Common law husband, yes. Not sure on the specifics as to what aspects of their relationship defined it as common law, but it doesn't sound as though they intended to be together, it was more for convenience of some sort.

The article states she came here with her 'common law' husband...using his last name upon entry.

I am neither for or against same sex marriage. What I am for is the implementation of current laws. If they are in violation, get them out of here. If everyone one who broke the law, any law, was allowed a free pass while the current law is being changed, we would have complete and total chaos. We are almost there now I think ! This is like saying anyone can come to our country with the idea that they can just sit and wait for them to change the law to their liking all the while breaking the existing law.

Roger--she was married LEGALLY--then they changed the law again making her marriage illegal--and now they're appealing to change the law back to the way it was when she was LEGALLY married.

Confusing, isn't it?

"This can end now if the Obama administration uses the power of the executive branch to implement remedies to protect our families until DOMA is gone.”....

Why is this power not demanded or ever used for traditional families? They have been asking it for years to no avail. What makes you more special than others?

There are traditional families with 6 to 10 kids who are always deported and nothing is done, why would the president use his executive power for a same sex couple instead of a family of 12?

I would call that double standards or reverse discrimination to be honest....

No hate...just wondering

...and yet I keep hearing the stupid remark "What equal rights are they seeking? Special rights?" If your legal spouse were foreign and being imported, wouldn't you demand your rights under an umbrella that "same rights for all" would cover?

The suit joins several others targeting DOMA, the federal law banning same-sex marriages, including one filed by binational gay couples in New York. The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to take up two of those cases: one originating in Massachusetts and another in California, according to scotusblog.

Yep, since this Administration refuses to uphold DOMA, send it to the SCOTUS....a decision will be forthcoming AFTER the Presidential election.

I think some of the people above think that if you marry a US citizen you automatically become a citizen yourself. That is not true for a lot of reasons. The spouse must apply for citizenship and be accepted. This is a long process and the spouse stays in their country of origin during the process. She came into the country illegally and for this reason must leave and then start the process.

@ItIsWhat....You have it completely backwards. The state would have to show compelling interest to NOT grant gay marriage.

No she was never married - she had a common law marriage to a man. She lied about her last name when she entered the USA. She then starting living with a women in 1992 - does not say they are married. In some States they consider common law marriage after 7 years. I think it's an easy way to get citizenship.

All these foolish law suits bog down the courts and waste taxpayers money.

Well hey, look at this new one. Lawyers involved. MSNBC news. More suffering by gays who need lawyers, lesbians who need lawyers, and those in gay marriages ... who also need lawyers. More problems trying to be in-your-face homosexual; need to file suit ... need a lawyer for that. Who would have thought eh? And more work for lawyers. Didn't they hire a lawyer for a pre-nup in either marriage? After all, marriage is redefined as simply a temporary sexual relationship bounded by legal contract (lawyers needed). Thousands of years of a static social norm until WE the enlightened ones discovered that homosexuality is a protected state (by lawyers)! Perhaps changing all of society for a few voters and to garner contributions from the elite of Hollywood is harder that you thought? But one thing sure: Need more lawyers to sustain this!

she enter this country under false pretenses so everything afterwards is moot, she should have never been allowed entry. US law only recognizes common-law marriage within the sovereign states, there is no law that allows a US citizen living abroad with a spouse to invoke common-law marriage to gain entry into the US for that spouse. the second marriage is invalid based upon her criminal illegal status. the story of course needs more details and less homosexual propaganda.

you have no right to marriage, this is not in the US constitution. you do have freedom of association and you can practice that as is. tax codes and other related laws based upon 'marriage' are unconstitutional to have based upon equal protections of law so if you homosexuals want to be together and love one another then nothing stops you as there is no law saying two of the same sex cannot engage in private relations. if you are a homosexual who wants the same 'perks' the federal government unconstitutionally gives out to heterosexual couple, well then you really do not want 'marriage' you want the 'easy money' and 'perks' not enjoyed by non married couples for yourself, narcissism.

if you need a 'piece of paper' and 'perks' to validate your 'love' for one another then you are not truly in love, just more users.

bottom line is she came in and has been illegal all this time. I for one am tired of those whom don't want to do it right and make us pay for their sneaking around. How hard is it to go ask for citizenship? I feel for those who have been here for years and have children whom are legal but parents aren't, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Do it right and you wouldn't have to worry.

I've been totally Deaf for 41 of my 51 years and, when I was in high school, they finally hired the first sign language interpreter.

My point is this: She was married to a man, later divorcing him and marrying another man. After the second union ended, she took up with a woman and they've been together longer than she and either of her husbands were.

I don't agree about homosexual marriage (it's not of God -- He made Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and a samesex union cannot do that). However, if a foreign lady marries an American and moves to this country, she can become a citizen, on those standards.

If she - having already become a U.S. citizen, later, decides to divorce, she is still a U.S. citizen and I don't see that as grounds to throw her out of the country.

Common Law ? Maybe recognized between states under the full faith and credit due to sister states, but not between foreign countries. Seems like a lie in the beginning got exposed and now a rhetorical argument under same sex marriage still only valid within the state but not outside and certainly not recognized under Federal law - is being cited for a alleged right under DOMA is a merit less suit. This is why our liberal president is trying to force the US SC to hear cases on gay marriage.

Lies and cheats being pushed by a lowbrawl president.

Agewithout wisdom

No you do not need to stay in your own country when you apply for citizenship or immigration status through your spouse. Your current VISA is frozen so it can not expire until the outcome of your immigration application is decided while you are in the US.

ItIsWhat!t!s, as opposed to the underhanded push by religion and conservatives to make abortion illegal, curtail voter rights, and keep gay marriage illegal?

The gay community hasn't presented a compelling state interest in gay marriage, they just want it cause heterosexuals have it.

It is the STATE which must present a compelling reason to discriminate, which no state (or the federal government) has.

And why shouldn't they "want it cause heterosexuals have it"? THAT'S WHAT EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW MEANS, "genius".

Heterosexuals can make babies, and even if they can't, that still doesn't excuse people who have fully functional reproductive systems and voluntarily choose to use them the wrong way.

What does making babies have to do with marriage?

And yet again, like so many ignorant bigots you confuse behavior with orientation. Furthermore, homosexuality is no more a "choice" than heterosexuality is -- or tell us when you chose to be heterosexual.

You can't procreate and it's going to probably more costly to have serrogates and IV, so what's the point in allowing gays to marry?

Again: what does procreation have to do with marriage? How is the cost of surrogacy or IVF any of YOUR business?

You're marriage has no biological functionality, so your basically asking the state to grant you rights, on the basis of self identification.

The marriages of infertile heterosexuals have no "biological functionality," and marriages of elderly people have no "biological functionality" -- except for their desires to commit to each other sexually, emotionally, and legally, just like homosexuals.

EPIC FAIL.

Jim: Actually, she was married to her current partner. Says it right in the beginning. They married in 2008 while it was still legal to do so in the state. Why would you comment on an article if you haven't read it?

The last thing we need is another illegal alien. GET OUT! If her so-called "spouse" wants to be with her she should move out of the country too.

But the enitre thing is an apparent scam. Illegal alien go home.

sandyk wrote- - How hard is it to go ask for citizenship?

It's a very long, expensive, and arduous process- -quite unlike the process our forefathers went through when they landed on Ellis Island, filled out some forms, and were citizens after a few classes and a swearing-in ceremony. I have some friends who legally immigrated here from the Phillipines, and it has taken them 12 long years to gain citizenship even though they have been working in the public sector on visas and have 2 children who are about to graduate from high school. None of them have so much a a speeding ticket. So, don't be so quick to condemn when you haven't gone thru the process.

Willing sniper- -I think the last thing we need is more people so filled with hate they're ready to tell the world that they're "willing snipers."

lilrkt.

You know ? I think I buy your argument.

IN fact, working for 20-30 years to get enough money to retire comfortably is also a "long, expensive, and arduous process" - I think I'll just break the law and steal. It's less of a long, expensive, and arduous process than working for it and doing it LEGALLLLLLLY.

Who says a spouse can't have 4 legs? We're in LOVE!

Heterosexuals can make babies, and even if they can't, that still doesn't excuse people who have fully functional reproductive systems and voluntarily choose to use them the wrong way.

There is not a single sex act that homosexual couples participate in that heterosexual couples do not also participate in. Go ahead, try to name one. I dare. Tell me one thing homosexual couples do that heterosexual couples do not also do.

(edited for double post)

Who says a spouse can't have 4 legs? We're in LOVE!

Legal consent. Look it up.

@ErinNJ

• And yet again, like so many ignorant bigots you confuse behavior with orientation. Furthermore, homosexuality is no more a "choice" than heterosexuality is -- or tell us when you chose to be heterosexual.

that is such a weak argument and frankly i'm getting tired of it. if it's true PROVE IT!!! because science has been unable to for the last 40 years....just sayin

 So Homeland security will continue to enforce DOMA (a stupid law) until Congress repeals it, but not existing immigration laws because a president tells them not to? Seems kind of crazy to me.

MGUY478 (post 1.26)

How about penile penetration of Vag. ?

Does this mean we can have law for infertile so it will be illegal for them to marry?

Marriage license was first introduced as a way to prevent inter-racial and inter-faith marriage. Look how far we have gotten. Why stop here?

Itiswhat!t!s-

You stated:

"Another underhanded push by gays to try and bully the federal government into permitting gay marriage. Any other case, and she'd be back in her homeland, but because of the "gay" it's national headline. Please. The gay community hasn't presented a compelling state interest in gay marriage, they just want it cause heterosexuals have it. Heterosexuals can make babies, and even if they can't, that still doesn't excuse people who have fully functional reproductive systems and voluntarily choose to use them the wrong way. hey gay community, human beings have a reproductive system, not a climax button.. You can't procreate and it's going to probably more costly to have serrogates and IV, so what's the point in allowing gays to marry? You're marriage has no biological functionality, so your basically asking the state to grant you rights, on the basis of self identification."

