Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201845 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.

ELH

Portland, OR

#156313 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
In summary, the woman was a dingbat rat-tester gang activists got to front for them.


In summary, the structure of this (alleged) sentence explains a lot about why your (self published) writing career is going the way it is.
ELH

Portland, OR

#156314 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Of course in your homosexual mind this is fine. In the world of science, however, it totally invalidates her story.
The "world of science" seems to be in UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT that heterosexuality is NOT superior to homosexuality and that the REAL problem is ignorance and bias against gays.
BTW the "arguments" that are the bases of nearly all your posts, like homosexuality being "disgusting" or a "choice" or a "sin" or a "mental illness", have no basis in SCIENCE.
Prof Marvel wrote:
The wonder is this silly woman didn't grasp this.
Oh, and we're real sorry she wasn't bright enough to grasp it.
There is no evidence that your claims about "gay rights activists" choosing Hoopers subjects and the "silly woman" is dead.

But if you want to find out why a researched might not "grasp this" maybe you should google Dr Robert Spitzer?

As I recall YOU were once very found of quoting from and agreeing with Dr Spitzer's (now) completely debunked "study"...

Oh dear...it appears that you weren't bright enough to see that you were being manipulated. Silly man.
ELH

Portland, OR

#156315 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Learn to do deep research and you'll uncover information like this
Poor Professor Marmalade, The sad part is that you really think you are ONTO something when it's so obvious to everyone else that you're just ON something.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#156316 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
We know of two instances where the publishers handed the booklet out to underage boys, one is the Brookline high school, the other was Youth on Fire drop in center.
Combined or individually that establishes who the booklet was created for.
But let's play with this a little. You tell us it was a mistake the booklet appeared on a table at the high school.
Walk us through that. Show us how that 'mistake' might have happened.
You believe that the booklet was handed out.....you, however have NOT given anything specifically that proves it was......and MassResistance is NOT a reliable source!!!
ELH

Portland, OR

#156317 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
But let's play with this a little. You tell us it was a mistake the booklet appeared on a table at the high school.
Walk us through that.
Option #1:
Those porn cruising jiz monkeys at MassResistance took time off form their circle jerk and wrote and published the book and later planted it because no one was paying attention to them any more...

Option #2:

They made the whole thing up.

Hell, anyone who has ever looked at their crazyass website can tell that they pull most of the content from their own asses and cut and paste the rest from other equally suspect nutjob type sites.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156318 Aug 25, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, your reasoning certainly is "childish".
:)
oh, that's deep.

Smirk.
ELH

Portland, OR

#156319 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
If I had a nickel for every time I've shown the "gay is not a choice" argument is a pile of crap I'd be as rich as Donald Trump.
I think you mean to say "If I had a nickel for every time I've posted MY OPINION of the "gay is not a choice" argument..."

Just imagine what you accomplish if you could have all the TIME you have wasted endlessly re posting your OPINIONS over the past few years back?

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#156320 Aug 25, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Remember the nursery rhyme?
Jack and Jill sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First comes love.Then comes marriage.
Then comes a baby in the baby carriage!
ARE YOU FRUCKING FOR REAL? This nursery rhyme from like the 1950's is your reasoning that EVERY HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE WILL PROCREATE......what a joke!!!

Beside, the names could be any names......Jack and Jill went up the hill.....not sitting in a tree!!!

I know plenty of opposite-sex married couples who for whatever reason aren't, can't or simply choose not to have children.....and your claim that Gay and Lesbian couples HAVE NO POSSIBLE POTENTIAL to naturally procreate is TOTALLY irrelevant to the right to marry the person of one's choosing!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156321 Aug 25, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
ARE YOU FRUCKING FOR REAL? This nursery rhyme from like the 1950's is your reasoning that EVERY HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE WILL PROCREATE......what a joke!!!
Beside, the names could be any names......Jack and Jill went up the hill.....not sitting in a tree!!!
I know plenty of opposite-sex married couples who for whatever reason aren't, can't or simply choose not to have children.....and your claim that Gay and Lesbian couples HAVE NO POSSIBLE POTENTIAL to naturally procreate is TOTALLY irrelevant to the right to marry the person of one's choosing!!!
That really hit 'home', didn't it?

Something so simple and ageless. Something you not only said as a girl, but something you taught your own children.

The expectation of what life brings. Or more specifically what marriage means.

I think the Jack and Jill who went up a hill fetched a pail of water. Oh, and they were brother and sisters. Couldn't marry each other, just like gays.

This Jack and Jill were not brother and sister. As is most often the case, they got married and had children.
ELH

Portland, OR

#156322 Aug 25, 2012
KiMare and Professor sitting in a tree

K-I-S-S-I-N-G!

First cam love,

then cam marriage

Then came... OMG!!!! you have a penis AND a vagina???
ELH

Portland, OR

#156323 Aug 25, 2012
KiMare and Professor sitting in a tree

K-I-S-S-I-N-G!

