tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.comments2023-06-15T06:23:17.974-04:00OneMan-OneWoman.orgLouis J. Marinellihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15308380959526067415noreply@blogger.comBlogger1040125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-24759330423368073812012-05-08T22:35:54.913-04:002012-05-08T22:35:54.913-04:00i didnt realize that wanting equal rights as a gay...i didnt realize that wanting equal rights as a gay person is an "agenda"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-82558487108135581012012-04-02T14:59:31.231-04:002012-04-02T14:59:31.231-04:00Give the homosexuals the right to marry, and all p...Give the homosexuals the right to marry, and all people in their right mind will be happy. Denying them of this right is just medieval thinking.class action lawyerhttp://www.aogllp.com/class-action-attorney-californianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-83687842138364093342011-10-17T15:45:44.640-04:002011-10-17T15:45:44.640-04:00You guys so ignorant and pathetic to think this ar...You guys so ignorant and pathetic to think this article can hold water.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-63280855430379102072010-10-29T21:27:00.832-04:002010-10-29T21:27:00.832-04:00Problems with the studies included:
Poor sampling...Problems with the studies included:<br /><br />Poor sampling (white middles class lesbians who had all been previously married)<br /><br />Poor observation (the studies relied on self-reporting from the mothers who volunteered for the study. Geem do you think that gay moms who volunteered for this "study" might be inclined to report in their favor?)<br /><br />Was the study longitudinal?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-13433994635867328872010-10-23T12:29:15.476-04:002010-10-23T12:29:15.476-04:00Patrick,
Please let me know which photo you are r...Patrick,<br /><br />Please let me know which photo you are referring to as I do not know.Louis J. Marinellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308380959526067415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-87633206429581666582010-10-23T12:11:28.324-04:002010-10-23T12:11:28.324-04:00Louis I would like to know why my photo along with...Louis I would like to know why my photo along with those of my friends have appeared on your website and to what purpose. I have not given you permission to use my photo on your site. Incidently the photo was still up even though I had purposefully "unliked" your facebook group and found myself having to dislike again on this site.<br /><br />I repeat you have no right to use my personal information and property for your own ends without my permission which I have not given to you.PatrickBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-87195166703431716382010-10-23T08:13:24.157-04:002010-10-23T08:13:24.157-04:00Because everyone knows, Louis, that heterosexual c...Because everyone knows, Louis, that heterosexual couples mate for life, right? There's no such thing as divorce in the heterosexual world of marriage. Oh, wait, that's right. Heterosexual marriages split up in the United States nearly, what is it, 50% of the time.<br /><br />Please remember your words when you want to talk about splitting up. "It is precisely the ability of human beings to understand the difference between right and wrong, paired with our conscience, which makes us unique from the members of the greater animal kingdome." <br /><br />The truth of the matter is this: Human beings get together for all sorts of reasons, attraction being one of the biggest. Those pairings may last an entire lifetime or they may not. But just because those pairings are not opposite sex pairings is no reason for you or those of your ilk to say that those pairings are abnormal or not equal. They are. And having children is NOT the ONLY reason for those pairings. How many times do you need to have that said before you get it???JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057132276008655913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-38121066586453475372010-10-23T08:11:29.531-04:002010-10-23T08:11:29.531-04:00On the link below you will find many reasons, fact...On the link below you will find many reasons, facts and evidence exposing how the gay movement is Attacking our Cultural, Fiscal, Political & Judicial Systems.<br /><br /><br />Article: http://fedupjeff-protectmorality.blogspot.com/fedupjeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923042937734514558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-47123965065226969972010-10-21T15:35:58.873-04:002010-10-21T15:35:58.873-04:00PLEASE TAKE NOTE:
what would you proud parents do ...PLEASE TAKE NOTE:<br />what would you proud parents do when you find out that your child IS gay and wants to get married!<br />Think about it and then....get over yourself!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-3889402300109319772010-10-21T10:31:18.242-04:002010-10-21T10:31:18.242-04:00Louis,
Please finish the sentence you wrote.