First off, that statement is just stupid. Unmarried heterosexual couples procreate like no tomorrow and not every heterosexual couple is procreate for whatever reason or they just don't have kids. Marriage isn't about procreation anymore, at least in this country. It's about marrying who you love and being together, regardless if there are kids going to be involved or not. Daughters aren't being sold into marriages (thank goodness, because I like having to choose and decide without worrying about getting an abusive boyfriend/husband). Why should anyone be denied those rights? Hell, my brother's wife has a biological mom who ended up as a lesbian. The kids are all doing just fine and all of them are in hetero relationships, so it hasn't affected them any. They're really nice and caring people too, like a few other gays/lesbians and bis I've met.

Tell me one thing homosexual couples do that heterosexual couples do not also do.

hey for a little fun and humor lets list all the sexual acts that both hetros and homos do lol you assume that all hetros engage in the same sexual practices that homos do. thats the farthest thing from the truth you can get but all homos do engage in the same sexual acts as there are only a few things you can do without the sexual toys from the opposite sex. we would be talking about either fallacio or intercourse, no sensual acts as they are not sexual in nature.

we as humans are perverse in our actions but dont assume that all are, just because all you read is black that there is nothing white to read. too often all we hear is the noise while ignoring the silence.

I am a single gay male with three adopted children at birth. I think she lied coming in, she needs to go out. Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong. Laws are Laws.

This doesn't really have anything to do with gay rights, but rather with illegal immigration. She probably thought that by entering the US using a false identity, she would automatically be granted citizenship. Not so.

Second, she is using her son now to gather sympathy saying he's going to be deported. ( How many times have we heard that before?)

Third, now she's claiming she's gay and "married a woman". Sure she isn't just saying that so she can stay in the country? Afterall, didn't she USE her commonlaw husband to gain access as well?

All of it, sounds pretty bad to me. She should never have been in the country to begin with.

She is in the U.S. Illegally, send her back. She was aware of her illegal status prior to this "marriage" so being married should not save her from being forcibly removed from the U.S.. If her partner chooses to follow her, that is her choice!

Excellent comment, ItIsWhat!t!s, ....you'll probably catch hell from the gay community, but the truth hurts!

This is not discrimination against homosexuals, so the gay rights activists can call off the protest and go home. This is about legal immigration and the law, pure and simple. Regardless of you sexual orientation, we still have laws that must be adhered to, do we not?

ItisWhat, Marriage has nothing to do with biology or reproduction. We are the only species on the planet who has marriages. In fact, most species don't practice monogamy. Only 3-5% of mammals. Yet, all species reproduce.

Marriage is about love and commitment, not reproduction. If people feel the need to 'defend marriage' so much, make infidelity a criminal offense.

that is such a weak argument and frankly i'm getting tired of it. if it's true PROVE IT!!! because science has been unable to for the last 40 years

If it's such a "weak argument," then prove YOUR claim that science has been "unable to" prove that sexual orientation is inborn.

OH, THAT'S RIGHT -- THERE IS NO SUCH PROOF.

US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics

• guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 December 2008 13.14 EST

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Such findings - including a highly anticipated study this winter - would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of California's recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that "schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys", suggesting homosexuality would then spread.

Some scientists say the political and moral debate over same-sex marriage frequently strayed from established scientific evidence, including comments by Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin that homosexuality is "a choice" and "a decision".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Now tell us when you chose to be heterosexual.

Stop extending special laws favoring or acknowledging queers and other freaks !!

What "special" laws would "favor" homosexuals, Johnny? You mean that treating them EQUALLY is "special" treatment or "favoring" them?

hey for a little fun and humor lets list all the sexual acts that both hetros and homos do lol you assume that all hetros engage in the same sexual practices that homos do. thats the farthest thing from the truth you can get but all homos do engage in the same sexual acts as there are only a few things you can do without the sexual toys from the opposite sex. we would be talking about either fallacio or intercourse, no sensual acts as they are not sexual in nature.

And heterosexuals engage in such acts more than homosexuals do.

Yes to Gay Rights -- I smell a re-reg of TrueLGBT. Same bull@!$%# posts as before. Reported.

This is not discrimination against homosexuals, so the gay rights activists can call off the protest and go home. This is about legal immigration and the law, pure and simple.

Yes, it IS about discrimination against homosexuals, because if the marriage had been recognized, there would be no talk of sending the other woman back to the Philippines.

Jeff

How about penile penetration of Vag. ?

I asked for a sexual act that HOMOSEXUALS participate in, and heterosexuals do not.

That is NOT something that homosexuals participate it.

Seriously, it's not a hard question. In fact, it's a surprisingly easy question, and you lack the intelligence to even understand it. That is basically a 3rd grade reading level question, and you FAILED at understanding it. How does that feel? How does it feel to FAIL at 3rd grade reading?

Jesus Christ... LEARN TO READ

Swag

you assume that all hetros engage in the same sexual practices that homos do

I never once said "all" heteros. LEARN TO READ

Why do conservatives like you FAIL at basic reading comprehension? Did you even go to school? How far did you get? 2nd grade... no, a 2nd grader can read better than you. What is it, preschool? Did you drop out at preschool?

I said: Name one sexual act (ex: oral, anal, etc.) that homosexual couples participate in, and heterosexual couples do not. Easy question. The word "all" does not appear ANYWHERE in that sentence.

So why did you add the word "all" when I did not write it? Because you know I AM RIGHT. And the only way to argue was to add a different word, that I never said, into the question. So you lied and deceived people, trying to make your point, because you knew I was right. Thanks for proving what type of person you are.

Swaggunut---You are wrong as usual...Sodomy and other things that homosexuals practice are against the law in many states and even municipalities....And in alot of other countries..Since the founding of this "FREE" country there have been laws made against "FREEDOM" and we even recognized slavery which to me seems very anti "FREEDOM"......But maybe that's just me since I am not a White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-Male I guess I see "FREEDOM" differently and I am biased...I think "FREEDOM" means being free to do whatever you want with your own body as long as you are not harming others or infringing on their "FREEDOM" like pushing your religion on them like a Hare-Krishna or Mooney at the airport in the seventies.....But like I said that's just little old me, I guess "FREEDOM" is really free to be a White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-Male and stay within the parameters laid out by your pastor and obey your husband or be lashed for not.......And God forbid if you want to use the modern family planning methods,you should be burned at the stake for that(Oh yeah we did that too,while they were whipping humans down south for not working hard enough the holier than though crowd in the north was burning women at the stake for being witches) and the truth is the same people with the same thinking are alive and well and trying to do what they can get away with along these lines today...That is their brand of "FREEDOM" free to own slaves...Which they do, you see they hang ICE over the heads of their employees just like the whip of the days gone by...I have personally seen PAT'S PIZZA in DE and MD operate slave quarters in deplorable conditions and if anyone living in the supplied housing talks they will be immediately deported....Their paychecks are given to the "SLAVE DRIVER" and those checks are in dead people's names and they are cashed by him and he feeds and houses the "SLAVES" and gives them a few dollars that they can do what they want with the rest is kept save for a portion paid back to PAT'S owner as a kickback....I reported it and nothing was done except a little house cleaning to get rid of whoever talked...And these aren't even Mexicans they are refugees from Honduras and Guatemala and Nicaragua......FREEDOM HMmmmmmmm....

why dont you learn to write and think for yourself, while you didnt say 'all' you didnt say anything that referenced anything other than a general blanket of all heterosexuals, so by assumption of your writing, you meant all.

you are not right in anything you posted and you are trying to defend yourself from a position of weakness by repeating the word "all". here lets re-post what you wrote;

There is not a single sex act that homosexual couples participate in that heterosexual couples do not also participate in. Go ahead, try to name one. I dare. Tell me one thing homosexual couples do that heterosexual couples do not also do.

hmm seems to me you included all heterosexuals by saying "not a single sex act" someone already told you one thing homos cant do -insert penis into vagina but hey you go ahead and keep believing you are all knowing and always right. there are numerous acts that only heteros do.

heres another bigoted gem;

Why do conservatives like you FAIL at basic reading comprehension? Did you even go to school? How far did you get? 2nd grade... no, a 2nd grader can read better than you. What is it, preschool? Did you drop out at preschool?

wow, just wow. so do you think you are smarter than me? you assume im some conservative even though i have never once in any post ever mention my political affiliation and my posting is not consistent with all conservative values but since you are obviously a rabid hater and i would assume based on your used of the word conservative to describe me, a liberal.

again the CoH of newsvine is only enforced at whim based upon outlining factors that have nothing to do with mediation as example of mguy-478 labeling all conservatives at failing "reading comprehension". when you say "conservatives like you" you are not talking about me but at every conservative because you cannot say i am a conservative as a cover to bash others who may proclaim to be conservative as i have never proclaimed.

ErinNJ

And heterosexuals engage in such acts more than homosexuals do.

what acts? so because there are by far more heteros than homos that it someone validates some unknown point you were trying to make in response to my post? of course heteros engage in more sexual acts than homos, i mean, DUH! there is just more of us but that wasnt the crux of the argument. it is the difference in what sexual acts either performs. heteros do not engage in the same sexual acts as homos. perverse sexual acts among heteros are in the minority much like homos but that does not lead one to generalized based on what a few do or what you saw in a porno. thats like saying because the human species has homosexuals that all humans must be homos. most heterosexual relations are still traditional as you are aware the world is not just the US.

Hmmmmmm

heteros do not engage in the same sexual acts as homos.

WRONG. Heterosexuals engage in anal sex, as well as oral sex -- which are the SAME sexual acts that homosexuals do.

perverse sexual acts among heteros are in the minority much like homos but that does not lead one to generalized based on what a few do or what you saw in a porno.

ROFLMAO! I did not "see it in a porno," I looked up a few different polls to get my information. Unlike you, I know how to do research. Approximately 30-40% of all heterosexuals say they engage in anal sex, and based on the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals in this country, even if 100% of homosexuals engaged in anal sex (which apparently they do not), that would STILL mean that more heterosexuals engage in anal sex than homosexuals do.

BTW, if you've ever had a blow job, you're a sodomite, too -- one of those "perverse sexual acts" you refer to.

The information contained in the encyclopedia of your ass is not the most reliable.

sw philly, i dont even know where to start with your rant because you are not making sense. sodomy laws have always been unconstitutional, slavery has always been unconstitutional because in either those the US constitution and the DoI does not give authority to the federal government to make a private act between 2 consenting adults illegal nor does the DoI gives any power the authority to enslave our species as stated in the DoI "All Men Are Created Equal" how anyone can construe that any other way is beyond me but if you want someone to blame for sodomy laws and slavery then blame the SCOTUS and politicians along with the sheep who allowed it.

if anyone is to take your posting serious maybe you might try to make more sense and separate your rants so to make it easier on the eyes, you really didnt argue my post and i didnt get what you were try to say to me but thanks for the time.

the story here is that someone lied and is now using her 'gay' status to get what she wants. was she 'gay' when she had a kid and was supposedly common-law married to a male?

