Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201846 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144961 Jun 8, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>While child brides and other such issues aren't inherent to poly relationships, they have been part of the baggage brought to the court by those who have been challenging Utah's law against such relationships.
Opponents of equality in marriage like to bring up red herrings like poly relationships and even people way too friendly with the animal kingdom as a way of saying it ain't really us they're against, but if they allow us to marry, look at what else they're going to have to allow. When the subject comes up, I usually just explain to them why bans against legal poly relationships are constitutional in their own right and try to get them back on the actual subject. Some people, like the one I was responding to, require a little more explanation..
i understand. it resembles the 'slippery slope' argument.

i myself am not against approaching looking at the 'slippery slope' argument on any subject. but like any other argument there would have to be proof of a connection.

in other words those that claim if we allowed gay marriage nationwide it would open the door to beastiality i would have to see real proof of this and not just a reactionary fear.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#144962 Jun 8, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>While child brides and other such issues aren't inherent to poly relationships, they have been part of the baggage brought to the court by those who have been challenging Utah's law against such relationships.
Opponents of equality in marriage like to bring up red herrings like poly relationships and even people way too friendly with the animal kingdom as a way of saying it ain't really us they're against, but if they allow us to marry, look at what else they're going to have to allow. When the subject comes up, I usually just explain to them why bans against legal poly relationships are constitutional in their own right and try to get them back on the actual subject. Some people, like the one I was responding to, require a little more explanation..
Well perhaps proponents of same sex marriage just need more explaining on why they can't have it too.

I support marriage equality for all consenting adults, and you don't. The End.
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144964 Jun 8, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
What rights are heterosexuals being denied?
The right to disagree with your perverted homo lifestyle

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#144965 Jun 8, 2012
Pam Jordan wrote:
i would have to ask for proof of this you understand and some evidence if you have it. not to offend you but this strongly looks like an inflammitory remark made by yourself to do nothing more than incite.
What he is referring to, is that at the 1973 national convention of the APA, where the Board of Directors initially voted to approve the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, there were a number of often very vocal protests by Gay activists in support of the removal, some on the floor of the convention's general meeting. What is usually forgotten to be mentioned in the "Gays bully the APA story" is that the final vote to remove the classification didn't even take place at that convention, it took place through the mail in 1974. They also forget to mention that the activists were right. The empirical science, which by then had been available for more than 15 years, proved that being homosexual, even openly so, was no more a "disorder" than being heterosexual. But durn it, it wouldn't have happened if the Gay hadn't forced em to do it.
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144966 Jun 8, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Reproduction is not a requirement for marriage.
^Then what the hell are straight married couples doing making kids of their own? No, it is not a requirement, but many straights get married & have sex for exactly that reason.

Man+Woman = child, then gradchildren, thus the creation of a family. Homosexuality is a dead end because it doesn't contribute to the creation of a family.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144968 Jun 8, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>What he is referring to, is that at the 1973 national convention of the APA, where the Board of Directors initially voted to approve the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, there were a number of often very vocal protests by Gay activists in support of the removal, some on the floor of the convention's general meeting. What is usually forgotten to be mentioned in the "Gays bully the APA story" is that the final vote to remove the classification didn't even take place at that convention, it took place through the mail in 1974. They also forget to mention that the activists were right. The empirical science, which by then had been available for more than 15 years, proved that being homosexual, even openly so, was no more a "disorder" than being heterosexual. But durn it, it wouldn't have happened if the Gay hadn't forced em to do it.
i see no problem with those against homosexual rights taking a cynical eye on the actions that took place those years. it is understandable. but at some point we have to level ourselves to the facts of the situation once the dust has settled and i think your outline of the series of events is accurate.

emotion can often cloud one's vision of what is happening or took place and both sides to this aspect of gays recieving their just rights can be guilty of ot but once we get the luxury of time and a level head to look back on events both current and past we often determine the right answers.