First cam love,

then cam marriage

Then came the turkey baster...

girls are yucky.
FlyingHorse

La Puente, CA

#156324 Aug 25, 2012
Watch out for the soft rocks fallingon your head from the flyingHorse.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#156325 Aug 25, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
you went overboard saying her "science" got homosexuals removed from the DSM;
I never said that the work of Hooker and those who substantiated her work in the 60's got the listing removed, what I have said repeatedly, is that the empirical science was on the side of those demanding its removal. THAT is indisputable.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#156326 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
(Yawn)
In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology. Individuals who proved unstable were deleted from the final sample.
Dear, if homosexuality were in and of itself a mental illness, that would have shown up even in a non-random sample. I guess you didn't think of that. Of course you didn't think of that or anything else for that matter, look who I am talking to, the only man in America aside from the sociopaths involved in the group that finds MassResistance a credible organization. Hooker used a match pair sample to fully test the thesis, something not possible using a purely random sample. It really doesn't matter who was involved in the study cupcake, if all homosexuals are in fact mentally ill, that would have been demonstrated even in a highly selective group.
Prof Marvel wrote:
Indeed, and after finding out the purpose of her study the Mattachine Society was only to happy to hand-pick study subjects for her.
Of course in your homosexual mind this is fine. In the world of science, however, it totally invalidates her story.
The wonder is this silly woman didn't grasp this.
Oh, and we're real sorry she wasn't bright enough to grasp it.
You haven't given us anything which should be confused with science dear, or are you forgetting that you've been quoting a former English professor with an obvious bias?
continued

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#156327 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Learn to read. The number was three -- which represents 10% of her study population of heterosexuals.
And this invalidates her study how? The biased English professor didn't even offer an answer for that one.
Prof Marvel wrote:
Wrong again -- here's why:
"...Critics of Hooker's Rorschach results make at least two points. First, they question her ability to administer and score the test. As an animal researcher until the time she undertook this project, she obviously had logged comparatively little experience in administering Rorschachs, a delicate and highly complicated task in which the clinician gently and obliquely elicits spontaneous responses. Some authorities in the field maintain that, under ideal circumstances, a more qualified expert would have explored many avenues Hooker failed to note and would have found out many things Hooker missed -- including indications of the pathology of the homosexuals.
A second criticism of her methodology is the lack of "blindness" in the administration of the Rorschach. Ideally, given the nature of the results sought, the test should have been administered under circumstances in which both interviewer and subject were unaware of the purpose of the test. In the case of the Hooker study, both she and her subjects knew what she was striving to prove -- and both she and the homosexuals had a vested interest in proving the hypothesis that homosexuals were not necessarily pathological.
Unnamed "critics", dear, aside from a biased English professor who clearly is incompetent on the subject he is claiming to write about. His "source" listed for this alleged criticism is supposedly Hooker's own study, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The more likely source is the one listed below it, none other than Paul Cameron.
Prof Marvel wrote:
She actually gets every calculation in her study wrong. Here's a couple of them:
"... Turning to the table upon which she lists the age, IQ scores, and education of all 60 subjects, a careful reader finds that the figures neatly arranged in columns contradict her summary. While she says the age range for all subjects is 25-50, the chart indicates that the youngest subject is 26 and the oldest 57. The figures on the table indicate an average age of 35 for the homosexuals and 37 for the heterosexuals -- different averages than the ones Hooker gives.
In summary, the woman was a dingbat rat-tester gang activists got to front for them.
Dear, not even your biased English professor goes that far, or are you merely selectively reading his garbage? The truth is you have offered nothing more than the musings of an unqualified hack who has close ties with the equally disreputable Family Research Institute, proving once and for all that you have no shame in defending your gay derangement syndrome.
Reality

Madison, WI

#156328 Aug 25, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That really hit 'home', didn't it?
Something so simple and ageless. Something you not only said as a girl, but something you taught your own children.
The expectation of what life brings. Or more specifically what marriage means.
I think the Jack and Jill who went up a hill fetched a pail of water. Oh, and they were brother and sisters. Couldn't marry each other, just like gays.
This Jack and Jill were not brother and sister. As is most often the case, they got married and had children.
little red ridding hood ran into the big bad wolf in the forest. The wolf said hey Red give up the basket or I will fluck you, Red replied no flucking way asshat stick to the story and eat me.
FlyingHorse

La Puente, CA

#156329 Aug 25, 2012
Ricky, i see flying horses circling your dweling.

Watch out.

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156330 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for proving my point -- which was how the gay community uses extreme behavior in the straight community to justify "normal" behavior in the homosexual community.
Once again, thanks.
Oh no, thank you Gary. Thank you for demonstrating what a lying chicken shit coward you are! If you would like to disprove me, them by all means, please point out in my post where I "justified" ANYTHING!! lol! Damn you are stupid!

Hey Gary, when you present these mythical "justifications", will you also tell us what page in your crusty black book that the GLSEN is credited on? Remember when you made that claim dipshit?! Oh, and how are you coming with those 13 Bible verses you claimed existed?!

Watch everyone as Gary Chicken Shit Liar does not present ANY of the supposed "justifications" he accused me of, watch as he doesn't provide a page number with the credit of the GLSEN in his jerk off manual, and watch as he does not privide the Bible verses he claimed existed! Watch as the biggest fat assed cowardly liar you have ever encountered evades these questions!

Gary Lloyd...pathetic liar!! Such a chicken shit coward!

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156331 Aug 25, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You are hence forth doomed in this thread
Huge Y A W N
Frank Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#156332 Aug 25, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>little red ridding hood ran into the big bad wolf in the forest. The wolf said hey Red give up the basket or I will fluck you, Red replied no flucking way asshat stick to the story and eat me.
So then Reality blew the wolf.

YUK!YUK!YUK!

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.

Bakersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
cracco llc (Jan '15) 19 hr Jason 41
Jiffys in shafter? Wed Armando91 1
Cute guy working at store? Who? Shafter Wed Maria1993 1
any young ladies of legal age need a sugar daddy? (Oct '14) Wed Joshan 30
dago diaz (Mar '15) Wed Francisco sickfoo 2
Bakersfield Sugar Mom (Apr '15) Wed Cque 4
I truly miss you! Apr 30 Gdub7676 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bakersfield Mortgages