WRONG. Heterosexuals engage in anal sex, as well as oral sex -- which are the SAME sexual acts that homosexuals do.

that was not the point nor contested. it was what acts homos cant do that heteros can. there is a difference and however lame the argument was the point was made clear. you can use whatever poll you want and i will say its hogwash as ALL POLS ARE HOGWASH, they are just very limited samples of a specific or veiled subject that is usually meant to validate ones opinion and does not in any way represent a majority or minority view. 6 billion plus people on this earth and you think some pols represent any significant fraction of that population.

as i said a majority (not from a pol) of hetero sexual relationships practice traditions acts based upon their culture. what you see on media is not representative of anything close to reality and only leads to people believing its common practice, the news is not any better at discerning the difference as ratings, political, economical and societal wants seems to take priority over truth and facts.

we all have opinions based on our own personal experience and it is not your obligation to me my teacher nor look down on me. i respect your opinion and would disagree with your views in this matter but the subject is still about a lady who is accused of lying to gain entry to the US then further trying to deceive by using 'gay' marriage to stay her along with her 25 year old son.

Erinis correct that all Gys do not engage in Anal Sex

Meet my husband

....been a while since we did...hope springs eternal

//www.uscitizenship.info/ins-citizenship-process.html 1-180 days

//www.immigrationdirect.com/immigrationresources/U-S-citizenship-naturalization-process.jsp 1-180 days
5 months to 2 years entire process.

//www.cavanaughlegal.com/us-citizenship-naturalization/how-long-america-citizenship-process/

holding a green card permanent visa up to 2 - 5 years, then the process 1-180 days up to 2 years.

AT the max, without (transcript errors, or failed testing) that means 8-9 years.

The max for a marriage is 3 years + the 1-180 days.

1989 +9 years = 1998. It's 2012. That was 14 years to naturalize.
2008 (marriage) +3 years +1-180 days = still had 3 years to naturalize.

Does anyone know how to do it right the first time. This is the 3rd or 4th vine story about this situation, with only the previously accepted marriage stipulation being different.

(im thinking after she renewed her green card the first time, she KNEW she was going to stay here as a permanent resident.)

Sorry, I wish you and your family the best of luck.

Gays think that because a few heteros engage in sodomy it makes it ok. Uh, wrong. Also, just because a few heteros do it, doesn't mean they all do either.

It's a simple equation of hydraulics and natural lubrication, the wrong hole never self lubricates, causing a natural 'barrier' to the act. If it doesn't go in easy, something's wrong. In the case of two males, they can be as horny as they want, it will never be lubed by nature, so they have to do some non-natural measures to complete the act. I know so, I am a male, and despite all the sex I've ever had, my out hole has NEVER self lubricated.

Take away all the conveniences of easily accessible hygiene, modern prophylactics and lubrication measures, and sodomy is a pretty disgusting act. How can anyone say they LIKE E-coli bacteria? How can anyone say they LIKE the smell of feces on their phalluses?

Utterly disgusting and utterly NOT natural, for anyone, hetero or homo.

Gays think that because a few heteros engage in sodomy it makes it ok.

Ever had a blow job, Phil? That makes you a sodomite, too. BTW, sodomy is legal, so it IS ok.

1. The anus is dirty.
Early in our childhood, we are taught that the anus is dirty and should not be touched. Thorough hand washing after accidentally touching this area is stressed. You may also have heard similar sentiments voiced about your vulva and vagina, but of course stimulation of these body parts can certainly provide a multitude of pleasurable sensations.

With routine daily hygiene, the anus is as clean as other parts of your body. It does contain its own natural bacteria, though, and to avoid infections, you must never move anything from your anus to your vagina.

2. Anal sex is painful.
Anal sex should not be painful. If it hurts, you are doing something wrong. If you learn the proper techniques prior to experimenting, you may find it enjoyable.

The keys to pleasurable anal sex are relaxation, lubrication and education. The anus is a tube that is one and a half inches long and surrounded by two rings of muscle. One ring, the external sphincter, is under your control. The other, the internal sphincter, will automatically tighten whenever something is pushed into your anus. Relaxing the external sphincter will make anal sex easier and more pleasurable. Your anus does not produce its own natural lubrication, so use lots of water-based lubricants to further increase your pleasure.

3. Anal sex is harmful and unhealthy.
Many women fear that anal sex will cause hemorrhoids, fissures or tears. Some even fear that they may become incontinent and spend the rest of their lives in adult diapers. Pleasurable anal sex does not cause harm to your anus or rectum. And as long as your partner does not have a sexually transmitted infection, neither semen nor sperm are harmful to your rectum.

If you are not sure about the sexually transmitted disease status of your partner, use a lubricated latex or polyurethane condom during anal sex. Avoid condoms with spermicides

-- they may cause irritation of the sensitive anal and rectal tissues.

4. Anal sex is a perverted, unnatural act.
Anal sex has been an accepted sexual practice for centuries. In some cultures, women engage in anal sex with their male partners for sexual pleasure while protecting their virginity. You must decide for yourself what feels natural. If you are uncomfortable with any sexual act, don't do it! You are in charge of what you do sexually.

5. Anal sex is enjoyed only by homosexuals.
Long considered a purely homosexual act, anal sex is enjoyed by many heterosexual couples as well. Anal sex is simply another option for sexual gratification and is unrelated to your sexual identity.

Read More http://www.ivillage.com/5-myths-anal-sex-uncovered/4-a-284083#ixzz20YtjQyqj

BTW, since homosexuality has been documented in approximately 1,500 animal species (besides humans), that would mean that sodomy (specifically anal sex) can be found throughout the animal kingdom -- and that would make it natural.

lol those are not 'myths' lol how foolish do you think we are?

the anus IS dirty and you just pointed it out by saying it has bacteria and u should never move something from anus to vagina (or anything else mind you). you defecate out the anus and its sensitive for reason that have nothing to do with sex! freaking nasty but i can see why people like it, its super tight lol

anal sex IS painful until you become loose, lol for anyone to say that sticking a 'bigger than the hole' object is not painful has had far too many things up their anus. your anus is not an open cavity that you can just insert things in with ease lol freaking hilarious!

anal sex IS harmful and dangerous lol its a freaking no-brainier! the anus has loads of bacteria and not everyone keeps it clean, you can easily tear skin that can very easily lead to severe infection and even death and if you do a2m or a2p2a2m then you just asking for it lol

anal sex IS a unnatural and perverted act. we defecate out the anus so why the hell would you want to be sticking things up there? its a perverse mind that gets sustained pleasure from anal stimulation.

yes heteros do anal too but it is not generally accepted as a moral sexual act and is still shunned in many areas. male homosexuals on the other hand have no other means of pleasure from common stimulation other than the penis and the ass (there are a few more) and so they engage in anal pleasure at far greater rate than hetero couples and are more at risk from it.

as a hetero male i do not like anal sex and find it pretty disgusting as a means of expressing pleasure between two people, might as well eat feces.

there are no verifiable documentations of any animal that willfully and consciously engages in same sex relations

Ask God. It is perverted, it is UN natural, it is a sin and you aren't suppose to put objects in there. I have seen guys with squamous of the anus and as a nurse it make make think?????? No such thing as gay marriage no matter what you guys say. Take it up with him when you get to the other side.

It's obvious you spend a lot of time thinking about anal sex and gays in general, Swagganaut, and this must be why:

New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

August 1996 Press Release

WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'

Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm

yes heteros do anal too but it is not generally accepted as a moral sexual act

Morality is subjective, which is why it is not legislated -- perhaps that's part of the reason why sodomy is legal. YOU and your immoral bigotry are not "generally accepted" by many people (including me).

as a hetero male i do not like anal sex and find it pretty disgusting as a means of expressing pleasure between two people

Then don't do it, but what others may find pleasurable is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

might as well eat feces.

We don't need to know your personal habits.

there are no verifiable documentations of any animal that willfully and consciously engages in same sex relations

Really? How about this:

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
James Owen in London
for National Geographic News
July 23, 2004

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Ask God.

What "god"? There is no "god" -- only in your book of fairy tales.

Take it up with him when you get to the other side.

Who and what other side? The river? The ocean? The street?

So erin goes with the "I can't logically win the argument so I'm going to use the old 'if you are against it that only proves you want it'" argument. Yea, that makes sense. I read the National Geographic story you linked to and found it's claim that other animal species actually engage in homosexual sex to be suspect. Has ANYONE reading this EVER witnessed (or seen a video... not even NG can produce an actual video of the acts they are claiming) any other animal species actually engaging in homosexual sex? I mean SEX. Not courting behavior. Not "sharing a nest". Not fostering orphaned babies. I mean a male of the species actually penatrating another male of the species anus with it's penis? And just how could two females of the same species actually engage in sex? Humans are the only animal species that engages in orally stimulating anothers sexual organs FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION. Merely mounting another female and simulating sex is NOT engaging in sex. Plus they left out an important fact regarding bonobo's.... almost all of the 75% of non-reproductive sex occurs when males mount females that are not in heat. If you think a male bonobo would allow another male bonobo to penetrate it's anus (no lubrication, fore play, etc.) you are crazy. That goes for all other animal species as well.

Dmac, I've already "logically" won the argument. Not one of you has provided any credible, unbiased evidence to support your claims.

Cite some proof of YOUR claims that animals do not have homosexual sex for sexual gratification.

But just to yank your chain a little more, read this:

Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study

Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

5:19PM BST 16 Jun 2009

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

However, in the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

They found that on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

Other species form same-sex bonds for other reasons, they found. Dolphins have been known engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding while male-male pairings in locusts killed off the weaker males.

A pair of "gay" penguins recently hatched an egg at a German zoo after being given the egg that had been rejected by its biological parents by keepers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

You are the one making the claim so it is up to you to provide actual evidence that other species engage in actual homosexual sex acts. I will ask again... Have YOU ever witnessed two males of the same, non-human, species engaging in anal or oral sex? Neither has anyone else. Unless and until you can provide evidence to the contrary your claim is nothing but an unsubstantiated opinion.

