Please point out any conclusive evidence that they are not born that way.

Wait so you are saying they think they should allowed to be married against current moral society wishes simply based on an unscientific fact that they think they are born gay and have a "right" to be married because they didnt CHOSE to be gay? WOW just wow I really hope thats not the argument they will bring before the Supreme Court.

Please point out any conclusive scientific study that says homosexuals were'nt born that way, and not resulted from the product of their environment.

Hahahaha and as I've predicted, the typical liberal "who are you to.." argument. That just shuts down any attempt at intelligent debate. You're right, science and society don't know dick. You're also probably stupid enough to believe in moral and cultural relativism so you can use that as an excuse to do anything you want.. Too funny.

Tom, you're used to being called stupid but really? You want me to prove a negative to you? The burden of proof is on you because there hasn't been any studies that prove homosexuality is anything other than a choice. I made a mistake by typing to you now I feel dumber, my mistake.

whatever man the people spoke, and they don't want gays getting married. if they believe in the bible or not i haven't a clue.

Hell no man because anyone who opposes same sex marriages are bigots/religious fanatics/KKK members!!!

Did the straights have to scientifically prove they were born a certain way before marriage was granted to them? Why do straights feel they have a "right" to marry? Who the fuck do you think you are? Suck a cock homophobe.

There's nothing "wow" about it. Your sides' premise is faulty. You've never seen someone you knew was gay before they told you? hah.

Now you're catching on. Fuck, there may be hope for you yet.

You're wrong. The burden of proof is on you to prove a person is not a citizen deserving of rights because........... blank. Jackass. Done with you now, you didnt deserve the attention.

Ironic that you're asking someone who the fuck they are, while making hilarious arguments regarding the normality of straight people and the alleged normality of homosexuals. You are one stupid child, thanks for the laughs. I'll use your logic. Who the fuck are you to insult someone for believing in the sanctity of marriage and the normality of heterosexuality!!

http://www.galilean-library.org/site...rden-of-proof/

Educate yourself you moron.

This whole thread is pointless. Who cares if the judge is gay? Calling him out on that is pushing it, even for me. He made what I think is an objective decision, because I doubt he would compromise his oath for his personal beliefs. We who don't agree with it will just look forward to the tough battle in the Supreme Court. The end.

So reinstate the ban then. Fine by me.

Of course, if that ban is going to mean anything at all, everyone must prove they don't spread AIDS, they haven't undergone a sex change, and that they've never had a homosexual thought in their life. If they are discovered later to have had a homosexual thought, their marriage is instantly nullified and they should do time in prison. That's fair.

We can start by arresting all the ass-pumpers that are also priests.

you are wrong...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ound-gay-gene/

from your favorite news outlet...

also, how do you explain homosexual behavior in animals? and i am not talking about dogs that mount each other to show domination, i am talking about stallions that will not mate and will only get aroused mounting other male horses..

you talk a lot of shit, but you never seem to be able to back that lip service up with any facts..

i will be off fucking your mother in the ass for the next few minutes, but i shall return to do battle with you if you wish...

\

.

Another jackass with no understanding of burden of proof. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I stopped at the title because it proved my point and made you look stupid. Notice the question mark at the end? That indicates a question. Notice what the word conclusively means? Probably not. Even if I were to ignore all that, the irony is that you ignore fox news unless it possibly supports your views..You're just as dumb as Tom:)

Wtf?

I-R-O-N-Y

The voters the state of California collectively decided that same sex marriage should not be allowed in their state.

Federal marriage rights are only afforded between a man and a woman, ostensibly based on the preservation of procreation.

Since homosexuals cannot procreate between two people of the SAME sex they should not be afforded the rights and protections of marriage.

Burden of proof? LOL... You want gay marriage to be illegal. Did you forget what illegal means since this morning? If it's illegal, then there must be penalties, otherwise it's just "frowned upon". Like masturbating in a plane. (Thanks Bin Laden.)

No penalties, no law. Therefore, my suggestion makes perfect rational sense. If a man & woman are married and he later comes out of the closet, he must be punished. Gays can't marry. He is a criminal.

no wonder it went through ... I blame Obama Hussein bin laden and his socialist demonic followers

So are you against infertile heterosexuals or those past menopause from marrying?