In that past case it was seen as just that the APA lifted any type of label given homosexuality. Now we have to forge through and look into the equality aspect in terms of gay marriage.
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144970 Jun 8, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>What he is referring to, is that at the 1973 national convention of the APA, where the Board of Directors initially voted to approve the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, there were a number of often very vocal protests by Gay activists in support of the removal, some on the floor of the convention's general meeting. What is usually forgotten to be mentioned in the "Gays bully the APA story" is that the final vote to remove the classification didn't even take place at that convention, it took place through the mail in 1974. They also forget to mention that the activists were right. The empirical science, which by then had been available for more than 15 years, proved that being homosexual, even openly so, was no more a "disorder" than being heterosexual. But durn it, it wouldn't have happened if the Gay hadn't forced em to do it.
I take it polygamy, necrophilia, & zoophilia are just around the corner at being taken off the list too /sarcasm

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144971 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
^Then what the hell are straight married couples doing making kids of their own? No, it is not a requirement, but many straights get married & have sex for exactly that reason.
Man+Woman = child, then gradchildren, thus the creation of a family. Homosexuality is a dead end because it doesn't contribute to the creation of a family.
i am sorry but you are out of place.

i am married and we have no kids of our own yet i would strongly disagree our relationship is a dead end.

you sir are not only offensive but anti-social as it would seem.

i would have to challenge you given you made this horrific statement and ask if you were married yourself and only see your wife as a vessel for having children.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#144972 Jun 8, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
Well perhaps proponents of same sex marriage just need more explaining on why they can't have it too.
We don't need more explaining, we just need someone to finally prove that there is a compelling state interest which is served by denying the right to marry to those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. I've read all the reasons, from God says, to heterosexuals are horny and irresponsible and need special inducements to hopefully change the irresponsible part of your nature, but none of them add up to what is required to deny the right to marry.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
I support marriage equality for all consenting adults, and you don't. The End.
Two mutually exclusive thoughts in the same post, interesting. I'm sorry that the laws prohibiting legal poly marriages are so easily proved constitutional, even using strict scrutiny, but that's the way it is. You claim to favor marriage equality for all, but you can't find an argument to sink same sex marriages nor one to save the polies. Bummer.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#144973 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it polygamy, necrophilia, & zoophilia are just around the corner at being taken off the list too /sarcasm
Out of curiosity.....are you stupid or what? Polygamy is a criminal offense that must be decriminalized before anything else can happen and the other 2 would lack consent.

Oh and it is rather pathetic that 20 states have NO LAWS against bestiality......but 31 states have bans against Gays and Lesbians marrying!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#144974 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
I take it polygamy, necrophilia, & zoophilia are just around the corner at being taken off the list too /sarcasm
Just be thankful there's no thought of including needing to tell people that you're trying to be funny. Just so you know, no, no and the other was never listed to begin with.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144975 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it polygamy, necrophilia, & zoophilia are just around the corner at being taken off the list too /sarcasm
my spouse is beckoning me to watch 'red tails', a movie about world war 2 pilots. from what little i've seen of you here it seems you are not up for discussion as much as you are to incite trouble. i would only hope your life outside of these threads is not as caustic. have a good night.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144976 Jun 8, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Just be thankful there's no thought of including needing to tell people that you're trying to be funny. Just so you know, no, no and the other was never listed to begin with.
thank you rick your your time in discussing this aspect of gays in marriage. have a good weekend if i don't return before monday.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#144977 Jun 8, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>We don't need more explaining, we just need someone to finally prove that there is a compelling state interest which is served by denying the right to marry to those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. I've read all the reasons, from God says, to heterosexuals are horny and irresponsible and need special inducements to hopefully change the irresponsible part of your nature, but none of them add up to what is required to deny the right to marry.
<quoted text>Two mutually exclusive thoughts in the same post, interesting. I'm sorry that the laws prohibiting legal poly marriages are so easily proved constitutional, even using strict scrutiny, but that's the way it is. You claim to favor marriage equality for all, but you can't find an argument to sink same sex marriages nor one to save the polies. Bummer.
I don't want an argument "to sink" same sex marriage. I fully support same sex marriage. I hope it is universal soon.

What don't you understand about "I support marriage equality for all consenting adults"?
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144979 Jun 8, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Just be thankful there's no thought of including needing to tell people that you're trying to be funny. Just so you know, no, no and the other was never listed to begin with.
Really? So zoophilia & necrophilia was never listed as a mental illness? Much like homosexuality?