As to the claims made in your cut and paste.... I have a friend that was raised by their mother and their aunt. Does that make those women lesbians? And unless those penguins are @!$%#ing each other in the ass, stroking and/or sucking each others penis, they are not homosexual. The writer is incorrectly ascribing human concepts onto animals that do not have the intelligence to understand said concepts.

mguy-478

Who says a spouse can't have 4 legs? We're in LOVE!

Legal consent. Look it up.

Is "woof woof" considered legal consent?

Taziar ...(#1.43)....."ItisWhat, Marriage has nothing to do with biology or reproduction. We are the only species on the planet who has marriages. In fact, most species don't practice monogamy. Only 3-5% of mammals. Yet, all species reproduce. "

"Marriage is about love and commitment, not reproduction. If people feel the need to 'defend marriage' so much, make infidelity a criminal offense."

________________________

Your comment made me laugh....We are also the only species on the planet that practices Child Support**..

And ask anyone nabbed for infidelity if being sentenced to Alimony for Life is worse than a quick death sentence .....

**...Unless of course you're like that "swordsman" .."Desmond Hatchett has fathered 30 children -- which is believed to be the record in Knox county, according to the Los Angeles Times -- with 11 different women. His youngest children are toddlers and his oldest is 14."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/desmond-hatchett-30-kids_n_1528850.html

He wants the State to pay his Child Support...

That's what Marriage tends to hinder.....Procreation with anything that moves...leaving helpless little human beings in your wake.....

Tell me one thing homosexual couples do that heterosexual couples do not also do.

Hmm...how about engaging in homosexual acts?

It's a very long, expensive, and arduous process- -quite unlike the process our forefathers went through when they landed on Ellis Island,

Inexpensive? That's why my mother's family, and many, many more, immigrated from England through Ellis Island, Father first, then the sons one at a time, so they could earn enough money for the next brother or sister and finally their mother to come over. Want to know why? It was expensive and they could only afford to do it that way. It took years for just one family to come over, and they had to be separated during the time it took to get first and the last over. But they did it, legally. They had to learn the language, study the Constitution and jump through all the legal hoops, but they did it and were glad to do it...legally, even though it was expensive.

MGUY (post 1.45)

ok, then...how about a MAN sucking a MAN ?

Two less perverts in the country won't hurt the U.S. That's just my personal opinion, and I'm nobody, so I hope that doesn't upset anyone.

Ship her to Asia.....NOW.

dmac, to answer your question...yes, I remember a gay dog who kept mounting his male partner from next door.

When dogs do that it is a show of dominance, nothing more.

dmac225

So erin goes with the "I can't logically win the argument so I'm going to use the old 'if you are against it that only proves you want it'" argument. Yea, that makes sense. I read the National Geographic story you linked to and found it's claim that other animal species actually engage in homosexual sex to be suspect. Has ANYONE reading this EVER witnessed (or seen a video... not even NG can produce an actual video of the acts they are claiming) any other animal species actually engaging in homosexual sex? I mean SEX. Not courting behavior. Not "sharing a nest". Not fostering orphaned babies. I mean a male of the species actually penatrating another male of the species anus with it's penis? And just how could two females of the same species actually engage in sex? Humans are the only animal species that engages in orally stimulating anothers sexual organs FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

Well I don't have a video of it to show you and quite frankly wouldn't want one but I have seen the nieghbors dogs engage in homosexual acts. When two of my nieghbors let their male dogs out in the morning the dogs would go potty then romp around the lawns takeing turns sodimizing each other. One morning the two nieghbors were standing outside talking to each other saw what the dogs had been doing. One kicked his dog and drug it home while the other grabed a piece of firewood stacked by his front sidewalk and beat his dog senseless. They kept the dogs apart for what must have been a month or so and one morning while heading out to work I saw the dogs were back at it, running after each other like they were playing and taking turns being homosexual. For a while there was two bulls on the farm I worked on when I was a kid that were the same way. Had to keep them in seperate stalls and away from the steers too.

@mike in delray
www.wonderquest.com/animal-mate-for-life.htm

This of course is the short list. More research on the factual topics, not withstanding species survival
Some of the species actually attack infidelity (also referenced within Leviticus scripturally.) altho I will acqueisce that this article is about a woman who did not take the correct steps the first time, regardless of her propensity for same sex relationships. Follow the rules the first time, you'll be fine. Try to buck the system, the system always wins. Time after Time.

How exactly does that make America slide into oblivion? And who exactly will be shunning us? God probably. He is always shunning that guy. Unless you are a Native American, you have no right to be using the word revolting, because my guess is your family came over here straight off the boat too.

Oh yes, a lesbian who is working and in a long term marriage is not being deported. ITS OBLIVION! The horror! /s

Wasn't gay marriage one of the Horsmen of the Apocalypse? ...and then followed a rainbow horse..

Shunned by who? You? Most of us would find that merciful, I think. I'm also not sure that "oblivion" is as bad as you think it might be...from what I hear there are pony rides in oblivion...

Actually Reaper--I agree! Oblivion and an island paradise with rainbows--sounds fab to me!

why is it so revolting? Why do you say slipping farther into oblivion? Do you know love? I am not gay but I believe if people can find happiness through any means, more power to them. Are you a bible thumper brainwashed by ideal's of the past?

If the "shunning" if from you, what's the problem?

laughter is the best medicine

@ Steve-37007798

happiness through any means

In one sentence you say find happiness through any means. Then you cut down and criticize someone for perhaps finding happiness through the bible. You should have thought about that a little while before you posted. If you do not like "bible thumber" that's fine. But do not cut people down for enjoying the happiness you want them to have at " any means ". Yes, people do find happiness from bible thumbering.

So if they're so happy--why do these "bible thumpers" wish to stop others from being happy? Sorry, Roger, they don't seem all that "happy" to me! Wish you were right. If you were, we'd all be much happier and the world would be a better place.

@What

why do these "bible thumpers" wish to stop others from being happy?

I wish I could answer that question. And I agree, some bible thumbers do not seem all that happy.

she lied to gain entry to this country then she used the guy and dumped him for another female. didnt she have a child? so how does she become homosexual now? oh i get it, she was hiding the 'truth' from herself and forced herself to copulate with a male, producing an offspring. then when she 'felt' it was the right time to 'come out' she dumped the guy and marries a female and now she does not want to pay for her miss-deeds. how awesome it is to just do whatever you want and expect nothing to happen all while we all pay for her lies.

but hey go ahead and defend this pathetic excuse for a female human mother who just blows with the wing to suit her desires.

Then you cut down and criticize someone for perhaps finding happiness through the bible.

So if "bible thumpers" find happiness in oppressing people who are not like them, they should have that right? Sorry, I am all for finding personal happiness as long as it DOES NOT infringe upon the rights of someone else. But when your happiness is dependent on the suffering of others, not only is that wrong, but that makes you a deranged and evil individual (in my opinion).

didnt she have a child? so how does she become homosexual now? oh i get it, she was hiding the 'truth' from herself and forced herself to copulate with a male, producing an offspring

People can be attracted to a variety of features. Are you only attracted to blondes? What about brunettes? How about skinny women, or fat ones? Ever date women of different races?

How did you "change" who you were attracted to? Were you hiding the "truth" from yourself?

I used to date a cute brunette, now I am married to a hot blonde... I must have changed and was "hiding the truth" from myself when I was with the brunette, right?

Roger- -that's "bible thumpers" not bible "thumbers" --which conjures up someone who can support books on their thumbs. :)

Sagganaut- -where do you get the idea that "we are all paying" for this woman? I saw nothing to indicate she's on welfare, or is anything but a productive member of society. And, neither you nor anyone else on this list knows the full extent of her relationship with the common-law husband, or whether she came here of her own accord or he convinced her to come here with promises of $$, education for her son, etc.. It seems like you just hate gays and immigrants, and to find that both are wrapped up in a single individual gives you the right to hate them twice as much. You're completely wrong- -it doesn't.

mguy-478 dude she had a child with a MAN then when she felt otherwise she marries a FEMALE. your little cute analogy has no merit, this is not about hair color or weight. she switched genders, HUGE difference. if she just had a kid with a MAN to just have a kid or for other financial reason then she is once again a horrible person and mother. she CHOOSE to be with a man and CHOOSE to have a kid then she CHOOSE to lie to gain entry to the US and then she CHOOSE to marry a female, ALL CHOICES made by a criminal liar and user.

i think she married a female just for this reason; so she can stay here legally even after committing a felony, fraud. the homosexual activists will always side with their own even if their own are criminals.

lilrkt; she lied to gain entry, what else has she lied about? we dont know what public services she used up as she was never suppose to be here. we all pay for illegal immigration whether we like to or not. US law does not recognize common-law marriage outside of the sovereign states so she willfully committed fraud against the US!

why do people like you make excuses for others who violate immigration and fraud laws?

This issue is a great distraction to what the false Idol in the White House is doing right now.

Gutting welfare reform?

It's almost a joke until you find out it's as real as today's Sunrise.

The Dream Act?

Sure, it's a dream come true for a zealot desperate for votes and attention and food for an ego.

I get sick every time I think of the millions who gave it all up to protect a land they loved with all their heart only to have a heathen pig of a boy child come along and spread it out as if it were penny candy.

The one here who must pay is Barry and the article of these two whatever they are's is nothing more than distraction.

I have news for the left, the smoke and mirrors, slight of hands and 3 Card Monty bit isn't working anymore.

Another attempt by illegals to subvert the system. She knew she wouldn't get sympathy on the child front, so now she's pretending to go after it like she's a spokesperson for gay rights? Haha

dude she had a child with a MAN then when she felt otherwise she marries a FEMALE. your little cute analogy has no merit, this is not about hair color or weight. she switched genders, HUGE difference.

How is gender any different? Gender is simply a physical characteristic that separates people. People switch the physical qualities they are attracted to all the time. On top of that, most people claim that they are attracted to the person, not their physical attributes. Are you making the claim that physical attributes supersede deeper attraction feelings?

Are you only attracted to your wife/gf/whatever based on physical attributes? If those change, will you still be attracted to her? What if she gets grotesquely fat? What if she loses a limb in an accident? What is she mastectomy, losing a female physical trait? What if she gets a hysterectomy, removing the main organ that defines her as a woman? Will you still love her? Will you change your attraction preference to continue to love someone who is physically different than the way she was when you met?

