Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201863 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.

SpongeBob

Staten Island, NY

#160969 Sep 26, 2012
Tata wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays typically respond to a question with a question. Gays generally will change the wording or ones response to suit there way of thinking. Gays refuse to reason with what is a negative to there way of thinking. Gays have much to convince to the general public that SSM is as normal a hetero marriages. Like I have always said, I don't dislike the gay person themselves, I'm just not one who wants to pay for the ideas they bring to the table. There will be a dumb gay responding to this explanation by saying I'm a hater and homophobe; they just don't respond to ones reasoning very well.
That is a really prejudiced statement. So you've had a lot of communication with gays and they always ask questions....

I was taught to question EVERYTHING, especially anyone who acts authoritative,(like religious people)...then you don't get to push me around. So if as you say, gays ask questions, I think it's a good thing. And yes, I do believe you are a homophobe, at which point you will have to believe I'm gay...because I don't respond "correctly" to your BullS#!T...????

See why the ACLU is so important? What are you doing on this thread?...I'm here to defend the Constitutional rights of gays...What's your agenda?

Is that enough questions for you?

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#160970 Sep 26, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Gods shoeshine.
Well, of course the Bible says no such thing, although it may well be true that God did create the earth no more than 6,000 years ago. You are hanging your hat on Bishop Usher's genealogical record as recorded in the Bible to determine the date when Adam was created.
No, we know that the Earth itself is well over 4 billion years old, not 6,000. Humans have been areound for a lot more than a mere 6,000 years.
Ronald wrote:
According to Usher's calculation, Adam was created in 4,004 B.C.*(including his 4 year mathematical calculation error)* in accordance with the Biblical genealogical record. The KJV translated that God created various episodes in periods of "days", when a more accurate translation would read "eons" or "periods". The inspired Word of the living God does not reveal how long those periods were as measured by time that God had created.
No, the Bible says days, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Eons do not have an evening and a morning...

But then, myths should NEVER be taken TOO seriously. First off, you end up believing in silly delusions, and secondly, you end up totally missing the point of the myth.
Ronald wrote:
Recent scientific discoveries indicate that c has actually decayed to be as much as one millions times slower than it was at the time of creation. This would seem to conform to "The Big Bang Theory" whereby God's creation expanded outward at speeds unbelievably greater than the speed of light. Therefore, it is entirely possible that God created the earth 6000 years ago in terms of the 24 hour day as we know it today, even were one to make the unscientific observation that c is constant throughout time. The fact is though, that even in historical times, following Romer measuring the time it took for light to arrive at earth after being reflected off one of Jupiter's moons in 1675 through subsequent measurements, light has been scientifically proven to be slowing. Its an unimportant point. Any resolution of this matter can - of necessity - be mere conjecture on our part. As Ren้ Descartes noted long ago:
"I think, therefore I am".
Source: http://tinyurl.com/644svj
Ronald
Sheer, total, and utter bull feces. There is no "evidence" claiming that light has slowed down.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#160971 Sep 26, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Under the original intent of the Constitution the 2nd Amendment was only a restriction on the Federal Government. The States were free to restrict or even ban weapons if they so chose.
You might want to study U.S.history someday...

The Constitution was written to give the federal government real power that was not available under the original Articles of Confederation. Some people feared that this power went too far, prompting the writing of the Bill of Rights. While it took a later amendment to spell it out in unambiguous terms, there is nothing in the Constitution that hints that States can actually deny American citizens their rights.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#160972 Sep 26, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar? So there is "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution?
Show me:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yup, still not there..
And the letter, which people like you consistently take out of context, was Jefferson telling the Danbury Baptists that there wasn't a damn thing he could do about their grievances, as the Federal Government was PREVENTED from doing so under the 1st Amendment. There was no Constitutional separation of church and state, Congress simply wasn't allowed to pass a law establishing a national religion, the States were free to do whatever they pleased. And they did, until 1961, when the SCOTUS decided it knew better than the very men who drafted the document.
Do any of you actually study history anymore, or is everything you know from a text book?
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions,[and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are,[so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.
Letter of Oct. 7, 1801 from Danbury (CT) Baptist Assoc. to Thomas Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division,
Library of Congress, Wash. D.C.