&qu...Louis,<br /><br />Please finish the sentence you wrote.<br /><br />"And certainly there is a difference between a ban on interracial marriage, which was centered upon the notion of White supremacy, and a ban on same-sex marriage", 'which is based on the notion of religious supremacy.'<br /><br />"Permitting same-sex marriage dramatically changes the institution of marriage itself."<br /><br />No, it does not. It simply does not. It will in no way, shape, or form reduce the number of heterosexual couples who will be married. It will in no way, shape, or form hinder the state's ability to provide marriage benefits, rights, responsibilities, and incentives to heterosexual couples. It will in no, way, shape or form result in heterosexual men marrying one another or heterosexual women marrying one another unless they wish to be deceptive enough to commit fraud.<br /><br />In fact, marriage was historically a monogamous union that didn't discriminate based on gender in ancient Rome. Before Rome, there was no "marriage". Even in Jewish/Christian culture, their unions were polygynous.<br /><br />Please just admit it, Louis, and stop skirting around the issue. The reason you have a problem with gay marriage is because you have a problem with gay love. <br /><br />Given your escalating language and your recent article on instances of same-gender sexuality in the animal kingdom, it is becoming even more obvious that you have a problem with gay people.<br /><br />Trust me. Admitting this will in no way, shape, or form alter our perceptions of you.<br /><br />Best wishes to you. I only wish that you would extend to me the same sentiments, especially on the day when I, a man, marry the man I love.<br /><br />-RJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-79967491455321145322010-10-21T06:15:17.646-04:002010-10-21T06:15:17.646-04:00Loving,
Please finish the sentence you cite. &quo...Loving,<br /><br />Please finish the sentence you cite. "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."<br /><br />Just how does same-sex marriage fit into that. I see how you conveniently cherry-picked the part that helps your cause but how does two people of the same sex play into our very existence and survival. It's clear that that means procreation.<br /><br />And certainly there is a difference between a ban on interracial marriage, which was centered upon the notion of White supremacy, and a ban on same-sex marriage.<br /><br />Allowing the races to freely marry amongst themselves did not change the fundamental definition of marriage. You still have/had one man and one woman.<br /><br />Permitting same-sex marriage dramatically changes the institution of marriage itself.Louis J. Marinellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308380959526067415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-38226844725759117122010-10-21T04:44:16.640-04:002010-10-21T04:44:16.640-04:00"Same-sex marriage is not a right and marriag..."Same-sex marriage is not a right and marriage itself has been regulated throughout time..."<br /><br />In the case of Loving v. Virginia, 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a decision which explicitly stated that the right to marry is a "basic civil right of man". <br /><br />In situations wherein a basic civil right is being denied to a group of persons, regardless whether such a right is denied by explicit exclusion of the infringed group or by the restrictions which the government imposes on the exercise of that right, which is here homosexuals, then the government must provide a compelling state interest to deny the people their freedom. <br /><br />Conservatives would have you believe that the compelling state interest in denying homosexuals the right to marry is procreation, or the "propagation of society" as some have called it, as is evident in the numerous benefits granted married couples. <br /><br />This claim can be easily countered by the fact we do not require increased procreation of children, we require increased welfare of children. There were at the end of 2009 over 118,000 children in the foster care system, not yet adopted and still waiting for care. Thus marriage cannot be denied on the basis of procreation.<br /><br />Conservatives will then say that gays make for bad parents. But in the overwhelming majority of studies conducted and verified by accredited psychological and medical institutions, there has been no compelling evidence to suggest that same-sex couples are any less capable than opposite couples in providing care for children and raising them well and healthily.<br /><br />Therefore the denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples is unjustified, and it is a violation of the equal protection clause.Lovinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-31275182839422558222010-10-20T16:19:34.989-04:002010-10-20T16:19:34.989-04:00Louis wrote: However, marriage is a contract to w...Louis wrote: However, marriage is a contract to which the government is a party. The government is "of the people, for the people and by the people", thus, the people have a say in the terms of said contract. <br /><br />You keep making this assertion, Louis. In fact, you once specifically asserted that you were a party to my own marriage contract.