Swagganaut: If she was mainly concerned with being permitted to remain in the US and become a US citizen, she could have easily married a male US citizen while she was still in legal status, and avoided all this trouble. If her romantic feelings are more toward other women however, THAT would have been a deceptive strategy.

Instead she followed her true feelings, married the person she really loved, and is trying to deal with the immigration consequences of that union.

lol yeah im sure she truly loves that girl lol after having a kid with another man, lying to herself and lying to everyone else must be a great quality among homosexuals right. switching genders is not a little difference, you obviously have no understanding of what love actually is and you are confusing lust with it. if i was married to a female and i was not only attracted to her inner beauty but to her outer beauty as-well then without notice she decides that she would rather be a man, i would divorce her in a second as she made it clear that she does not love me nor was she truthful in who she was to me. love is not a one-way street and a relationship should always be build on truth and mutual commitment not on fantasies and whims.

physical appearances and sexual orientation are not even in the same ballpark when one is developing emotions for another, your faults are not uncommon but it is dangerous to confuse emotions when dealing with real lives.

So if the issue is being able to marry anyone you "love" then I guess you are ok with polygamy. If I "love" more than one person why should I not be allowed to marry more than one person? Plus if we are going to continue down this path how long will it be before pedophiles demand their "right" to marry the children they "love"? If you think that is over the top and would never happen remember.... That is exactly what was said about allowing people of the same sex to get married just 25 years ago, inter-racial marriage 60 years ago, inter-religion marriage 125 years ago, etc.

Personally I don't think the government should be involved in "marriage" since it is a religious ritual. The government should treat EVERYONE as the individual person they are. If some individuals want to enter into legal contracts with other individuals in order to protect themselves from being taken advantage of by dishonest partners (no different than going into business with someone) they should be allowed to do so. Oh, wait... this is already in place. It is called a civil union. The word "marriage" should be stricken from use by the government.

By the way there are no extra government benefits given only to heterosexual married couples. There is a marriage penalty when it comes to the amount you pay in taxes. There are however extra/higher deductions ONLY single parents are allowed to take.

Lets deport her,but keep the other million and a half illegals!! RIGHT OBAMA!!

So if the issue is being able to marry anyone you "love" then I guess you are ok with polygamy.

Polygamy has already been dealt with by the Supreme Court -- but keep using those slippery-slope arguments if you want to continue with your delusions. In addition, allowing gay marriage would not change marriage from its current status of two people.

Plus if we are going to continue down this path how long will it be before pedophiles demand their "right" to marry the children they "love"?

You're determined not to disappoint anyone with the slippery-slope arguments, aren't you? Perhaps you should do some research on "legal consent".

BTW, the polygamy and pedophile arguments WERE used by the bigots arguing against legalizing interracial marriage 45 years ago; they were bull@!$%# then, and they're still bull@!$%#.

Personally I don't think the government should be involved in "marriage" since it is a religious ritual.

WRONG. Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years; religion did not involve itself in marriage until around the mid-1500s. And in this secular nation, legal marriage is -- and has always been -- strictly a civil contract. What your cult or any other chooses to do regarding marriage is its own business, not the government's.

So you are claiming, despite the clear evidence otherwise, that we have NOT proceded down this slippery slope? Denile is not just a river in Egypt.

"Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years; religion did not involve itself in marriage until around the mid-1500s."

Really? Then why was ADULTERY included in the ten commandments? Why does the old testament prescribe stoning as the punishment for adultery?

I do apologize. I thought I was responding to someone with at least a minimal amount of intelligence. Your "religion did not involve itself in marriage until around the mid-1500s." comment has proven otherwise. I will not continue to engage in a battle of wits with you as you are obviously unarmed.

ErinNJ wrote " In addition, allowing gay marriage would not change marriage from its current status of two people."

two people : one man and one woman.

Gay marriage is not recognized anywhere in the US. You meant to write same-sex marriage, which also includes the 1% homosexual population. A couple need not be gay/lesbian to have a same-sex marriage.

At a time when marriage is undergoing change, including that by no-fault (= no justification) divorce laws, it is reasonable to look at additional relaxations of the qualifications for marriage and consider whether other changes should be included that benefit comparable portions of the population.

1. Why can't one person be married to two people at the same time, same sex or not?

2. Why can't a sibling marry a sibling, same sex or not?

3. Why can't a child marry a parent, same sex or not?

4. Why can't a child marry a grandparent, same sex or not?

"Gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" are used interchangeably; if you don't like the way the phrases are used, that's your problem. And the current status of marriage refers to "two people," not "a man and a woman".

I meant to write exactly what I wrote; do not presume to tell me what I meant to write. Furthermore, homosexuals actually comprise 5-10% of the population, not 1%.

Your other pathetic attempts at "arguments" were also raised during the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 regarding interracial marriage; they were as stupid then as they are now.

Nope. You missed the point entirely.

cms5

SO, SO true.

Congress has a problem with Holder ? NO PROBLEM ! Executive Order.

Congress wont make immigration laws ? No PROBLEMA ! By executive order, the dram act is realized - no deportations for children of illegals. THEN Obama is asked about further "concessions", to which he responds "not MY problem - that's CONGRESS' !)

"Checks and balances " ??? What are THOSE ???

Yes, he should have followed Bush's example and proceeded with no executive orders... oh wait.

Ok, ok... he should have followed Clinton's example...

I mean the first Bush...

No, I mean Reagan...

Crap, every President over the past 30 years has used Executive Orders. But of course it was wrong THIS TIME, but not when your team did them. Got it.

Ok mguy name one "executive order" given by any of the presidents you mentioned that actually circumvented existing law. You made the claim. Now prove it. I think you are confusing an "executive order" with a "signing statement" and "executive privilege". They are three totally different things.

Marriage cannot exist between same-sex sodomites, so the entire argument is without merit.

How are two women who engage in sexual acts with one another 'sodomites'? I mean, they aren't exactly from Sodom, so that definition doesn't really fit.

Actually, we, as a society, need to ignore and marginalize people like you.

Lonesome (I can see why) : "DOMA is necessary because of these militant groups."

So enlighten me--how does anyone else's marriage (no matter the gender) affect yours? It has no affect on my marriage--I'm sorry for yours.

Tommywrong: "God will throw them into the pit of fire for eternity."

When do you go?

Marriage is defined by the state. In many states same sex marriage has been legalized. Therefore not only CAN it exist, but it DOES exist in places.

I know logic (or even basic cognition) are not your strong points, but your statements disappoint despite the very low bar we place on you.

Tomwong - I thought God made them "that way." If so, why should they be demonized?

Tommy tommy tommy--"after you FAG."

You really need to wash your keyboard mouth out with soap (or disinfectant).

So you assume I'm male? Tee hehehehe! Thanks for the laugh--but with comments like that--you'd better get out your asbestos suit! And I'll welcome you with my faggot open arms! Looking forward to seeing you there!

Homosexuality is a CHOICE lifestyle.

In November we will add our great State of Washington to the list of states where gay marriage is legal. And I bet it won't change a thing about my 10yr hetero marriage.

Homosexuality is a CHOICE lifestyle.

Yeah, I remember the day and time when I chose to be straight.

I woke up one morning and it was like an epiphany. I like vaginas and not penises.

Yep, I sure do remember the day I chose to be straight.

Tomwong, you are clearly bisexual or a repressed gay man. I know this because nobody who isn't has such a visceral reaction to the concept of homosexuality, and secondly I never got a choice in my sexual orientation. In fact nobody I know ever got a choice in the matter unless they swing both ways. No matter what I will never be attracted to another man. Period. Maybe you can though...

Don't know how a hairy mans' a$$ is attractive to another man? <sic> freaks

Oh yes, you do. You just won't admit it to yourself.

No wonder why you're lonesome, rhoadekill. Go back to your cave - and don't forget your club, bam bam.

if i am reading correctly, she did not enter in her legal name in her immigration papers, common law does not mean married, and if she put her common law husbands name on her papers, when they were not legally married then yes, she is in the wrong, since its a red tape issue, improper paper work so of course they red flagged her, although since she is married, she should be allowed to apply for a marriage visa citizenship, while she waits out of the country (usually 1 or 2 years) for the paperwork to go through.

immigration is a long and hard process, she filed the wrong paperwork, so she should be deported as simple as that. Although i agree it they should fast track on a case to case basis, my friend had to wait a year for his marriage visa to go through and he had 2 kids with his gf while on active duty, while his kids got instant citizenship, he had to wait a year at his new post without his family while his lawyer did the paperwork to get his gf (now his wife) into the country.

I have discovered what Lonesome's and Tomwronggong's problem is:

New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

August 1996 Press Release

WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'

Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm

Isn't tomwonggong Latin for "Tom likes wong up his gong"...........or did I get that wrong.

Homosexuality is a CHOICE lifestyle.

Sure people choose a lifestyle that bigots and haters will chastise them over so they must want the aggravation........Sarcasm.

Yeah everybody who is revolted is secretly gay.Who knew 95% of us are.Don't lie,even those who are evolved are disgusted

Speak for yourself Pained! Oh wait! Are you saying you're NOT one of those who are evolved? If so, I apologize--you ARE speaking for yourself!

romanm - "In November we will add our great State of Washington to the list of states where gay marriage is legal. And I bet it won't change a thing about my 10yr hetero marriage"

I hope you are right, but dont be so sure. I was positive prop 8 (making marriage between a man and a woman after same sex marriage was deemed legal) would fail, but it ended up passing. And this was in California. The worst part was a judge deemed the prop unconstitutional, but his decision was practically thrown out because he was gay. "Liberal" states can be pretty bad too.

Pain1 keep dreaming. 95% of the population are not revolted by gay people. In fact, those against gay marriage, let alone gay people, are in the minority.

EngEsq

Marriage is defined by the state. In many states same sex marriage has been legalized. Therefore not only CAN it exist, but it DOES exist in places.

Same sex marriage is only recognized in nine states. That's not many, thats only a few. The few that have been bought into it with wads of money going into the pockets of senators and representatives.

