Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201864 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.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#158578 Sep 9, 2012
Michael Clark Duncan wrote:
<quoted text>
Off topic shyte for brains! Get with the program or STFU and take your bigotry home GaYrY!
You know, Michael Duncan, when you first came here you pretended to have a brain. I wasn't fooled, but a lot of people were.

You've since abandoned all pretense of having a brain.

Why the change in tactics, son?

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#158579 Sep 9, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you -- hard of reading? Feel free to show anywhere in my post where I claim that UT should have "peer-reviewed" the study.
You can't cite UT's decision not to go after Regnerus as some kind of praise for the substance of his work, especially not "the gold standard." They didn't do that.
Show anywhere in my post where I said YOU SAID "UT should have peer-reviewed" the study.

What I wrote is this:
if a university were to peer-review its own studies, these studies wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on.
Now tell us how's that saying YOU SAID "UT Should have peer-reviewed the study."

What are you -- hard of reading?
The publisher of the study is set to acknowledge in an audit that Social Science Research failed in a number of respects in running the Regnerus study.
"The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems with a controversial and widely publicized study that seemed to raise doubts about the parenting abilities of gay couples, according to an internal audit scheduled to appear in the November issue of the journal, Social Science Research, that published the study."
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controv...
Eh ... there's some background on that. Consider:
Wright (the publisher) has suffered sleepless nights since the publication of Regnerus’s paper, and has received a steady stream of angry e-mails, from both colleagues and irate strangers. In his response, he writes that accusations that he was trying to foster gay-bashing are “hurtful and preposterous” and that he also believes, along with critics of the paper, in civil rights for gay people and lesbians.
So what does Wright do? He hires a gay editor to trash the Regnerus study which gets his ass out of the hot-seat.

Where I come from we call that flying the yellow feather.

What do you call it where you come from, fella?
Ibrahim

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#158580 Sep 9, 2012
The voice should be for the people not for the judge. People voice should be louder or why they voted at first!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#158581 Sep 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, I don't know. Why would a peach pie be different than a blueberry pie?
You mean like marriage and gay unions???

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#158582 Sep 9, 2012
Leader of Denial wrote:
<quoted text>
Bunk, and you know it! How many of your foster children did you or your wife abuse? A decent human being is capable of loving and caring for a child! IF they can't or don't want to they usually choose not to be a parent.
I didn't say it, the professionals did.

Of course a decent human is capable of loving and caring for a child. Social scientists simply say a biological parent is simply more capable.

And their children prefer it.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#158583 Sep 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, you haven't even bothered to read the study. Here's a little snippet from it you may find interesting:
"There are several things the NFSS is not. The NFSS is not a longitudinal study, and therefore cannot attempt to broach questions of causation. It is a cross-sectional study, and collected data from respondents at only one point in time, when they were between the ages of 18 and 39. It does not evaluate the offspring of gay marriages since the vast majority of its respondents came of age prior to the legalization of gay marriage in several states. This study cannot answer political questions about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy."
from section 1.3 The New Family Structures Study
Looks like your hero himself wrote a mea culpa clause to save his own hide. He knew the retarded fundies would draw their own conclusions and spread the lie he didn't dare write.
Apparently you did not read the last line;

"This study cannot answer POLITICAL questions about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy."

The fact is, there was simply not enough stable gay unions with children to provide a solid base for judgment.

Which begs the question, how did far smaller supposed 'studies' supposedly provide the answer?

