Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, YOU left out the first logical step.
In reality, marriage always has included the likelihood of procreation. So much so that the instances where it did not occur were ignored.
Moreover, you then simply argue tradition, without a valid reason to discriminate.
The only reason marriage was restricted to one man and one woman, was the very issue of procreation.

No matter how you twist things, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Can you?

KiMare wrote:

<
By removing that element, you leave the setting of a natural family undefined, horn in on the protection and support designed for that foundational societal relationship, and open the door to simply any committed relationships. ANY restrictions of number and type must show harm, and children cannot be considered.
Smirk.

LOL.
The whole logic thing, beyond you, huh?

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
That would be pesce Rosa.....delicious over pasta.

Aringa rosa! Eccellente!

And dopey rose_noho says that's polygamy!

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
No matter how you twist things, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.

Then why can't I marry my sister?

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
The whole logic thing, beyond you, huh?

Didn't happen to everybody, just you.

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
It's important (or not so) to the couples involved. A great many people do indeed believe that it is relevant to marriage, and don't base their own actions on the actions of others who do not see it that way.
I personally believe that it is vital to maintaining a health marriage, although it is not natural to everyone. If it is not natural to you, and you cannot find someone to marry be believes just as you do, then marriage is not the right choice.
I have seen very few happy marriages where monogamy is optional. But it is not my place to decide that for anyone other than myself.

The fact is, when no-fault divorce was extended across the country, divorce skyrocketed. Quickly the rate of couples living together outside of marriage also shot up. Moreover, single parenthood also has become nearly as common as heterosexual parenthood.

In other words, when we diluted marriage by ignoring the consideration of children, marriage has become a cheap, disposable option. In every aspect of social measurement, the result has been devastating for everyone.

Now gays are demanding we totally remove the consideration of children. Rizzo is right. Monogamy and marriage will only accelerate in their demise.

Sad and stupid.

KiMare wrote:
Moreover, homosexuality is a far more promiscuous orientation than heterosexuality.
Smile.

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
Here we go with the NARTH bullshit propaganda spew....

Not even aware of it.

I simply note the sociological fact that the presence of children encourages monogamy. The absence leaves mating behavior unrestrained. Homosexuals have never had that restraint.

Smile.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL are you suggesting that polygamy was legal before prop 8?
Wrong!... try again
Same sex marriage was in fact legal before prop 8, and some 18,000 legal same sex marriages were preformed legally before this unconstitutional measure was voted on.

Polygamy has been far more active than calling gay couples married.

In any culture. Anywhere. At any time.

Smile.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Ohhhhh.....so the "D" stands for denial? What frighten? Why would it matter to you if plural marriage in some form was given legal recognition? Would it crash your Big Fat Gay Wedding?

Big D is quite the ignorant bigot.

He says most people (not him of course!) see polygamists as child abusers and welfare cheats. That's the "face of polygamy" he says. And polygamists use polygamy to commit their crimes. Then he says not enough people want it for it to be worthy anyway.

Nice!

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Then why can't I marry my sister?

Umm she hates your lying no good two timing dead beat azz???

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Big D is quite the ignorant bigot.
He says most people (not him of course!) see polygamists as child abusers and welfare cheats. That's the "face of polygamy" he says. And polygamists use polygamy to commit their crimes. Then he says not enough people want it for it to be worthy anyway.
Nice!

Stuck on stupid.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact is, when no-fault divorce was extended across the country, divorce skyrocketed. Quickly the rate of couples living together outside of marriage also shot up. Moreover, single parenthood also has become nearly as common as heterosexual parenthood.
In other words, when we diluted marriage by ignoring the consideration of children, marriage has become a cheap, disposable option. In every aspect of social measurement, the result has been devastating for everyone.
Now gays are demanding we totally remove the consideration of children. Rizzo is right. Monogamy and marriage will only accelerate in their demise.
Sad and stupid.

EXACTLY! Finally a ray of reason. Bravo

GOP, Republicans and Tea Bagger's are truely the filth of the land.

The sooner they are removed from holding office the better for all.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact is, when no-fault divorce was extended across the country, divorce skyrocketed. Quickly the rate of couples living together outside of marriage also shot up. Moreover, single parenthood also has become nearly as common as heterosexual parenthood.
In other words, when we diluted marriage by ignoring the consideration of children, marriage has become a cheap, disposable option. In every aspect of social measurement, the result has been devastating for everyone.
Now gays are demanding we totally remove the consideration of children. Rizzo is right. Monogamy and marriage will only accelerate in their demise.

Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
You are lying, nobody is demanding anybody totally remove the consideration of children.

KiMare wrote:

Sad and stupid.

Yes, you are.

Give it a rest, I've said all that needs to be said on this matter so shut up.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

You are lying, nobody is demanding anybody totally remove the consideration of children.

I'm shocked!!!

You undermine your own counter.

Ho, Ho, Ho.

You know why so many Glendora, California politicans and their friends hate " TOPIX.COM , right?

Things get said here that nobody else will print.

The truth is their worst enemy, and that is what you get here.

But then you get nasty posting blogers who rant and rave, threated posters etc. typical Glendora Racists etc.

The Glendora Police Department knows who they are bu they are told by City Hall officials and City Council member's not to stop them from posting threatening messages.

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Stuck on stupid.

Well try to get unstuck, stupid. Don't tell me. I know you are and it makes it easy for me.

Edgar wrote:

<quoted text>
You bet, buddy.
History has shown this: given enough momentum, a rights-activism movement in America cannot be stopped (i.e. racial equality, gender equality, the American revolution...)
Everyone has a purpose. That's what sets the two sides of this debate apart; one side's extreme is shown to consistently show more faith in human capability than the other.
And it ain't your side, if I may resort to briefly using Texan slang.

It's not my fault you are a bigot.

BTW, what is my side? We all know you can't answer that question.

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
Moreover, homosexuality is a far more promiscuous orientation than heterosexuality.

Jealous?

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Umm she hates your lying no good two timing dead beat azz???

No, that's not it.

It's because it used to be believed that procreation between close relatives causes medical problems in the offspring.

This had proven to be greatly exaggerated and mostly false.

But the old law remains.

Try and get unstuck from stupid fruitcake.