Prove that 95% of the population are not revolted by gay people. You obviously just make up numbers to suit your beliefs/out of thin air statements.

we are born by nature to be heterosexuals, that is the only natural means to procreate, there is no argument to this FACT. homosexuality CAN be a choice and it CAN be a biological defect but by no means is it natural to our species or any species as we humans are the only ones to have an understanding of ourselves that other species lack. not all homosexuals are looked down upon, the vast majority of homosexuals are treated fairly, its always the minority on either side who raises the most fuss so dont paint a wide brush based on your own ignorance.

there is nothing wrong with love for the same sex, love has nothing to do with sexual preference, its us humans who perverse this notion. i could have feelings for another man that has nothing to do with me wanting to corn-hole him. in our past we expressed this love more openly and there was no intercourse between the same gender but there was strong emotional bonds that probably today would be considered 'gay' but by no means did they think of having butt-sex with another man or scissoring between two women.

we as humans are grossly perverse in our societal wants, we went through this before with devastating results. we will do it again failing to remember the past.

Hey, Lonesome (post 7.0)...

If, as you say "Marriage cannot exist between same-sex sodomites"...it it ok with me, being a heterosexual sodomite, to get married ?

Dont get me wrong....I am NOT in support of gay marriage (although I AM in support of them having all the legal rights), I just think your post is off base.

we are born by nature to be heterosexuals, that is the only natural means to procreate, there is no argument to this FACT

Except the procreation results in exponential population growth, and thus variances occur in nature to buffer this growth so that we don't overpopulate the planet.

But don't let those FACTS interfere with your hatred.

Mguy, that may be the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. So the fact that less than 10% of the world's population is gay is going to prevent over population? HAH.

um, thats not a fact. you are just repeating a lie someone told you, i would be nicer and call it a theory based on no evidence.

on another note you just admitted that homosexuals are an abnormality of nature, thank you for the honesty.

i have no hatred of homosexuals, i just have an understanding like you that it is an abnormality and should be studied. if i walked into a room full of gay guys i would be the center of attention and you know what i would love it and actually give these guys some play not because im gay but because i dont hate and sometimes its fun to tease people when they themselves like it even more, im easy-going. they do get a bit annoying on tv though lol nothing like the gay guys ive known, still fruity though.

MGUY478.

It never ceases to AMAZE me when guys like you will place the "Hater" label on ANYONE who doesnt agree with you.

Dont get me wrong...it's a tried and true tactic. When you get ppl to think of someone as a "hater", you stand a good chance that you'll get others not to listen to that person's MESSAGE. You know...kinda like labeling someone who's against ILLEGAL immigration, as a Latino Hater.

Good job (NOT !)

MGUY:

Your post 7.30 is exactly on par with the "haters" who glorify AIDS as a way to "cull the heard " of gays.

Would you make up your mind, please ?

@romanm

In November we will add our great State of Washington to the list of states where gay marriage is legal. And I bet it won't change a thing about my 10yr hetero marriage.

Total decay starts with just one cavity at a time...Our nation is under an assault of depravity as never before..

@ Swagganaut

"...on another note you just admitted that homosexuals are an abnormality of nature, thank you for the honesty.

i have no hatred of homosexuals, i just have an understanding like you that it is an abnormality and should be studied."

I think the reference you seek is known as the DMS 3 which had already done extensive research on homosexuality. In the research, it was determined that there was no "gay gene", and that the "tendency" was attributed to one's choices in concert with his environment. The government, upon the outrage of the gay community, forced the information to be retracted in 1997 for political reasons, as it was now deemed "politically incorrect", but conclusive research had, in fact, been done...... One step back for America.

we are born by nature to be heterosexuals, that is the only natural means to procreate, there is no argument to this FACT.

WRONG. We are born with our sexual orientation, whether that is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual. There is no argument to this FACT.

There is also no argument to the FACT that homosexuality has existed in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind has existed, and I'm pretty sure that way back at the dawn of humanity, they did not CHOOSE their sexual orientation.

There is also no argument to the FACT that homosexuality has been documented in approximately 1,500 animal species (besides humans), which is further proof that it is naturally-occurring, since they lack the skills to make such choices.

no erinNJ, you are factually wrong and i can prove so by pointing out that NO HUMAN EVER HAS BEEN ASEXUAL!! its impossible for our species. you prob thinking of that female who became a guy and got pregnant lol. human females are not born pregnant nor do they copy themselves without other genetic material. 'asexuality' is stupid made-up term stolen from asexual reproduction to suit some special interests agenda. i loath people who steal proper definitions and twist it to suit their wants.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/asexual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality merriam has no definition for 'asexuality'

there is no fact that the % of homosexuality has stayed the same throughout history, thats made-up and impossible to know unless you are saying its in the genes and even then we would need to know what genes and what the trigger or rate is. so far no one found the 'gay' gene and even so it still would be a defect like having down-syndrome. prob be good for em though since the they could be considered disabled and get even more power lol.

animals do not exhibit homosexuality, that is a human expression of behavior that other species do not posses. now other species may display what looks to us like homosexual acts but they have long been known to be part behavioral traits of domination and desperation. you show me a pair of animals that are willfully and consciously engaging in what they would consider 'homosexual' acts and i will make you rich lol the 'gay' community loves to use ignorance to gain support like using those two penguins that raised an offspring as an example of homosexual animals. i would of like to have seen any image of those penguins mating but that never happened because other species do not have any concept of being 'gay'.

even what you would consider homosexual acts do not necessarily mean the are homosexual in nature, back in asia long ago that there were tribes who when waged war against others would rape the men and let them go to humiliate them, they would tell the others so they would be less willing to fight. there are also other stories of other 'humiliating' acts that no one considered 'gay' from history.

this lady still needs to answer for her alleged crimes and not use being 'gay' as an excuse.

you are factually wrong and i can prove so by pointing out that NO HUMAN EVER HAS BEEN ASEXUAL!!

You seem to revel in your idiocy.

Feature: Glad to be asexual

• 17:07 14 October 2004 by Sylvia Pagan Westphal

In a world where lust can be bought in a pill and skin is the marketing tool du jour, being David Jay cannot be easy. At the age of 22 he has never had sex. He has never experienced sexual attraction towards another person and does not believe it will ever happen.

There are many others who have similar stories to tell. They talk about growing up not being able to understand why everyone else seemed so interested in dating, kissing and touching; in experiencing the ritual of mating.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6533

ASEXUALS: Who Are They and Why Are They Important?
Published on December 23, 2009 by Bella DePaulo, Ph.D. in Living Single

Only a few more comprehensive articles pop up. For example, a 2004 study in the Journal of Sex Research reported the results of a national sample of more than 18,000 British residents. About 1% described themselves as asexual.

For this topic, though, what should come first is some basic understanding of what the term asexual means. The best source I found on that, and the one I will refer to most often throughout the rest of this post, is a 2008 article by Kristin Scherrer published in the journal Sexualities. In addition to her thoughtful conceptual analysis of asexuality, Scherrer contributes some empirical grounding. With the help of asexuality.org, she recruited 102 asexuals who were willing to answer open-ended questions about their asexuality and how that related to the rest of their lives.

When the 102 asexuals in Scherrer's study discussed the meaning of their own asexuality, they most often pointed to desires: They said they did not experience sexual attraction or desire. One of the participants, Jenn, said this:

• "I just don't feel sexual attraction to people. I love the human form and can regard individuals as works of art and find people aesthetically pleasing, but I don't ever want to come into sexual contact with even the most beautiful of people."

Others, though, said they did feel sexual attraction but not the inclination to act on it. Sarah said this to the researcher:

• "I am sexually attracted to men but have no desire or need to engage in sexual or even non-sexual activity (cuddling, hand-holding, etc.)."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/200912/asexuals-who-are-they-and-why-are-they-important

there is no fact that the % of homosexuality has stayed the same throughout history, thats made-up and impossible to know

WRONG AGAIN. In fact, archaeologists discovered through hieroglyphs that homosexuals existed in ancient times.

animals do not exhibit homosexuality,

I guess you just enjoy being WRONG, because you're so good at it.

A partial list of animals who display homosexual behavior:

Mammals

Selected mammals from the full list:

• African Elephant^[16]
• Brown Bear^[17]
• Brown Rat^[18]
• Buffalo^[19]
• African Lion

• Caribou^[20]
• Cat (domestic)^[21]
• Cheetah^[22]
• Common Dolphin^[23]
• Orca

• Common Marmoset^[24]
• Common Raccoon^[25]
• Dog (domestic)^[26]
• European Bison^[27]
• Human
• Prea^[28]

Birds

Selected birds from the full list:

• Chicken (Domestic)^[29]
• Common Gull^[30]

• Emu^[31]
• King Penguin^[32]

Fish

• Amazon molly^[34]
• Blackstripe topminnow^[35]
• Bluegill Sunfish^[35]
• Char^[33]
• Grayling^[33]
• European Bitterling^[36]
• Green swordtail^[36]
• Guiana leaffish^[37]
• Houting Whitefish^[33]
• Jewel Fish^[38]
• Least Darter (Microperca punctulata)^[36]
• Mouthbreeding Fish sp.^[35]
• Salmon spp.^[39]
• Southern platyfish^[36]
• Ten-spined stickleback^[36]
• Three-spined stickleback^[36]

Reptiles

• Anole sp.^[40]
• Bearded Dragon^[41]
• Broad-headed Skink^[36]
• Checkered Whiptail Lizard^[41]
• Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard^[41]
• Common Ameiva^[41]
• Common Garter Snake^[36]
• Cuban Green Anole^[40]
• Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard^[41]
• Desert Tortoise^[42]
• Fence Lizard^[41]
• Five-lined Skink^[36]
• Gopher (Pine) Snake^[35]
• Green Anole^[40]
• Inagua Curlytail Lizard^[41]

• Jamaican Giant Anole^[40]
• Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard^[41]
• Largehead Anole^[40]
• Mourning Gecko^[43]
• Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard^[41]
• Red Diamond Rattlesnake^[36]
• Red-tailed Skink^[36]
• Side-blotched Lizard^[41]
• Speckled Rattlesnake^[36]
• Water Moccasin^[36]
• Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)^[36]
• Western Banded Gecko^[43]
• Whiptail Lizard spp.^[41]
• Wood Turtle^[40]

Amphibians

• Appalachian Woodland Salamander^[44]
• Black-spotted Frog^[45]
• Mountain Dusky Salamander^[44]
• Tengger Desert Toad^[40]

