California court denies request to stay gay marriage ruling

[MrsCat 6]

You are not answering the question, once again, you fail to address it and try to spin it.

You are making ridiculous statements. If there were only gay couples in this world, there soon would be no one left. For two gays could not possibly give birth. Men cannot give birth. Hello explain that one will you? Oh you say women can get sperm donors from gay mean, well how, for there will be no men left for if you only have gay couples of women then there is no need for men, right. You can try to spin it all you want but there is not excuse for this at all, marriage is between a biological man and woman. And you always get back to the reality that you have to have two opposite sexes in order to create life for human beings, it is not possible nor going to happen with only gay men or gay women. If there was only meant to be gay people in this world, there would not be opposite sexes at all. You can try to explain it away but you cannot. And it does affect other people that are straight and marry as a man and woman and it does offend them, more than you realize.

They may be people but they are not entitled to a marriage. Curious if there were meant to be only gay people is this world, then how come there are not only women or only men but instead there are two opposite sexes? Simple thought but one a gay marriage supporter can never address or answer. For without true opposite sexes marrying and creating children for the future there would be no more gay people left, for they would all die off and be extinct and unable to procreate!

I think no one answers this question because it is so ridiculous. Other than you - I haven't heard anyone else state that the world was only meant to have gay people and gay people's intention through marriage is to take over the world.

But if you really want an answer: Carrying on with the birth of children (because clearly, having kids is the only reason people get married) would be possible in this day. All the lesbian women would be able to take sperm donations from gay males, carry babies to term, and depending on who was the intending parents raise that child. So I guess having kids and keeping up with a gay world would be possible.

Your question is ridiculous, but thanks for playing.

You must be on the sauce - cause your reply makes no sense at all - or you didn't read my post - whichever.

Perhaps you should avoid living in California then, so you won't be offended by all the gay married couples. That's a solution. Avoid Canada too - cause its been legal for a while now - in all our Provinces.

[Amby 490]

zgt you should join this forum http://fstdt.com/default.aspx

you may find several like minded folks on there

[zqt3344 21]

Ummm I did not say or think that but it makes me wonder now, after you seem to think that and try to say I said that. Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye after all, I will do some more research on this and report back.

zgt334, do you realize how redicilous you sound!! do you really believe that people that are gay want to take over the world???

[nana_356 0]

Ummm I did not say or think that but it makes me wonder now, after you seem to think that and try to say I said that. Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye after all, I will do some more research on this and report back.

zgt334, do you realize how redicilous you sound!! do you really believe that people that are gay want to take over the world???

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

The same could be said of you for supporting this gay marriage nonsense.

wow.. what a sad person you are

im sad because im not a judgemental holier-than-thou person who can condemn people because they think different than me?

the same freedom of rights that you have to talk openly about supporting gay rights is the same freedom of speech he has to speak up and oppose it... so why name call such as above??? He's stating his views without name calling the opposing peoples views... Seems like I've been seeing alot of the name calling from the ones who support gay marriage to us who do not support it... hmmm interesting!

[jundp 191]

Perhaps you should avoid living in California then, so you won't be offended by all the gay married couples. That's a solution. Avoid Canada too - cause its been legal for a while now - in all our Provinces.

And Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, South Africa and Norway (in 2009) for same-sex marriage.

Civil unions and registered partnerships are recognized in: Andorra, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, and Uruguay. And in 2009 Hungary.

That doesn't count the number of countries that recognize the legality of such partnerships/unions/marriages from other places.

[zqt3344 21]

Not in the USA, they can do whatever they want in other countries, but this is USA not going to happen, they better enjoy it in California for the good people there will vote in another new law to change it once again, it was the will of the people the first time and once again some liberal judge became activist and has tried to legislate from the bench. Something that makes me wonder, is why anyone on here would be in favor of gay marriage when they would have to have married another person from opposite sex to come to the USA on visa. Interesting.

If they want a civil union or partnership fine, call it that, but it is not nor shall it ever be considered a marriage.