<br /><br />Yet, your name and signature appear nowhere on the paperwork my husband and I received from the government.<br /><br />You're wrong, Louis. Period.<br /><br />Bless your heart.<br /><br />Fiona64Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-21745628274663909172010-10-20T16:16:15.398-04:002010-10-20T16:16:15.398-04:00Um, Louis? I don't know whether scientific me...Um, Louis? I don't know whether scientific method was taught to you, but reading a number of books intended for the layperson and then pretending that there is any kind of sampling (let alone a convenience sample) for "meta-analyis" as Schumm claims in this paper?<br /><br />That ain't it.<br /><br />Where's the control sample from an equal number of families with straight children, Louis? I'm just asking ... because when I attended university, this would have been a required part of the scientific method.<br /><br />Bless your heart, Louis.<br /><br />Fiona64Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-88118118971331903612010-10-20T06:32:05.692-04:002010-10-20T06:32:05.692-04:00If this bullshit is true where did the gays from t...If this bullshit is true where did the gays from the previous generation come from? Gay parents are no more apt to raise gay children than straight parents. It is not something that is learned. God made you the way you are. Homophobia is learned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-61841302778449766982010-10-19T16:20:46.909-04:002010-10-19T16:20:46.909-04:00"It’s clear as day that America’s moral compa..."It’s clear as day that America’s moral compass has been knocked around and the calibration has since been thrown off."<br /><br />No, Louis. YOUR moral view of America has been thrown off. Believe it or not, the religious right does not hold a monopoly over morality. This is especially true when recognizing that your religious beliefs are those of a social order, not a moral order, in labeling amoral actions as moral or immoral and placing upon them rewards or consequences.<br /><br />I ask you one thing and I ask it VERY politely: Keep your household religion in your household where it belongs. Keep it out of my household, where I am gladly and appropriately holding the man I love in my arms, causing you no real or measurable harm according to my own religious beliefs.<br /><br />-RJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-4362814473171244952010-10-19T14:13:13.952-04:002010-10-19T14:13:13.952-04:00This study does not confirm anything about the lik...This study does not confirm anything about the likelihood of being gay given being raised by same-sex parents.<br /><br />Let me repeat that: <br /><br />This study does not confirm ANYTHING about the likelihood of being gay given being raised by same-sex parents.<br /><br />For an explanation of why, read this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400<br /><br />To summarize (though you really should follow the link and read the explanation in full), this study's claims aren't based off of any actual sample data, or the analysis from sets from different other studies, but off of personal accounts of growing up with same-sex couples as published in *books*.<br /><br />In other words, this is completely and absolutely unscientific, and it confirms absolutely nothing.zortnacnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-22191965217457972702010-10-18T18:14:46.420-04:002010-10-18T18:14:46.420-04:00Had I listed other reasons to oppose Barbara Boxer...Had I listed other reasons to oppose Barbara Boxer you'd ask: What does this have to do with marriage? Oh wait, someone did ask that. <br /><br />Therefore, my answer was tailored to link this article to the issue of marriage.Louis J. Marinellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308380959526067415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-10920239652716384152010-10-18T18:11:22.389-04:002010-10-18T18:11:22.389-04:00Louis is a puppet, a robot stuck on one response a...Louis is a puppet, a robot stuck on one response and one response only. No amount of reasoning with him in any logical manner will reach him because he is programmed to respond one way only.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057132276008655913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-16432245750450830042010-10-18T18:07:36.806-04:002010-10-18T18:07:36.806-04:00So you're not targeting someone because of any...So you're not targeting someone because of anything other than their stance on same-sex marriage? Here we go again with the apples to lard balls comparisons. If they're for same-sex marriage, they must be bad for the rest of the human population, therefore don't vote for them. Louis, your logical thought process must have been short-circuited at birth.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057132276008655913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-69226291318770380272010-10-17T23:48:26.056-04:002010-10-17T23:48:26.056-04:00If I tell you that water is wet and then tell you ...If I tell you that water is wet and then tell you that grass is pink, would you take my word for it that grass is pink because, obviously water is wet? I realize that this is an exaggerated scenario that I present but, it proves the point. <br /><br />Personally, I don't discredit Dr. Paul Cameron on every single level (I haven't seen every one of his studies) but, logic dictates that at least 1 of his studies has been completely discredited due to the method by which he used to mine the data. It's possible that he wasn't aware of the logic flaw while mining the data.