Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Pietro Armando]

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
I ask you again... Prove that there has never been a culture in history where same-gender marriage of some sort has not existed from beginning to end.
Do you think that you know everything about every culture that has ever existed?
We only have written or artistic records dating back at most 11,000 years. Homo sapien or anatomically modern humans have been on the planet for nearly 200,000 years.
Neither you nor I know anything for certain.
Nobody knows how old "marriage" is. But we do know that homosexuality has been around for a VERY long time.
Now THAT'S profound.

Same sex sexual behavior is not new. Use of the term "homosexual" to describe it, or those who engage in such behavior, is relatively new.

[GleePackers]

Sen Ronny Paulie, ceePackers clear choice awards winner of the biggest loser of the night award

[Pietro Armando]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
None of the appellate judges that agreed with his decision were gay, nor are any of the supreme court justices that will also uphold the overturning of Prop 8
lame argument, and already past it, Judges that are not gay are already agreeing

Not all judges agree.

So lets see
Procreation is a lost argument

According to who? You, ohhhhhhh......but of course.... after all it's not every one who sits on a mountain dispensing such sage advice as you do, to all the legions of judges, senators, assemblymen, and women, who make the climb up Big Dummy mountain. assemblymen.

Same sex marriages leads to marrying your sister is a lost ( and particularly laughable ) argument

Sorry, but my sister is already married. Thanks for asking.

Judge was gay is a lost argument
What else you got? Other than hatred?

Ooooooooooo...."Other than hatred".....soooooo scary.....oh the humanity...you've been spiking the rainbow kool aid again. In your world, if anyone opposes legal ssm, the secular sacred cow, it's automatically done out of "hatred". Hmmmmmm....interesting...now if a gay person opposes it for the very same reason, that a "straight" person does, marriage is a union of husband and wife orientated around their procreative function, is the gay person have hatred? Maybe they're not only a hater, but a traitor to the cause too.....A hater traitor.....oh noooooooooo.

[veryvermilion]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Same question.
If you don't know the cause how can you assert the result?
The epi-marker defect is all but proved. What does that say about the APA?
Snicker.

Do you know what's funny? If you google the words "epi-marker defect" or "epi-marker mistake" (with quotations) the only results you'll get are your comments on topix.

There aren't any scientists who use those terms. You made them up.

And what do you think will happen "if" someone finds out how to determine if an embryo has the potential to be gay--to have a "birth defect", as you like to say?

Obviously there's not going to be a "cure"--at least not for several generations.

Will you suddenly become an advocate for abortion? Will you want to kill the gay embryos? Will you demand that they be hacked to pieces and sucked out of their mother's wombs?

Bottom line, you're an idiot... You wouldn't know an "epi-marker" if it jumped up and slapped you in the face.

Get a life. Stop pretending to be a scientist.

[veryvermilion]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Same sex sexual behavior is not new. Use of the term "homosexual" to describe it, or those who engage in such behavior, is relatively new.

So... Is there an argument in there somewhere?

[Pietro Armando]

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
So... Is there an argument in there somewhere?

Argument that same sex sexual behavior is not new? No.

[Pietro Armando]

Apollo11911 wrote:

<quoted text>Are you stupid?

This from a person who claims, "I am a God". If that's the case, everyone is stupid to you. We are not worthy to be in your in presence. In the words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon"!

[Robsan5]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>wow you are vile and vulgar and very nasty. Get some help, sounds like u might be a sex addict, what a waste of time that is.

How bout you fagg@t, want a d!ck up your a.ss?

Robert

[Some Never Came Home]

Robsan5 wrote:

<quoted text>
How bout you fagg@t, want a d!ck up your a.ss?
Robert

So says the honor-less psychotic human POS who has butt sex on his mind 24/7/365 and posts incessantly about it! I'd have to say it is YOU who is jealous and wants him some of that action! YOU are a frigging idiot! Sorry but I'm not into the action you're yearning for,look somewhere else you sick fuque! LOLOL

[veryvermilion]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Argument that same sex sexual behavior is not new? No.

Yeah... Pretty much for eons.

[Marram]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Same question.
If you don't know the cause how can you assert the result?
The epi-marker defect is all but proved. What does that say about the APA?
Snicker.

Dummy “all but proved” means it hasn’t been proved. The real question is what does that say about you?

[Marram]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Argument that same sex sexual behavior is not new? No.

Do you realize that you wrote a double negative?

[Robsan5]

Some Never Came Home wrote:

<quoted text>So says the honor-less psychotic human POS who has butt sex on his mind 24/7/365 and posts incessantly about it! I'd have to say it is YOU who is jealous and wants him some of that action! YOU are a frigging idiot! Sorry but I'm not into the action you're yearning for,look somewhere else you sick fuque! LOLOL

Hey fagg@t, how bout a big d!ck up your a.ss?