Insects and other invertebrates

• Acanthocephalan Worms^[46]
• Alfalfa Weevil^[47]
• Australian Parasitic Wasp sp.^[47]
• Bean weevil sp.^[47]
• Bedbug and other Bug spp.^[48][49]
• Blister Beetle spp.^[50]
• Blood-flukes (Schistosoma)^[51]
• Blowfly^[50]
• Box Crab^[52]
• Broadwinged Damselfly sp.^[53]
• Cabbage (Small) White (Butterfly)^[54]
• Checkerspot Butterfly^[54]
• Clubtail Dragonfly spp.^[55]
• Cockroach spp.^[56]
• Common Skimmer Dragonfly spp.^[55]
• Creeping Water Bug sp.^[57]
• Cutworm^[58]
• Digger Bee^[59]
• Dragonfly spp.^[55]
• Eastern Giant Ichneumon (wasp)^[47]
• Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer^[57]
• Field cricket sp.^[60]
• Flour beetle^[61]
• Fruit Fly spp.^[62]
• Glasswing Butterfly^[54]
• Grape Berry Moth^[63]
• Grape Borer^[57]
• Green Lacewing^[64]

• Harvest Spider sp.^[65]
• Hawaiian Orb-Weaver (spider)^[65]
• Hen Flea^[64]
• House Fly^[66]
• Ichneumon wasp sp.^[47]
• Incirrate Octopus spp.^[52]
• Japanese Scarab Beetle^[67]
• Jumping spider sp.^[65]
• Larch Bud Moth^[63]
• Large Milkweed Bug^[49]
• Large White (Pieris brassicae)^[49]
• Long-legged Fly spp.^[68]
• Mazarine Blue^[49]
• Mediterranean Fruit Fly^[62]
• Mexican White^[49]
• Midge sp.^[68]
• Migratory locust^[69]
• Mite sp.^[68]
• Monarch Butterfly^[54]
• Narrow-winged Damselfly spp.^[53]
• Parsnip Leaf Miner^[68]
• Pomace fly^[68]
• Queen Butterfly^[54]
• Red Ant sp.^[68]
• Red Flour Beetle^[49]
• Reindeer Warble Fly (Hypoderma tarandi)^[68]
• Rose Chafer^[68]
• Rove Beetle spp.^[49]

• Scarab Beetle (Melolonthine)^[70]
• Screwworm Fly^[68]
• Silkworm Moth^[63]
• Sociable Weaver^[68]
• Southeastern Blueberry Bee^[59]
• Southern Green Stink Bug^[49]
• Southern Masked Chafer^[68]
• Southern One-Year Canegrub^[68]
• Spreadwinged Damselfly spp.^[53]
• Spruce Budworm Moth^[63]
• Stable Fly sp.^[68]
• Stag Beetle spp.^[49]
• Tsetse Fly^[68]
• Water Boatman Bug^[49]
• Water Strider spp.^[49]

As I've said before, the encyclopedia of your ass is not the most reliable source for information. Learn how to do research.

Sorry erin but "asexual" would mean literally without sex. So unless you know someone who was born without ANY sexual organs and/or suffers from a mental disorder, you are wrong.

Show me a video of one male anally penetrating another male (or a female orally/digitally sexually pleasing another female) of ANY of the animals, fish, reptiles, amphibians or insects you list. 99.9% of the animal species on this planet are not intelligent enough to even grasp the concept of being homosexual. If they appear to be homosexual it is because they are too stupid to know any better. To clarify I am speaking of non-human species here.

Being an atheist myself I find it interesting that you believe that there is any other natural purpose for a species to exist other than to procreate. That being the case homosexuality can only be considered to be a defect that leads to un-natural acts. By the way "un-natural" does not always mean "wrong" or "harmful". If being homosexual was the natural development of a species that species would quickly go extinct. To argue otherwise is absurd. Some people are sexually attracted to children. Others are sexually attracted to animals. Do you consider those sexual attractions to be "natural" also? If not... why not?

Asexuality has been defined as a lack of sexual attraction to others. Do some research (for once).

You can continue to believe what you want regarding animal homosexuality; I really don't care. I have provided you with facts and data, but of course it doesn't support your claims, so of course it must be lies.

I also don't care what you believe regarding the purpose of our existence. If procreation were our sole purpose, then everyone would be able to procreate. The fact that everyone cannot, or chooses not to, procreate is yet more proof to me of how humans have evolved -- it creates a kind of "natural" guard against overpopulation (not that it is successful).

If being homosexual was the natural development of a species that species would quickly go extinct.

Yet it has existed in humanity since humans have existed, and here we are.

Comparing homosexuality to attraction to children or animals is specious at best, and a slippery-slope argument. The same argument was attempted against interracial marriage in the 1960s, and it was as stupid then as it is now. You clearly do not understand the concept of "legal consent".

Erin--you brought up some good points! And ya, dmac 225, some of those animals are very unintelligent--but there are some exceptions--elephants, for example. They are smart enough to mourn their dead! And I mean years, YEARS after their loved one dies! When it comes to 'natural selection, it would only result in extinction if most or all of a species was homosexual. I also think there is a possibility that there is more than one causative factor for homosexuality. I can see where it might be possible that in a subset of homosexual people, environment played a part; in some, a combination of environment and genetics, and in some, strictly genetics. When it comes to children and animals--Erin is exactly right--"legal consent", and I might add, the personal power must be EQUAL--children and animals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves both physically, emotionally, and when it comes to human development, children are not fully developed in their brain and emotions in order to not be hurt by or be able to argue successfully with an adult!

Excuse me almighty ErinNJ but ah, How many on that list of 2500 species that roam this God's green earth can automatically switch from MALE TO FEMALE SEX and vise versa when the environment has the lesser of the two sexes?

As I have noticed from your so-called partial list, certain species of frogs for example can change their sex to suit the environment of the lesser of the two sexes. Making the arguement null and void if any of those species of animal and insects are on that list that you are so proud of.

And if you can find any facts to back up your bull@!$%#, cite them. While it is true that certain animals can change their genders, the list refers to homosexuality among animals -- meaning that two animals of the same gender were documented having sex. So while those species may be able to change their gender, at the time they were observed by scientists, they did not do so.

Well an insect is not an animal. its has an exoskeleton is on the outside of its body. therefore it is not considered an animal but only an insect. Roaches, ants and beetles have a skeleton that is on the outside. also ants the normal variety ant that you normally see roaming on the sidewalk or crawling through vegetation cannot reproduce. Only the queen ant can reproduce from a courtship of a male king ant which later dies after mating. The same holds true for bees as well. Which I find kind of ironic that your list contains ants. Any first year student in high school science class can tell you that.

Also noticed you got that list of animals and insects from wikipedia. Shame, Shame, shame. And you call yourself and research librarian assistant with a bachelors degree. Your a hypocrite!

And since you didnt answer my question. All you did was just make excuses. Again, your a hypocrite!

In the first place, "genius," insects ARE animals -- they are living beings, yet they are not plants, so they fall within the animal kingdom.

Second, the overwhelming majority of animals listed on that PARTIAL list are ones that do not change gender, so what's your point? Because SOME animals have the ability to change their sex, that means that NONE of it can be true? As I stated before, apparently the animals were documented having sex while BOTH were of the same gender.

Third, Wikipedia (as any educated person would know) can be a viable source of information, IF the article has citations to support its information -- and in case you missed school that year (among the many you apparently missed), citations are represented by those numbers in brackets after the animal's name.

Fourth, I actually have two master's degrees -- and I never called myself "and research librarian assistant," moron.

And you believe everything that comes off the internet?

ErinNJ

and I never called myself "and research librarian assistant," moron.

Yes you did. I know you better than you think. We had this conversation once before!

One thing is certian, with a masters degree at least you could at least be more educated and be respectful by not resorting to name calling.

I am more educated than you will ever be, and I give respect when it is deserved.

And please show me where I called myself "and research librarian assistant".

ErinNJ

I am more educated than you will ever be

Doubt it very much! Otherwise I wouldn't have given such informative information on the ant and bee kingdom as far as reproductive process is done to include its hierarchy.

Oh, one more piece of information on ants and bees. If another queen ant or bee tries to enter another hive, it is met with deadly force. Of course that is excluding the africanized killer bee which was breed by man's intention of making a harder working honey bee. Killer bees infiltrate the unsuspecting hive creating a civil war inside the nest and the killer bees kill the hive queen. That is of course an example of how the killer bees take over another hive.

In the ant kingdom however it is a different story. Ants are the only creatures other than man that wage war. Their brutality and ferociousness make man look feeble in comparison.

When the one side wins these ants will go into the losers ant house and kill the queen and make the other ants their slaves. Since all the other ants are just drones or workers, they will be force to do the bidding of the new master. the victors queen.

ErinNJ

I am more educated than you will ever be, and I give respect when it is deserved.

You only give respect when it's deserved as long as they agree with you. At least I don't call people names just because they do not agree with me. I still give respect to others even if I don't agree with them.

Famous qoutes on respect:

"Respect- Treat others equally and fair" "Treat others as you would be treated yourself!"

"How we consider others reflects upon each of us, both personally and as a
professional organization."

RESPECT: TREAT PEOPLE AS THEY SHOULD BE TREATED.

I know, but someday all these freak bigots will die off and we will be better off.

yes, the freak liberal bigots that hate anyone that disagrees with them. What a wonderful day it will be!

Oh Lancy Lancy Lancy (shaking my head): "the freak liberal bigots that hate anyone that disagrees with them"

So you're a liberal then?

Oh, we don't hate you. We just recognize that you are retarded.

That's right, everyone I don't agree with is retarded and everyone that agrees with me has a genius-level intellect!

But seriously, change isn't always bad. I mean, marriage isn't going in a good direction as it is, what with half of 'em falling apart. What harm would it be to let the gay folk get married like the rest of us?

EngEsq is on our side, Some Guy.

oh oh oh oh ohe's on our side. ( limp wrist waving)

fdl123 is right: "freaks" ... homophobic morons certainly are freaks.

Sorry to disapoint you tommy, I'm very straight. But if you want I can give you the phone # of the leather daddy that lives across the hall.

Tell you what... let's put all the homosexuals on one continent and all the heterosexuals on another and let's see which group dies off first.

dmac225

I thought that was what California was for....

