Posted by guynextdoor, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Fundamentally, constitutionally, morally, ethically, civilly marriage is a sacred promise/agreement/union/committment/contract between one man and one woman for better or for worse, in sickness and in health to (mutually) love, honor and obey until death do they part. The last word!
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Thank goodness homosexuals cannot breed, otherwise this country would be in real trouble. If some nutty homosexuals want to marry, let them go for it, it means absolutely nothing. Realize it is the end of the line for the legacy of their DNA in this universe. Adios mi pequenas mariposas!
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2011 at 10:40 pm
I'm SO glad I am hetero! I can meet some guy, kinda like him, decide to drive to Vegas and marry him, and divorce him a month later - that is my constitutional right, dammit! In fact, I can do that again and again and again....and again. My friends who are not lucky enough to be hetero, who have been in a committed relationship for 17 years - they would certainly threaten the very fabric of the universe if they were allowed to marry! And that they adopted two special needs foster children and are actually raising them together - I'm aghast!
Come on people - wake up and get over your homophobia. @Guy - "obey"? Seriously? Mrs. Guynextdoor must be one lucky woman...you are a real charmer.
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2011 at 7:44 am
I dunno, Chris -- I prefer to take what guidance there is in ancient Hebrew mythology from the New Testament.
Blessed are they who take the Sermon on the Mount seriously. I don't think you can categorically reject a whole group of fellow humankind on the basis of who they are, not what they do, and still find yourself in favor with your namesake.
To paraphrase Mr. Gandhi: I like your Jesus very much, but his followers need a lot of work.
Posted by Mike, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Like or not, gay people have been around as long as people have been here on earth. Alexander the Great, Aristotle, Socrates, Emperor Hadrian, Richard the Lionhearted, Saladin, Francis Bacon, Frederick the Great, Lord Byron, Walt Whitman, Cole Porter, Leonard Bernstein, Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Herman Melville, Tchaikovsky, Willa Cather, John M. Keynes, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, James I, Queen Anne, Marie Antoinette, Montezuma II, Peter the Great, St. Augustine, Sir Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare, Pope Benedict IX, Pope John XII, Pope Julius III, Pope Leo X, Pope Paul II, Pope Sixtus IV, Malcolm Forbes, J. Edgar Hoover, Lawrence of Arabia, Joan of Arc, Hans Christian Andersen, R.S.S. Baden-Powell…the list goes on.
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2011 at 6:43 pm
@Mike, What a distinguished list, are you on the list, as well? Which one of these distinguished members on the list married his homosexual partner? Is this not the actual question, not whether a few men in history pounded some passive sissies, but whether they had a public relationship with their homosexual partner? The sex drive is indeed powerful, but that does not mean you should be proud of all actions that stem from this drive, such as your self-satisfaction.
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 8, 2011 at 7:01 am
Observer -- where have you been for the last fifty years? You write as if you believe there's any shame in being gay ("are you on that list"), and you try to belittle others like a bully in the schoolyard ("passive sissies").
These statements expose you as a pathetic relic. They also provide a reminder of why the gay rights movement was, and is, important -- so thanks, at least for that.
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2011 at 10:31 am
@ Citizen Paine --- Yes, I do believe that you should have shame. Homosexuals and other perverts have mistakenly shed their shame, and now cloak themselves in the new age misbelief that there is actual pride in being "mixed-up" sexually, pretending to play the peverted game of legitimate sexual disorientation.
That is your business, but it is fruitless to convince me otherwise. As you say in your world, we must open and celebrate diversity. Therefore learn to celebrate and appreciate my diverse thought, as well. Thank you.
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2011 at 12:43 pm
So let's see: I should tolerate -- yea, even celebrate -- your intolerance? Is that really it?? Verily?
While I celebrate the fact that you are free to live Your life according to your beliefs (however retrograde and intolerant they may be -- I Don't Care), my tolerance stops well short of tacitly encouraging you to impose your beliefs on others, and curtail their access to opportunities that You enjoy. Your beliefs are Your private business -- but when they are misused to hurt other people, well, then they're my business, too.
The desire to withhold the full fruits of life in America from others, simply because they are they are, and love whom they love, is base, mean-spirited and ultimately unAmerican. The sexuality of a gay person is as innate to them as yours is to you.