Confused about negative burden of proof yet again? And I think you should stop using the word rational, seeing as how you have no concept of rationality. Please continue humoring us.


Edit: Since I have to dumb yet another down for you, let me demonstrate. Now if I was to use your logic and the incompetence of Tom, I would say "You're an idiot, prove me wrong!!" That also translates to "Prove that you're NOT an idiot". Comprende, champ?

It wasn't that long ago that there were laws (in the United States) that stated people of different races were not allowed to marry. 16 states had those laws up to 1967.

Virginia was one of them. In 1959 a white man and a black woman (who had been married in the District of Columbia) were arrested as they slept in their home and were convicted of a felony, getting one year in prison with the sentence suspended for 25 years so long as the couple left the State. The presiding judge stated this at the trial;

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The couple moved to D.C. and filed a motion that eventually reached the Supreme Court and in 1967 Loving vs Virginia stated that race-based legal restrictions on marriage was unconstitutional, in a 9-0 vote.

Not that long ago, less than a lifetime in fact, and people were not being granted, what the Supreme Court decided, was their constitutional rights. I hope this case ends the same as Loving...cause the world could use as much Loving as it can get nowadays!

I shall. And I shall continue asking you rhetorical questions that you can't answer in any way other than by put downs.

And I shall continue destroying your pseudo logic while you dodge rebuttals and resort to off topic discussions.:winkwink:

Then we're on the same page here. But I'm going bowling now. Later D.

I was born straight and turned gay by my surroundings.

indeed. we could even go further and help provide fostering and adoption services for these families for all the children not caught up in the 'sanctity of marriage'

:1orglaugh if they were all of those none of it is illegal.

hahahaha

Personally I dont give a fuck who marries whom. My personal preference is not the issue, but I would probably vote like most of those in California did. I do not think homosexuals MUST have this "pseudo right" they dont really care in my opinion. The reason they want this law struck down is so they can "feel" less discriminated against.
Everyone faces discrimination of one sort or another, every single social group, it simply is inevitable but just more apparent when you are in a minority social group.

Shut up fudge packer.

Cambaby and Demon. Thanks for making my ignore list grow. Your in perfect company.

No problem. I realized your intelligence level when you told someone to "preach somewhere else", because you didn't agree with him, while ignoring everyone else who was preaching who agreed with you. Great job dumbass.:thumbsup:thumbsup

I am glad I am on "your" ignore list, considering I am the only one between the two of us that knows the proper usage of that word.

You've made plenty of typos too. Should we point them out?
Location: CR

Czech Republic? Or "crazy republican"?
If it's crazy republican then your posts make sense. If it's Czech, then why the fuck do you care about California gays?

According to Amputate, if it doesn't affect you, you shouldn't care. What a simplistic and ignorant view on life. Btw, still pretending that you're going to leave the house?

People in other countries shouldn't care.

I am leaving the house. Going bowling. Wife is fixing her hair so I'm entertaining you some more. That's what you asked for isn't it D?

Homosexual federal judge overturns the will of the majority of Californian voters and thats not violation of their rights? Hello.. Lets start with 101.

i like packed fudge it's on sale at walgreens. :)

Splain me what "rights" the judge "violated" of those poor majority voters. I want to know exactly which rights were trampled.

:) let him be gay

Perhaps you would reply to my earlier post
http://gofuckyourself.com/showpost.p...7&postcount=99

will of the majority of voters is free money

is it a violation of their rights not to start the printing presses?

Perhaps YOU would reply to my earlier post...
http://gofuckyourself.com/showpost.p...7&postcount=99

homemade is waaaaaaaaaaaaay better. :pimp

If you read the thread you will see that I do concede there is a precedent with Jim Crow laws, but I would argue that those laws were ill conceived and poorly written in the first place. Also you are under the assumption that homosexuals must be born gay just as blacks are born with darkly pigmented skin and based on that you draw the comparison? Really you cannot compare the two issues unless you base it on the fact that homosexuals are born gay, and frankly you cannot prove that and the burden of proof if you use that argument is on you.

this is going to get heated fast. :2 cents: "conflict of interest" :2 cents:

Thought experiment:

Take a sample of 100 abstinent men, they live and die choosing to never have sex with anyone. How many of them are gay?