Cool Story Bro
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144980 Jun 8, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of curiosity.....are you stupid or what? Polygamy is a criminal offense that must be decriminalized before anything else can happen and the other 2 would lack consent.
And yet for some reason you gays enjoy embracing it, do you? I heard polygamy runs rampent in the fagottry lifestyle. I take it when you are incapable of giving birth to children, it leaves you with a disposable income to spend on steam baths & anonymous orgies

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#144981 Jun 8, 2012
Pam Jordan wrote:
<quoted text>
i see no problem with those against homosexual rights taking a cynical eye on the actions that took place those years. it is understandable. but at some point we have to level ourselves to the facts of the situation once the dust has settled and i think your outline of the series of events is accurate.
emotion can often cloud one's vision of what is happening or took place and both sides to this aspect of gays recieving their just rights can be guilty of ot but once we get the luxury of time and a level head to look back on events both current and past we often determine the right answers.
In that past case it was seen as just that the APA lifted any type of label given homosexuality. Now we have to forge through and look into the equality aspect in terms of gay marriage.
Most who have turned being against homosexuality and/or homosexuals into their livelihood aren't about to let the dust settle on ANYTHING. This is why, 38 years later we're still talking about the APA convention and the associated protests. It's also why we have to be conversant in a legal case filed 40 years before its time (Baker v Nelson), books published in the 70's (After the Ball, among others) and the ever popular Homosexual Manifesto. That dust isn't about to be settled. Anything and everything any homosexual person might have said which might negatively reflect on us as a collective will be used against us no matter how obscure. Look back on this and other threads, you'll find the exact same discussions repeated over and over again, because the same issues keep being brought up over and over again. Sometimes it's by people who honestly don't know any more than they've "learned", but usually it's by those who are denser than a bag of cement and just want to be antagonistic.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#144982 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet for some reason you gays enjoy embracing it, do you? I heard polygamy runs rampent in the fagottry lifestyle. I take it when you are incapable of giving birth to children, it leaves you with a disposable income to spend on steam baths & anonymous orgies
Actually, it's not Gays or Lesbians that are into polygamist relationships......but even if what you posted was true......what business is it of yours? Straights are just as much into polygamy and swinging......seems, you just show how much of a frucking jackazz you are.......lol!!!

I'm a Lesbian, who already has a grown child and so my childbearing years are a bit behind me.....not into steam houses and NEVER been into orgies.....so, you'll have to tell me how that works for ya!!!
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144983 Jun 8, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it's not Gays or Lesbians that are into polygamist relationships......but even if what you posted was true......what business is it of yours? Straights are just as much into polygamy and swinging......seems, you just show how much of a frucking jackazz you are.......lol!!!
I'm a Lesbian, who already has a grown child and so my childbearing years are a bit behind me.....not into steam houses and NEVER been into orgies.....so, you'll have to tell me how that works for ya!!!
Wait! wat? You mean you were into men before? But I thought lesbians weren't attracted to men? Wow, you are one confused individual.

Second, I make it my business when you flaunt your sexual preferences down my throat! So I have every right to be disgusted by the lifestyle.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#144984 Jun 8, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
I don't want an argument "to sink" same sex marriage. I fully support same sex marriage. I hope it is universal soon.
But not exactly helpful to the cause there bro. Focusing on issues irrelevant to the discussion of same sex marriage, especially issues often hung like an albatross around our necks is nothing but a distraction.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
What don't you understand about "I support marriage equality for all consenting adults"?
Vague to the point of being completely meaningless. What I get from that is you saying that the state's only role in the regulation of the marriage right is to hopefully be able to keep up with who is married to whom with no restrictions, absent all parties being consenting adults. So, no matter how absurd a combination I throw at you, as long as they have consented and as long as you got at least two people, you're not only good to go, you, you, you, you and all your future soul mates are entitled to equality in the rights, benefits, protections and so forth of marriage.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atwater Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
sex 14 hr rjitmdam 1
sex Mon sunny 1
News Roadshow: Gas under $2 a gallon gas reaches Bay... Mon Solarman 1
mere lund 6 ka h Feb 5 honey 5
What Is Udio Wallet.. Feb 1 smithashwani 1
Whats It Like Working For Foster Farms? (Apr '09) Jan 30 Jrjr 27
News Fishers at California Aqueduct should take prec... (Apr '07) Dec '15 Steph 34
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Atwater Mortgages