Robert

[Some Never Came Home]

Robsan5 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey fagg@t, how bout a big d!ck up your a.ss?
Robert

And like clock work! IT's back with more butt sex that he loves so very much! Sorry but I'm straight! No matter how many times you ask,the answer is NO! Now move along now and head for that part of town and get back to that toe tapping you love so much down at the grey hound station! Yur funny,and not in a ha,ha way! LOLOL

[KiMare]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the assist.

You are more than welcome!

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Same question.
If you don't know the cause how can you assert the result?
The epi-marker defect is all but proved. What does that say about the APA?
Snicker.

Marram wrote:

<quoted text>
Dummy “all but proved” means it hasn’t been proved. The real question is what does that say about you?

You mean like the theory of evolution?

Snicker smile.

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Same question.
If you don't know the cause how can you assert the result?
The epi-marker defect is all but proved. What does that say about the APA?
Snicker.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you know what's funny? If you google the words "epi-marker defect" or "epi-marker mistake" (with quotations) the only results you'll get are your comments on topix.
There aren't any scientists who use those terms. You made them up.
And what do you think will happen "if" someone finds out how to determine if an embryo has the potential to be gay--to have a "birth defect", as you like to say?
Obviously there's not going to be a "cure"--at least not for several generations.
Will you suddenly become an advocate for abortion? Will you want to kill the gay embryos? Will you demand that they be hacked to pieces and sucked out of their mother's wombs?
Bottom line, you're an idiot... You wouldn't know an "epi-marker" if it jumped up and slapped you in the face.
Get a life. Stop pretending to be a scientist.

First, we both acknowledge how stupid your assertions were that;

1. There is no pursuit of understanding homosexuality by real professionals.

2. The undiagnosed condition of homosexuality can be arbitrarily defined as 'normal'.

Second, it is interesting that you decry my terminology, but fail to post what scientists DO say about epi-marker defects. Let me help you;

http://now.msn.com/
epigenetics-study-may-explain- how-homosexuality-is-passed-on -through-epi-marks

"A new study shows that homosexuality may be the result of epigenetics, which regulates how genes are expressed using epi-marks. These sex-specific triggers perform helpful tasks, such as regulating masculinization or feminization of fetuses during development. Normally, epi-marks vanish and aren't inherited by the next generation, but in some cases, a stubborn epi-marker from a parent may stick around and get passed on to an opposite-sex child, instilling Mom's fashion sense in Raul or Dad's baritone in Suzi. Lead researcher William Rice hopes to prove his theory in the next six months."

Normally, the use of the word 'normally' precludes a distinction between normal and abnormal. A defect or mistake. Would you prefer I use the word abnormal?

Third, you make the very mistake you falsely accuse me of, trying to be a scientist. I simply and accurately quote what they say. You on the other hand, foolishly attempt to predict when a cure will occur (an admission of defect by the way).

Fourth, I have already noted before, a cure will likely come. The vast majority of people do not want their children born with defects. Moreover, they would like grandchildren, so the one thing you are right about is the use of abortion or some other means to prevent it. However, I also have noted that abortion is not a choice for Christians. In essence, we are the gays ONLY hope for existence!

Which begs the question, why are you being so mean to us?

Finally, VV, do you understand how stupid all your gay twirling will look when homosexuality is understood and even cured? Think about it. The historical response to homosexuality by every culture vindicated. All the people, faiths and institutions gays maligned exonerated. Do you think there may be even a violent reaction by people who were deliberately deceived? Pretty sobering...

[Quest]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Same question.
If you don't know the cause how can you assert the result?
The epi-marker defect is all but proved. What does that say about the APA?
Snicker.
<quoted text>
You mean like the theory of evolution?
Snicker smile.

You trying to prove that being gay is genetic, and that this is a good reason to deny gay folks equality under the law?

[Quest]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Same sex sexual behavior is not new. Use of the term "homosexual" to describe it, or those who engage in such behavior, is relatively new.

But people who can only be attracted to the same gender are NOT new - only our knowledge of what that means and the terms used to describe it, are.

You would still need a valid state interest in denying equal protection under the law gay couples when it comes to marriage, though, regardless of how our knowledge has grown, or the changes in the terms we use.

Can you provide that?

[Quest]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
.....
Ooooooooooo...."Other than hatred".....soooooo scary.....oh the humanity...you've been spiking the rainbow kool aid again. In your world, if anyone opposes legal ssm, the secular sacred cow, it's automatically done out of "hatred".......

We only consider things to be hate based if they harm others, with no rational basis for that harm.

So, if your basic argument boils down to the idea that you don't want gay Americans to be allowed the same basic civil rights that you demand, and you shudder at the idea that their families might have the same security and protections that you want for your family, simply because you don't understand or like them, then yes, that comes off as hate.

It's certainly not love, or even indifference.