Smirk.
Reality

Madison, WI

#158584 Sep 9, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
And she resorts to semantics to make her case.
<quoted text>
Actually, it doesn't prove either --and that's because Gary Lloyd is not my name.
But that's not what prompted you to say I used my "real" name in any case. What prompted you to make that erroneous claim is your slavish parroting of everything the homosexuals in this forum say. The white homosexuals, I might add.
You didn't use the information you've since discovered through your Google search. You mimicked the homosexuals attacking me because that's what dumb dikes like you do -- that's your modus operandi -- Uncle Tom mimicry!
That's what you do in every post you write -- Uncle Tom mimicry!
And that's probably why you became a bull dagger in the first place -- Uncle Tom mimicry!
You don't reflect on anything.
You embrace every plank -- every freaking splinter!-- in the LGBT agenda. That's why it's no use talking to you about anything -- look how you're writing reams of posts telling me what my own frigging name is, for crissakes!
The Little Black Book is a testimount to homosexual excess. They got it wrong, realized it and to their credit stopped handing it out to underage boys.
But that doesn't matter to you, does it, Rose?
You're still defending it. You're still here telling everyone the filth inside the booklet is safe, normal, and as wholesome as mom's apple pie.
All of which is why your LGBT mentality is a menace to society -- why people who think like you should not be allowed anywhere near kids.
You're poison, Rose.
You're a polluting influence -- and if I ever catch you around my kids it will be the first time you get penetrated by a man -- albeit, not exactly in the place you'd liked.
Well Gary, lets cut to the chase shall we? Now on more than one occasion you posted you where an author, you also complained that someone had used a name from one of your books. As Rose pointed out that in fact you posted your name, Gary Lloyd. That being said, you have either lied about being Gar Lloyd or its you. Granted that could be your pen name, but nonetheless its you or you lied. That how ever does not change the fact that you are a racist and homophobic bigot.
Reality

Madison, WI

#158585 Sep 9, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say it, the professionals did.
Of course a decent human is capable of loving and caring for a child. Social scientists simply say a biological parent is simply more capable.
And their children prefer it.
Smile.
The only logical way for a child to say they prefer their biological parents, would be they have been in a situation where they have lost said parents, or abandoned. That withstanding of course they would prefer to have them. Now if a child has never know the real parents, I doubt that would be the case.

What does any of this have to do with same sex marriage, you know the topic?

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#158586 Sep 9, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you did not read the last line;
"This study cannot answer POLITICAL questions about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy."
The fact is, there was simply not enough stable gay unions with children to provide a solid base for judgment.
Which begs the question, how did far smaller supposed 'studies' supposedly provide the answer?
Smirk.
Lesbian researchers using their lesbian peers as subjects.

These lesbian researchers have been turning out the same biased studies for decades. Worse still, their studies -- which purport to be about "homosexuals" -- rarely include men. Meanwhile, the LGBT always cites their work as evidence gay men are normal.

Proof of how worthless their studies are is that to-date of the tens of studies they've churned out not one has posited anything negative about homosexuals.

In other words, rather than scientists, these lesbian researchers are in effect press agents for the LGBT community.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#158587 Sep 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>Well Gary, lets cut to the chase shall we? Now on more than one occasion you posted you where an author, you also complained that someone had used a name from one of your books. As Rose pointed out that in fact you posted your name, Gary Lloyd. That being said, you have either lied about being Gar Lloyd or its you. Granted that could be your pen name, but nonetheless its you or you lied. That how ever does not change the fact that you are a racist and homophobic bigot.
Comical, isn't he?

This clown can't defend his own stupid posts yet here he is defending someone else's dumb posts.

Reading for content is fundamental, Reality. If I've told you that once I've told you a thousand times.

The operative words in Rose's post are "real name."

Those two words render all your blather directly above ... well, blather.
Reality

Madison, WI

#158588 Sep 9, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Comical, isn't he?
This clown can't defend his own stupid posts yet here he is defending someone else's dumb posts.
Reading for content is fundamental, Reality. If I've told you that once I've told you a thousand times.
The operative words in Rose's post are "real name."
Those two words render all your blather directly above ... well, blather.
As I stated, you either are a liar about being Gary Lloyd, the author or you are him. Whether or not Gary Lloyd is a pen name is irrelevant. That being said, does not change the fact that you are a racist and homophobic bigot.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#158589 Sep 9, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>As I stated, you either are a liar about being Gary Lloyd, the author or you are him. Whether or not Gary Lloyd is a pen name is irrelevant. That being said, does not change the fact that you are a racist and homophobic bigot.
It's fun making your own world of make-believe, isn't it Reality?

You can ignore the facts and proclaim "This is what the debate is about! Why? Because I'm the King!"

The debate was about Rose's claim that I revealed my real name. She parroted this claim from another homosexual. I pointed out that the claim is erroneous which prompted her to go on a frantic search to prove it wasn't erroneous.

Directly above and in several other posts you make claims about me lying, etc, that have absolutely nothing to do with the debate Rose and I were embroiled in. You made these claims because your reading comprehension is subpar -- you don't fully grasp the meaning of what you read -- even when given instruction, like I gave you.

The long and short of all this, Reality, is you're not a very bright fellow. Indeed, me and my colleagues spend more time correcting your stupid errors of logic than actually engaging in substantive debate with you.