Using epithets like "pervert" in an attempt to drive folks back into abandoned closets is pathetic. That space is available to you, however, should you need to cloister yourself from the ways of the actual world.
Indeed, Ob, there IS a place for shame, and you're in it.
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Then you missed the point. It's there, I assure you.
One Mo' Time: You've maybe heard the phrase: "Your right to swing your arms ends at my nose?" Well, similarly, I am completely tolerant of your swinging, knuckle-dragging beliefs (as diversity suggests), unless you impose them on Other People's Business. I don't care how you feel about gays or anyone else -- unless you use those beliefs to exclude them from rights you enjoy. You are utterly unaffected if two other people marry, yet you want them excluded from that right.
There's a word for that, but it's not "diversity."
The American Dream is not friendly to status offenses -- they offend our sense of fair-play and opportunity. Yet sometimes groups have to fight for recognition as equal participants, as here. It's a hard fight, but it's also worth fighting, and winning. Prop 8 is rasping its last breaths, and good riddance.
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2011 at 6:09 pm
@ Citizen Paine --- There is absolutely no discrimation with the current marriage law in California, all homosexuals in California have the right to marry, certainly if they choose to abide by the definition of marriage.
Homosexuals though seem to have difficulty with defined term of marriage. Thus homosexuals are interested in changing the definition of marriage to include two people of identical gender.
Try all you like, spermatozoa and feces do not mix very well, and never will they create life. Homosexuality is thus a dead-end (pardon the poor pun).
If you want to walk down the aisle with your boyfriend that is your business. I am not stopping you, nor is the state of California.
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2011 at 7:49 pm
You know what's most laughably ironic? It's the adolescent fixation of Prop 8ers on the mechanics of sex acts -- acts that are already legal, and widely performed by consenting, card-carrying adults, gays and breeders alike.
Bulletin to Ob: marriage is Not about those mechanics. Your comments suggest that you have no idea what it Does entail. You have squandered the rights you would deny to others.
If you would like to test your legal opinion, try sending your gay nephew and His BF to apply for a CA marriage license. They are likely to hear: "Not yet."
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2011 at 8:21 pm
@ Citizen Paine --- Homosexual sodomy was formally legalized in the United States in 2003 by the U.S. Supreme Court, Lawrence vs. Texas (6-3). You are free to explore your sexual perversions, but not everyone has to agree with you lifestyle, most don't.
P.S. I do not have a homosexual nephew, both of them have beautiful, gorgeous knock-out girlfriends, leaving no room for doubt. Besides, homosexuality would not be allowed in our family or our extended family. That is just the way it is, but you are certainly free to live in your manner, disgusting as it may be in my mind.
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2011 at 8:57 pm
"Not allowed" ... oh my, that's rich. C'mon, you're just baiting me now, aren't you? Please?
Let's try something: can you conceive of a world in which you were "not allowed" to acknowledge your own sexuality, where you were told by folks whom you love and should be able to trust that there was something fundamentally wrong or evil in your biological make-up? Can you imagine the fear, frustration, self-loathing and misery you would experience?
Now, can you conceive of being so cruel that you would intentionally visit such misery on another human being, let along someone you love?
Ob, I sincerely hope that you don't have anyone who's gay in your life -- not for your sake, but for theirs. But know that if you don't, it's an accident of genetics and not Any thing to do with what you will "allow" or what someone chooses as a "lifestyle."
Tell me, when did you "choose" your heterosexuality? If you didn't (and you didn't), why can't you accept that others didn't choose it either -- they're just different from you?
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Citizen Paine claims that people who broach the subject of the “homosexual act”, that is the mixture of spermatozoa and feces must be adolescently fixated heterosexuals. However, after watching an episode of Monk this evening, I figured it out. Homosexuals just do not like to be reminded of their disgusting act, so they claim that the person doing the reminding must be fixated, transferring their personal sexual guilt to the speaker as a diversion, thereby avoiding to think graphically for a sustained period of time about their repulsive act. Case closed. Thanks Monk!
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 12, 2011 at 8:11 pm
CP - you know I adore you....but you are casting your pearls before swine here. Swine distracted with a fixation on an act they deem "disgusting" and "repulsive" and yet seem to revel in it nontheless.