<br /><br />Having said that, I will point you to my own personal story and allow you to decide for yourself what it means. <br /><br />I self identified as heterosexual up until the age of about 20. This isn't to say that I was actually heterosexual at all, in fact quite the opposite. However, I was taught to be ashamed of a fact that I knew about myself for as long as I can remember. <br /><br />I was raised by 2 heterosexual parents. According to this study, I would fall under the heterosexual raised by heterosexual category (if that data was even mined).<br /><br />Had I been raised by parents who were gay, I might have easily been less likely to deny who I was and therefore, I would have fit under the category of homosexual raised by homosexuals. <br /><br />This is not to say that I blame my parents at all. They are very loving and supportive today but, how were they to know that my openness about who I was had been stifled by their lack of understanding? <br /><br />Even today there are adults who self identify as heterosexual who we are finding out later had been closeted and secretly going behind their wives backs to get their jollies. <br /><br />I submit that, if society were more inclusive of LGBT people, those instances of torn apart families would decrease exponentially.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-82430971731400727912010-10-16T17:32:31.492-04:002010-10-16T17:32:31.492-04:00Louis, I just love the way you totally disregard c...Louis, I just love the way you totally disregard certain things and try to make other things out to be that way for only ONE group of people. Entering into a relationship is a choice made by both homosexuals AND heterosexuals. No one forces the other party into a relationship and no one forces the other party, under the laws we have nowadays, into a marriage.<br /><br />And nothing about what Justice Kennedy said in his opinion for Lawrence v. Texas says anything about same-sex marriage, no matter how you try to spin it. It's just too bad that so many will read your commentary, mistakes in grammar and spelling and all, and think you have a legal point, when all you have is a comparison of apples to lard balls.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057132276008655913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-36636571842988379992010-10-15T19:27:19.405-04:002010-10-15T19:27:19.405-04:00Barbara Boxer is one of the 14 Senators who voted ...Barbara Boxer is one of the 14 Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and we are targeting her this election as she is a strong supporter of same-sex marriage while her opponent, Carly Fiorina, is a strong advocate for preserving marriage between a man and a woman.Louis J. Marinellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308380959526067415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-49484728943503073422010-10-15T19:12:06.833-04:002010-10-15T19:12:06.833-04:00What does this have to do with marriage?What does this have to do with marriage?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-76682449139215965092010-10-10T20:31:12.436-04:002010-10-10T20:31:12.436-04:00"Those benefits were established in hopes to ..."Those benefits were established in hopes to encourage and assist in, the creation of a family."<br /><br />That's a totally bogus argument. The creation of a family is not a requirement of marriage...you know that and I know that...so let's simply drop it..because it doesn't fly. <br /><br />"Therefore, you can't say that your homosexuality "negates" you from being eligible. It's the person you see to marry that negates your eligibility.<br /><br />And that's wrong, and I can't believe you won't admit that. Just as it was wrong to tell, a person he or she could not marry someone of another race. It's a bias based not in reason but in bigotry.<br /><br />"The same thing would happen to me if I sought to marry someone while I was currently married, although separated."<br /><br />So...you're comparing marriage equality to bigamy?<br /><br />"The same thing would happen to me if I sought to marry a close-blood relative.<br /><br />And now you compare marriage equality to incest?<br /><br />"The same thing would happen to me if I sought to marry a child (in this country)"<br /><br />And you compare marriage equality to pedophilia? Gosh Louis...thanks...and yet you keep saying you don't hold any prejudices against homosexuals. Why do I not believe that?<br /><br />"There are regulations and eligibility requirements for marriage and if you meet them, regardless of your sexual orientation you will be permitted to marry."<br /><br />NOT TRUE...I meet all the requirements for marriage...but because of my sexual orientation not "regardless of it" I am NOT permitted to marry...unless you are suggesting that gay men and women enter into sham marriages to heterosexuals,or that lesbians should marry gay men and vice versa if they want to get married? Well that certainly blows the "sanctity of marriage" argument right out the window doesn't it?Taylornoreply@blogger.com