devoid of them also.

Again the point, which always seems to go over your head, is if you aren't responsible enough or ready enough to raise a kid then you shouldn't have sex. I'll take it another notch up, if you aren't married you shouldn't have sex. But I forgot you libs are all about the "if it feels good just do it". No discipline on your part at all. No self-control.

floridafun wrote:so preventative birth control doesnt prevent the development of life for which sexual intercourse is the primary function?
i thought most anti-abortion people were on the same page about being pro-family which means opposed to destruction of potential family members..is conciously altering the potential that you were given naturally not accomplishing the same end result as an abortion?
it seems to me that any form of birth control would be a very selective decision. like a vegetarian that doesnt eat meat but wears lotsa leather clothing or accessories..

Abstinence is a form of 'birth control' if you really want to look at it that way. It sounds like to me like you think everytime two people have sex and they don't want kids, they must use some form of birth control? That's not true. In all seriousness...Natural Family Planning works. I stand 100% by what I typed...any type of birth control that is used after life began at the moment of conception is wrong IMHO.