It' depressing ... and sad ... and no doubt yet another poignant reminder of the shitty job our public schools are doing.
jackson

Mountain View, CA

#158590 Sep 9, 2012
Reality

Madison, WI

#158591 Sep 9, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
It's fun making your own world of make-believe, isn't it Reality?
You can ignore the facts and proclaim "This is what the debate is about! Why? Because I'm the King!"
The debate was about Rose's claim that I revealed my real name. She parroted this claim from another homosexual. I pointed out that the claim is erroneous which prompted her to go on a frantic search to prove it wasn't erroneous.
Directly above and in several other posts you make claims about me lying, etc, that have absolutely nothing to do with the debate Rose and I were embroiled in. You made these claims because your reading comprehension is subpar -- you don't fully grasp the meaning of what you read -- even when given instruction, like I gave you.
The long and short of all this, Reality, is you're not a very bright fellow. Indeed, me and my colleagues spend more time correcting your stupid errors of logic than actually engaging in substantive debate with you.
It' depressing ... and sad ... and no doubt yet another poignant reminder of the shitty job our public schools are doing.
Yet you have failed miserably at refuting my post. Why is that? Could it be that what I have said is the truth? Gary you have yet to address the actual topic of this thread, that being laws regarding same sex marriage. Please do make an attempt to post to the topic at hand. The question is are laws, like Prop 8 unconstitutional? Its not to hard to comprehend, if you read the actual story and the court findings. Let me help......

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage


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.

Full story:(Aug 4, 2010)
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#158592 Sep 9, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, Dodo, neither Hooker nor the APA said anal sex, pee play, fisting, rimming, bathhouse orgies, Fire Island, the Greenwich Village docks, marching down Main Street in penis suits and erect penis hats, and all the other despicable and dangerous behaviors that define you are normal. All Hooker said was that homosexualiy -- the attraction to same sex -- is not a mental disorder.
Can your tiny brain at least grasp that distinction?
What about "homosexuality is not a mental disorder" escapes you?
Snarks

Covina, CA

#158593 Sep 9, 2012
Snarks for Sunday.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#158595 Sep 9, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like marriage and gay unions???
No. Step families and gay families. Do you forget what you wrote already?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#158596 Sep 9, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you did not read the last line;
"This study cannot answer POLITICAL questions about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy."
The fact is, there was simply not enough stable gay unions with children to provide a solid base for judgment.
Which begs the question, how did far smaller supposed 'studies' supposedly provide the answer?
Smirk.
Well if there weren't enough stable gay unions to study, then what did he base his conclusions on?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#158597 Sep 9, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
It's fun making your own world of make-believe, isn't it Reality?
You can ignore the facts and proclaim "This is what the debate is about! Why? Because I'm the King!"
The debate was about Rose's claim that I revealed my real name. She parroted this claim from another homosexual. I pointed out that the claim is erroneous which prompted her to go on a frantic search to prove it wasn't erroneous.
Directly above and in several other posts you make claims about me lying, etc, that have absolutely nothing to do with the debate Rose and I were embroiled in. You made these claims because your reading comprehension is subpar -- you don't fully grasp the meaning of what you read -- even when given instruction, like I gave you.
The long and short of all this, Reality, is you're not a very bright fellow. Indeed, me and my colleagues spend more time correcting your stupid errors of logic than actually engaging in substantive debate with you.
It' depressing ... and sad ... and no doubt yet another poignant reminder of the shitty job our public schools are doing.
OMFG! YOU "correcting errors of logic?" PUH-LEEZ! You just make up lies... you're not fooling anyone, silly.
Snarks

Covina, CA

#158598 Sep 9, 2012
It only took three 3. minutes..

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.

Beverly Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 6 hr Chris 20,107
My Newest Original Writing or Essay - "Slave Cl... 6 hr Patricia_McGurk 1
occupy leader hires soundgarden for police offi... Tue los angles occupy... 1
head of los angles occuppy leader is also a pol... Tue bomb sqaud leader 1
Resolution to Move On From the Hate Crimes in L... Tue Patricia_McGurk 1
News Collecting fire trucks becomes career for Joe O... (Jul '09) Tue concerned citizen 14
10/325 watson norco's 4 sale Los Angeles, Pasad... (Jul '09) Tue Morris 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Beverly Hills Mortgages