In response to this, Jefferson wrote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert E. Bergh, ed.(Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1904), Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282.
Frank Rizzo

Alhambra, CA

#160973 Sep 26, 2012
Tata wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays typically respond to a question with a question. Gays generally will change the wording or ones response to suit there way of thinking. Gays refuse to reason with what is a negative to there way of thinking. Gays have much to convince to the general public that SSM is as normal a hetero marriages. Like I have always said, I don't dislike the gay person themselves, I'm just not one who wants to pay for the ideas they bring to the table. There will be a dumb gay responding to this explanation by saying I'm a hater and homophobe; they just don't respond to ones reasoning very well.
Bruno,

When people ask you questions, they want to better understand your reasoning and perspective.

If you can't answer these questions, perhaps you've reached a conclusion without fully exploring the issue and perhaps you have no back-up to that conclusion.
Insane Clown Posse

West Covina, CA

#160974 Sep 26, 2012
Insane Clown Posse, oh you mean the GOP / Republican / Tea Party Nation member's.
SpongeBob

Staten Island, NY

#160975 Sep 26, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Bruno,
When people ask you questions, they want to better understand your reasoning and perspective.
If you can't answer these questions, perhaps you've reached a conclusion without fully exploring the issue and perhaps you have no back-up to that conclusion.
You're soooo kind and reasonable; talking like my Dad...Sometimes I just lose it with intellectual skinheads....I have to be careful, because now when you go for a job, they check out your "computer life".....
SpongeBob

Staten Island, NY

#160976 Sep 26, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that there are far too many fundies that are dumb enough to think that the curse of Ham is what created black people. That is the problem of taking myths as factual. When you start with nonsense as your basis, you can only reach nonsense conclusions.
Ahhh....the refreshing voice of reason.....
Frank Rizzo

Alhambra, CA

#160977 Sep 26, 2012
SpongeBob wrote:
<quoted text>
You're soooo kind and reasonable; talking like my Dad...Sometimes I just lose it with intellectual skinheads....I have to be careful, because now when you go for a job, they check out your "computer life".....
I have this bizarre hope that Bruno will someday start thinking for himself and stop repeating the BS he's heard from the pinheads on this forum.

Of all the people here, he's the only one that seems to be able to take a joke and not just BE the joke.

And as long as he doesn't post anything too inane, I feel that I should respond in kind.

Besides, you gave him the proper drumming for his response.

Jeesh! Afraid to answer questions!!!
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#160978 Sep 26, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we know that the Earth itself is well over 4 billion years old, not 6,000. Humans have been areound for a lot more than a mere 6,000 years.
<quoted text>
No, the Bible says days, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Eons do not have an evening and a morning...
But then, myths should NEVER be taken TOO seriously. First off, you end up believing in silly delusions, and secondly, you end up totally missing the point of the myth.
<quoted text>
Sheer, total, and utter bull feces. There is no "evidence" claiming that light has slowed down.
Liam R.

Yes. I agree. For example, the historical record, as revealed, states:

"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." (Isaiah 45:12)

This is consistent with expensive studies made at taxpayer funded Government universities that attempt to explain the how the earth could have come into being without God having created it. While these taxpayer funded studies do essentially conform to the historical record as revealed in the Bible, they fail on the foundational principles on which they base their currently popular explanations. That foundational principle is that God does not exist.

According to an excellent explanation that was made by space.com :

"The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old — that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age — it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously.

"After inflation, the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate. As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos."

Source: http://tinyurl.com/3q3raje

Space is a function of light. Time is a function of the speed of light. According to the historical record:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (Genesis 1:2)

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Genesis 1:3)

"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." (Genesis 1:4)

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1:5)

Ronald
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#160979 Sep 26, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Look, dopey.... from you own link: "Since no evidence was provided to indicate that the behavior at issue rose to a level of scientific misconduct, no formal investigation is warranted," Peterson wrote.

There WAS no investigation and they did NOT validate his study. His methodology was FLAWED. Any first year research methods class would teach you that.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#160980 Sep 26, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Liam R.
Yes. I agree. For example, the historical record, as revealed, states:
"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." (Isaiah 45:12)
This is consistent with expensive studies made at taxpayer funded Government universities that attempt to explain the how the earth could have come into being without God having created it. While these taxpayer funded studies do essentially conform to the historical record as revealed in the Bible, they fail on the foundational principles on which they base their currently popular explanations. That foundational principle is that God does not exist.
According to an excellent explanation that was made by space.com :
"The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old — that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age — it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously.
"After inflation, the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate. As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos."
Source: http://tinyurl.com/3q3raje
Space is a function of light. Time is a function of the speed of light. According to the historical record:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (Genesis 1:2)
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Genesis 1:3)
"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." (Genesis 1:4)
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1:5)
Ronald
I can't believe that in 2012 we are STILL having this discussion.