Perhaps you should avoid living in California then, so you won't be offended by all the gay married couples. That's a solution. Avoid Canada too - cause its been legal for a while now - in all our Provinces.

And Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, South Africa and Norway (in 2009) for same-sex marriage.

Civil unions and registered partnerships are recognized in: Andorra, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, and Uruguay. And in 2009 Hungary.

That doesn't count the number of countries that recognize the legality of such partnerships/unions/marriages from other places.

[KiKi 0]

If everybody would just NOT respond to zqt they wouldn't get what they want which is a REACTION........just ignore him/her/it!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm still wondering what the difference is between "marriage" and "civil union"....

[nana_356 0]

If everybody would just NOT respond to zqt they wouldn't get what they want which is a REACTION........just ignore him/her/it!

i agree, and ive said this before, reading his posts he/she is always rude, and childish!

[MrsCat 6]

I'm still wondering what the difference is between "marriage" and "civil union"....

That actually really bothers me. Cause that means the moral right have exclusive jurisdiction to the word marriage - other things that we classify as lesser forms of marriage will be a second class civil union.

[zqt3344 21]

Kiki here is to you and your liberal rants!

If everybody would just NOT respond to zqt they wouldn't get what they want which is a REACTION........just ignore him/her/it!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm still wondering what the difference is between "marriage" and "civil union"....

That actually really bothers me. Cause that means the moral right have exclusive jurisdiction to the word marriage - other things that we classify as lesser forms of marriage will be a second class civil union.

Well its dodgy anyway - because when we allowed people to marry in secular ceremonies the religious establishment effectively lost its monopoly on "marriage". Those civil unions are indistinguishable from a marriage performed in a church.

So the issue is always going to come down to whether people think that gay couples should have their relationship recognised in law and be awarded with the full set of legal rights that married heterosexual couploes enjoy.

When I hear people umming and ah-ing about whether to call it marriage - that seems to me to be a bit of a red herring argument, because its still "marriage" whether they want to call it that or not.

The difference can't be purely semantic... so I'm left thinking that the folks who make that claim either haven't thought it through, or are using it as a cover to conceal the fact that they just don't want gay couples to have the same legal rights.

[MrsCat 6]

I'm still wondering what the difference is between "marriage" and "civil union"....

That actually really bothers me. Cause that means the moral right have exclusive jurisdiction to the word marriage - other things that we classify as lesser forms of marriage will be a second class civil union.

Well its dodgy anyway - because when we allowed people to marry in secular ceremonies the religious establishment effectively lost its monopoly on "marriage". Those civil unions are indistinguishable from a marriage performed in a church.

So the issue is always going to come down to whether people think that gay couples should have their relationship recognised in law and be awarded with the full set of legal rights that married heterosexual couploes enjoy.

When I hear people umming and ah-ing about whether to call it marriage - that seems to me to be a bit of a red herring argument, because its still "marriage" whether they want to call it that or not.

The difference can't be purely semantic... so I'm left thinking that the folks who make that claim either haven't thought it through, or are using it as a cover to conceal the fact that they just don't want gay couples to have the same legal rights.

Amen to that!

[zqt3344 21]

Marriage is for straight biological man and woman

Civil partnership is for gays

End of discusssion.

I'm still wondering what the difference is between "marriage" and "civil union"....

That actually really bothers me. Cause that means the moral right have exclusive jurisdiction to the word marriage - other things that we classify as lesser forms of marriage will be a second class civil union.

Well its dodgy anyway - because when we allowed people to marry in secular ceremonies the religious establishment effectively lost its monopoly on "marriage". Those civil unions are indistinguishable from a marriage performed in a church.

So the issue is always going to come down to whether people think that gay couples should have their relationship recognised in law and be awarded with the full set of legal rights that married heterosexual couploes enjoy.

When I hear people umming and ah-ing about whether to call it marriage - that seems to me to be a bit of a red herring argument, because its still "marriage" whether they want to call it that or not.

The difference can't be purely semantic... so I'm left thinking that the folks who make that claim either haven't thought it through, or are using it as a cover to conceal the fact that they just don't want gay couples to have the same legal rights.