EngEsq is on our side, Some Guy.

irrelevant who's side he's on if he makes stupid comments.

Okie. PLEASE dont talk of things you know nothing about.

You know nothing about Due Process or Equal protection.

The Constitution does allow UNequal protection - it just has to be with "due process of law"....which means, that if a law exists, there has been "due process". Dont like the law ? Change it...but until it IS changed, dont bring the Constitution into it.

How about this, OKIE (and a VERY apropos moniker): We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal (so, that means women arent ?)

"That they are endowed by their creator to certain UNALIENABLE rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)...so, by YOUR literal logic and reading, if these rights are "unalienable" (meaning CANNOT be taken away), then, jails are illegal ? How about pedophillia if it makes someone "happy"?

You PERSONIFY the adage "a LITTLE knowledge is a dangerous thing".

PLEASE dont talk of things you know nothing about.

Practice what you preach, Jeff.

You know nothing about Due Process or Equal protection.

Apparently YOU know less than nothing about due process or equal protection. You also apparently know nothing of the Supreme Court opinion in Loving v. Virginia, in which the Court ruled unanimously that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and they have applied that same ruling in at least 14 cases. It has also been found to apply in the various cases challenging gay marriage laws, including Prop H8 and DOMA.

The Constitution does allow UNequal protection - it just has to be with "due process of law"....which means, that if a law exists, there has been "due process".

The Constitution most emphatically DOES NOT allow unequal protection, whether with "due process" or not:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The phrase in Section 1 that is in bold letters covers what I just said.

How about this, OKIE (and a VERY apropos moniker): We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal (so, that means women arent ?)

Yet again you prove your ignorance of the Constitution: that phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution -- and the DOI is NOT the basis of our laws and government, while the Constitution is.

YOU personify the adage that if brains were gunpowder, you could not even light a cigarette.

Well erin why are illegal aliens being allowed to disregard existing laws? What laws do I get to disregard? And if your argument is that they are not citizens and therefore not subject to our laws then any of their children that are born on U.S. soil are not citizens of the U.S.A. as their parent(s) are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. You can't have it both ways. Why are some companies being allowed to disregard ObamaTaxcare while others are not? Why is Obama allowed to DICTATE which laws will be enforced and which ones are null and void? (DOMA, immigration, welfare, etc.) Why is Obama allowed to violate the constitution? (he is not a "natural born" citizen because his father was a British subject which made Obama a dual citizen at birth. You can not be born both a dual citizen and a natural born citizen. His "recess" appointments made while the Senate was not in recess, etc.) And "We can't wait" is not a valid, legal reason. Tell us again how there is "equal protection" under this administration. Oh and let's discuss affirmative action shall we?

Deeming current "marriage" laws to be unequal is absurd. Any man is free to marry any, of age, consenting woman (who is not an immediate relative) he wants. Any woman is free to marry any, of age, consenting man (who is not an immediate relative) she wants. How is this not equal? No one is allowed to marry their brother or sister. Are these people being denied their "equal rights" also?

Any man is free to marry any, of age, consenting woman (who is not an immediate relative) he wants. Any woman is free to marry any, of age, consenting man (who is not an immediate relative) she wants. How is this not equal?

Really? The best that you can do is to repeat the same argument that was used to justify the ban on interracial marriage? That is, both blacks and white can marry within their own race, so there is no discrimination.

I don't think you really care about the current inequality, but here it is anyway. Heterosexuals may marry the one consenting adult to whom are sexually and emotionally attracted. Gays are denied that right. So, there's the inequality. Gays are discriminated against for no compelling reason.

And if your argument is that they are not citizens and therefore not subject to our laws then any of their children that are born on U.S. soil are not citizens of the U.S.A. as their parent(s) are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.A.

WRONG AGAIN. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

That seems pretty clear to me.

Why is Obama allowed to DICTATE which laws will be enforced and which ones are null and void? (DOMA, immigration, welfare, etc.)

You seem to have comprehension issues -- look up "enforce" and "defend". Obama has said that he will not continue to defend DOMA, but that he would enforce it until it is repealed or overturned.

Why is Obama allowed to violate the constitution? (he is not a "natural born" citizen because his father was a British subject which made Obama a dual citizen at birth. You can not be born both a dual citizen and a natural born citizen. His "recess" appointments made while the Senate was not in recess, etc.)

WRONG AGAIN. Obama is a full citizen of the US, since his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth -- which would make him a US citizen no matter where he is born -- and he was born in the US. My husband is a foreign national, and my three children held dual citizenship until they reached the age of majority, and they were (until the age of majority) natural-born citizens as well as dual citizens.

I believe Barry answered your pathetic attempt to resurrect that tired argument regarding homosexuals having the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that you do.

Lance, that's exactly what they're trying to do, Honey!

Sexual prefrerence don't enter into it. Illegal is illegal. Get naturalized, or get back on the boat honey.

I think the point of the story is that the government kind of skipped that 'get naturalized' part and told her to take her son and 'get back on the boat'.

At one time marriage to a US citizen conferred citizenship on the spouse; that is no longer true, but it does confer residence rights. I'm not so sure about the adult son, though.

But she came to the US illegally, by presenting false information. So just because she gets married to a US citizen later, a marriage that the US government does not recognize, does not absolve her of the crime she committed to enter the country in the first place.

That would be like saying, I robbed a bank. But then 3 years later I got married, and then a few years later you figured out I robbed the bank. So now I do not want to suffer the consequences for robbing the bank because I got married.

Naturalization and marriage have absolutly NOTHING to do with robbing a bank, Jim!

At one time marriage to a US citizen conferred citizenship on the spouse; that is no longer true, but it does confer residence rights.

Marriage to a citizen does not necessarily confer residence rights, either. That still requires a lot of paperwork.

Jim - I'm not so sure she did come to the US illegally. She apparently used her common-law husband's name instead of her own, but that is allowed in the Phillipines and that is the name that was on her legally-issued passport. So I'm not quite sure what the actual charge against her on that score would be. It does look like she overstayed her visa however. And yes Erin, marriage to a US citizen does not guarantee residence rights. The permanent residency can still be denied, leaving the couple either splitting up, or moving to the non-US person's home country (or elsewhere.)

Lisa, I didn't need confirmation; my husband is not a US citizen, so I know what I'm talking about.

That is the issue though. She was not married to the person that she came into the US with. She falsified information and said that she was married to him, but was not in actuality married to him. It is because of this that she is being deported.

She just wants to claim that it would be hard on her family (her wife) if she were being deported, in order to be excused from her crimes and allowed to stay. But the US does not recognize her marriage, so she does not have a US citizen family member that would be put in hardship, so she would be deported.

Yup, she married while same sex marriage was legal in California ... but same sex marriage has never been recognized by the Federal Government ... and won't be - the nation's biggest gangstas (congress & the president) are afraid of losing all of the revenue collected from those of us forced to file as single. Married filing jointly is the least expensive tax bracket under the irs tax code ... a way for our government to push people to straight marriages (social control). If she had been legally married to a man when she came to the US, she wouldn't be in this deportation quandary. I know hundreds of military guys who get hooked into wedlock by foreign slags, only to have the women divorce them after a couple of years in the US. The women retain their citizenship and do not have to return to their country of origin. As for the two women in the article, there's nothing saying they have to go live in the Philippines (yuk yuk yuk); there are hundreds of better options for them. The bigotry and vitriol of the right wing in the US ... and the fact that the US is to puritan as compared to many parts of the world ... are prime reasons the two women might enjoy their lives in a more progressive land.

Reddog-739846 - but same sex marriage has never been recognized by the Federal Government ... and won't be

Just wait a year and see where things are at. Right now it looks very likely DOMA will reach SCOTUS this year.

ALL illegals lack proper paperwork.

Obama has already given a pass to kids....

So, kids, gays, people of color who are "refugees" for their sexual preferences...or politics...or....?

The TRUTH of the matter is that anyone who leans liberal will get to stay - politics rule. It will soon get to the pint that the ONLY ones excluded from this country will be white conservative heterosexuals.

Jeez: "Marriage is the legal union between a man and a woman."

Why are 2 men kissing in your avatar then?

That's George Bush kissing your momma!!!!!!

Jeez--I don't have a momma. She's dead. Nice try though...

You are either a very young, or a very old, troll. I hope for the former.

Only 1 of them came to the US illegally ... under what statute would you have the authorities deport the other woman?

For fun

He's not our "Our Dear Leader", Ja'Mookus, he's "The Anointed One". ;-p

Yes..those racist bigoted ID laws.

I'm a 4th generation U.S. citizen - I've had to show my license every time I vote. But you, and those of your ilk, WANT voter fraud.

YOU want new laws - if you're latino, NO I.D. necessary.

Dreads? That's what Bob Marley wore. You might want to google the correct word. I'll give you a hint...it does start with "dre".

liittleI56 -

Dont you GET it ?

These ultraliberals WANT to give the poor and downtrodden SUPERIOR rights.

If you're poor and NEEEEED to come to this country, why should they have to DO so legally ? If they're here illegally, they NEEEED to work, the labor laws be damned, and, they NEEEED medical care, so, that's what OUR E.R.s are here for. ..and, of course, they NEEEED to drive to work, so why do make it hard on them not giving them licenses ?

If they want to sell food on the street, they NEEEED to, so why make THEM get a health license ?

I concur.

But than shouldn't those rules apply to everyone?

MSNBC had an article about a crackpot out here in CA. He had built these, "Green", type of shacks.

He was dumping his grey water into a moat around his house. Digging into the side of his Hillsides without regards to S.O.P. standards.

All without permits. He's been heavily fined.

Yet, I saw people claiming it was, "His land", to do with as he wants.

My only argument is that, you can't expect Public Service persons. Law Enforcement, Fire or Medical personnel to come on his property.

He's has the money to do it right and play by the rules.

As far as anybody rich or poor. If your filing for a Work Visa, you'd better do it right.

You never know when you might want to be recognized as legit. i.e. "Married".

Play by the rules or Tag your Out.

It makes perfect sense that a group of people with value system such as homosexuals would "fight against deportation." They bash their skulls against every other moral, ethical, and logical brick wall. Why would anyone be surprised? Next headline will be "Gay couple: free all convicted child rapists."

Don't forget her son.