"...taxpayer funded Government universities that attempt to explain the how the earth could have come into being without God having created it." hahahahahahah I sincerely doubt if they considered "without god having created it." They are theoretical physicists, not superstitious idiots.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#160981 Sep 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't believe that in 2012 we are STILL having this discussion.
"...taxpayer funded Government universities that attempt to explain the how the earth could have come into being without God having created it." hahahahahahah I sincerely doubt if they considered "without god having created it." They are theoretical physicists, not superstitious idiots.
Mona Lott.

Yes. You are exactly right. In fact, the Bible puts it even better:

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come." (2 Timothy 3:1)

"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 3:7)

Ronald
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#160982 Sep 26, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Mona Lott.
Yes. You are exactly right. In fact, the Bible puts it even better:
"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come." (2 Timothy 3:1)
"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 3:7)
Ronald
Gee... the Buybull proves that the Buybull is true. Nice circular reasoning there, numbnuts.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#160983 Sep 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, dopey.... from you own link: "Since no evidence was provided to indicate that the behavior at issue rose to a level of scientific misconduct, no formal investigation is warranted," Peterson wrote.
There WAS no investigation and they did NOT validate his study. His methodology was FLAWED. Any first year research methods class would teach you that.
There was 'no scientific misconduct'. That means his methodology was vindicated.

I'm still waiting for just ONE of your studies with methodology so we can look at 'scientific misconduct'. Having some trouble???

Smirk.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#160984 Sep 26, 2012
My Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and the Africans often tell me there is no "evidence" proving the speed of light has slowed over time. I always tell them that there is no "evidence" proving the validity of evolutionary doctrine, but untold millions of Government school "educated" Americans worship at the alter of the evolutionary faith.

I always remind them that, while there is substantial evidence indicating c has slowed throughout time, no evidence has ever been found proving the validity of evolutionary belief.

Ronald

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#160985 Sep 26, 2012
I know how to move my wife. I am not speaking of just sexual technique. When we unite physically, it is a new personification of a male and female rejoined first and foremost in mind and spirit.

When I say, "create a whole new being", I am not speaking of procreation, I am speaking of a union of male and female so complete that they become 'two in one' just like the Bible speaking of God being 'three in one'.

To call gay unions marriage obviously reveals you cannot even comprehend that union. Redumdant genders can never duplicate that creation. The effort it takes for diverse genders to unite cannot be matched by duplicate genders. And the breadth of being it creates is impossible to match by repeat genders.

When you consider just the implications of this single matter of union, you see how silly it is to say gay unions are identical to marriage. There is simply no comparison.

Then when you add the fact that that union creates a new life that is literally the blending of the two, your assertions become idiotically offensive.

This is why I say, the closer you get to the real thing, the more obvious the stupidity of your claim becomes.
Insane Clown Posse

West Covina, CA

#160986 Sep 26, 2012
What ever suits you.

motherjones.com
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#160987 Sep 26, 2012
Looks like the little kids are out of school. Let's hope their mommas don't catch them fooling around with their computers.

Ronald
four cents

West Covina, CA

#160988 Sep 26, 2012
Too bad about MacDonald [pasadena, ca.] being dropped from Anchor Pacifica Management Companies Xmas card list for 2012.

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) 5 hr Samson 20,104
Copy of Correspondence to a Family Member - Los... 6 hr Patricia_McGurk 1
News Collecting fire trucks becomes career for Joe O... (Jul '09) 8 hr oberjim 13
Judge Manuel Real is not mentally competent to ... (Nov '13) 21 hr And Justice For All 12
News Club hopping: The Crazy Horse (Jul '08) Sun wtf 147
News Shopping center giants face off in CarlsbadAug ... Sat bodhi451 1
Democracy Symphony - My Newest Work (Still in P... Aug 25 Patricia_McGurk 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Beverly Hills Mortgages