9th Circus Court to rule on Calif prop 8 - change fundamental definition of marriage

[jimnyc]

I agree, you don't need to be personally affected to speak out against something. You DO however need to be personally affected , or be able to show that others are without wanting to be, in order to declare something needs to be made illegal.

So go ahead and tell us how much it disgusts you, but that doesn't give you the right to make it illegal.

Whatever.

[OCA]

It's not a special right, but an identical one.

They currently posess every identical right that you posess, granting them marriage rights is a special right.

[OCA]

And if the right is extended to include gay marriage, they'll continue to have an identical right. And I think we've seen enough evidence recently to say the bolded part is at the very least, suspect.

What evidence? Do you posess evidence that no other scientist in the world has discovered?

[OCA]

There have been several links posted...remember the one about pheremones? I didn't say "absolute proof", and IMO, reasonable doubt has been established against it being "choice".

LMFAO! Dumbass, the pheromones were about opposite sex attraction....lol.....dumbass.

[Missileman]

What evidence? Do you posess evidence that no other scientist in the world has discovered?

I didn't say proof, I said evidence, and it exists.

[OCA]

^ Red herring alert.

It doesn't matter if it's choice or not. Can you show me in my DNA where there is a head over heels hot for Latina woman gene? No , of course not. And you certainly can't tell me with any certainty that attraction is in our genes. That is your OPINION, and you don't get to make law based on OPINION.

But we do make law based on whats best for society and what the majority votes in.

[Missileman]

LMFAO! Dumbass, the pheromones were about opposite sex attraction....lol.....dumbass.

Unlike yourself, when I post a link it actually supports my case. Follow the link, read it, and learn something.

[OCA]

It's not just mice, they've documented a difference between homosexual and heterosexual men in the brain's response to male pheremones.

Then show where its definitive and fact.

Then call leading scientists because they'd like to know.

[Missileman]

They currently posess every identical right that you posess, granting them marriage rights is a special right.

Extending marriage to gays results in the same exact situation where everyone possesses the identical right. Noone will have a special right.

[OCA]

WTF does that have to do with mice and proof?

Not a damn thing Jimmy. Connie is so all over the place on this issue he doesn't know up from down. At least Missle has always liked pole smokers.

[Missileman]

Then show where its definitive and fact.

Then call leading scientists because they'd like to know.

There's no helping the fact that you can't grasp the difference between evidence and proof.

[OCA]

Extending marriage to gays results in the same exact situation where everyone possesses the identical right. Noone will have a special right.

They currently poseess the right to marry, only the law and the people say its correct that they must marry someone of the opposite sex.

I've got an idea, queers can marry a dyke, just live together and go out and eat pipes as much as they want because thats all they are going to do anyway.

See? A win-win situation.

[OCA]

There's no helping the fact that you can't grasp the difference between evidence and proof.

There has always been maybes and supposition, i'm only interested in definitive proof like the proof that we are all born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex.

It surprises me that you are too dumb to comprehend any of this, maybe your "evidence" validates something about you that you haven't shared yet?

[jimnyc]

LMFAO! Dumbass, the pheromones were about opposite sex attraction....lol.....dumbass.

Unlike yourself, when I post a link it actually supports my case. Follow the link, read it, and learn something.

OCA: The link does discuss pheremones tested on 24 or each: straights, gays, women (something like that). The gay men apparently were attracted to the armpit pheremones, just like the women, where the men were attracted to the womens pheremones from her urine. I would admit that this study gets entered as evidence, but I just think it's very, very thin and flimsy at best.

[OCA]

OCA: The link does discuss pheremones tested on 24 or each: straights, gays, women (something like that). The gay men apparently were attracted to the armpit pheremones, just like the women, where the men were attracted to the womens pheremones from her urine. I would admit that this study gets entered as evidence, but I just think it's very, very thin and flimsy at best.

Jimmy i've always said that there has always been supposition and maybes on their side but you think with all the millions spent and time spent on finding this "gene" that they would've found it now. It doesn't exist.

If queers respond differently to armpits maybe they should see a shrink............or a whore.