In response to:

Plaintiffs in gay marriage case wed in SF, LA

pgaruccio Wrote: Jun 29, 2013 11:07 AM
If the elevation of gays to equal status is what brings about a nation to lose its moral compass, then you can always go to Iran and Russia who are bastions of morality apparently.
Marcos464 Wrote: Jun 29, 2013 3:12 PM
No, your first instinct was correct. It makes total sense, but the real goals of the militant left would not be achieved with the wholly fair and equal proposition I proposed. The goals require the re-definition of marriage which few, if any far leftist, are willing to admit to.

I have already explained in other posts how this redefinition will ultimately affect others negatively. You can be in denial of what I have said but you can't refute it.
MudontheTires Wrote: Jun 29, 2013 2:42 PM
"Russia and Iran persecute homosexuals. Is this what you want?"

Since when is refusing to change the definition of marriage "persecution"?

You progs think that just becsause the rest of us refuse to let you alter America to suit you you are being "persecuted'?

Grow up.
MudontheTires Wrote: Jun 29, 2013 2:39 PM
"then you can always go to Iran and Russia who are bastions of morality apparently. "

Why should "WE" go anywhere? Why don't you and your freakish ilk go somewhere where a minority forces its will on the majorty?

Iam7 Wrote: Jun 29, 2013 2:38 PM
Russia and Iran persecute homosexuals. Is this what you want?
MudontheTires Wrote: Jun 29, 2013 2:23 PM
"WHY should gays settle for anything less than being able to do what their fellow straight citizens can do?"

Becasuse gays aren't doing what most of us do anyway, which is NOT engaging in sodomy.

"HOW does this "undermine" straight marriage"

Because it changes the definition of marriage(1 man & 1 woman) to ANYTHING GOES. You don';t want to deal with this reality, but that's your problem.

TeaPartyJones Wrote: Jun 29, 2013 12:22 PM
"f you mean equal benefits under the law that could have been achieved without a push to redefine marriage to something other than what it has been understood to mean in this country since its founding, but that would not have suited the far left agenda to undermine the traditional marriage"

This might make sense if.....naah, never mind. There's no way this could make sense. But there are two points here in refutation of this: 1) WHY should gays settle for anything less than being able to do what their fellow straight citizens can do? And 2) HOW does this "undermine" straight marriage? I hear this all the time. I don't know; it hasn't affected MY marriage at all. Do you think some straight marriages are going to crumble? That somewhere in the world there are two straight people who were on the brink of getting married who are now saying, "you know what? Because gays can get married, let's not go through with this". That some children are going to become gay who wouldn't otherwise?
Marcos464 Wrote: Jun 29, 2013 11:15 AM
What does that even mean? Equal status? If you mean equal benefits under the law that could have been achieved without a push to redefine marriage to something other than what it has been understood to mean in this country since its founding, but that would not have suited the far left agenda to undermine the traditional marriage.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The four plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned California's same-sex marriage ban tied the knot Friday, just hours after a federal appeals court freed gay couples to obtain marriage licenses in the state for the first time in 4 1/2 years.

Attorney General Kamala Harris presided at the San Francisco City Hall wedding of Kris Perry and Sandy Stier as hundreds of supporters looked on and cheered. The couple sued to overturn the state's voter-approved gay marriage ban along with Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, who married at Los Angeles City Hall 90 minutes later...