Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201862 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 JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#161399 Sep 30, 2012
Tata wrote:
<quoted text>
As you said before, "speculation" your numbers too are speculation.
When it comes to the prevention or subject of Child Molestation......the NUMBERS are not speculative.......they are actual numbers from organizations that focus specifically on that issue.

No one should like those numbers, and just like with other crimes involving a sexual nature......these numbers are more UNDER reported than exaggerated!!!
RollOver

Azusa, CA

#161400 Sep 30, 2012
The magic of the internet.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#161401 Sep 30, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, Mr. Hide-Behind-A-Made-Up-Name,
Why are you concerning yourself with our affairs, anyway,if you live in Canada ? Is gay marriage allowed up there ? If it is, you should be trolling around in a chat room for Canadians, not down here, telling us how to run OUR country, in which you have no business. If Canada does not allow it, you should be in a chat room for Canadians, extolling the virtues of gay marriage to the Canadians. Either way, you have no business telling us anything at all about it, eh ?
Why are you here, again ?
Regardless of what a person's personal view is, this IS an open forum, isn't it?

It would be meaningless if everyone came from the same place, and had the same opinions.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#161402 Sep 30, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I already have done, silly thing. You should have been allowed to read some of my banned posts, before shooting your mouth off. I have not whined at all, and have presented logical arguments against it, so where were you ? What do you define as a "like response" ?
Crawl back under yer rock.....
Posts are usually banned for breaking the terms of service that you agreed to when you posted.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#161403 Sep 30, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors,[2][3] and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.[2][4] Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings, and that as of the late 1990s, to avoid local police infiltration, the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters."
I'm kind of inclined to think that men and boys do not belong in the same beds.....Sounds gay to me......Perhaps an explanation from rose-no-ho, utilizing the worn-out "roses drivel" can explain this to me in terms that make it seem.....hmmm......acceptable to me ? OMG
So, again I ask you how many members it has, and what percentage of the gay population in the US agrees with anything they might promote?

Are those numbers of members larger then the numbers of straight men who impregnate young girls? We actually have stats for that.

The points you are trying to make are unclear.

Are you trying to say that all gay people are nambla members or support, harming young children? Are you trying to show that all gay people should be held accountable for the crimes of a tiny few, while ignoring that "logic" when it comes to yourself and the straight men who have sex with underage girls?

Are you trying to show that they types of people, gay and straight, that marry and form families are MORE likely to be pedophiles?

Or that marriage increases pedophilia, and the desire for sex with minors?

Those would all be claims that would require massive proof.

Do you have any?

If not, then you are just blowing steam, with no logic or rationality behind it.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#161404 Sep 30, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact, I'll say it plainly, and paraphrase, while I'm at it....
Stay the Fuque on yer side of the fence, we ARE here and you have no business trying to have an opinion on matters American, Canuque.
You get the Fuque out.
LOL.

It's an open forum. Telling people to get out of "your playpen" is very childish.

If you don't like what they say, prove them wrong. It's simple.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#161405 Sep 30, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
Marriage evolved because of the existence of children: without them, the institution loses its biological, economic, and historical basis, its very reason for being.......
No, Dear. marriage formed, originally, to ensure that children were actually the Father's kids, and to secure inheritance and make alliances.

Not all that important today.

It is not, nor has it ever been, a requirement before procreating.

Today, we see marriage, in general, as the most stable environments to RAISE children in, if a couple should choose to have any. It requires both parties to make a commitment, provides support, and eases the work and financial burdens of raising a family.

And, fortunately, that is exactly the same for gay and straight couples, and their children.

In NO state in the country is procreation a requirement for obtaining a marriage license. And, if you would like to ensure that changes, I suspect your greatest foes would he heterosexual.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#161410 Sep 30, 2012
Unbelievable the pompous bigotry posted on this thread.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#161413 Sep 30, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Couldn't agree with you more...
Glad you agree, unfortunately your postings don't seem to be a reflection of that. Do you know ANYONE gay? You, like so many others, seem to think being gay is a choice and it's all about sex. Not true, it's about who a person loves and sometimes there is no choice. Granted there are some gay (and straight) people, that sex is all they think about and that can create deviant behavior. I could give you all the BS quips, statistics and questions to debate and argue, but frankly it won't change either one of our opinions. But reckless and misinformed postings, damage all of us in some way or another and there are consequences. It leads others to think bigotry, hatred of others, general assumptions and sometimes violence is OK. You seem like you might be a smart man, maybe showing a little compassion and less indignant anger when posting about minorities would be a wiser path...
NJ piggie

Azusa, CA

#161414 Sep 30, 2012
NJ fat little piggie Chris Christie opens fat mouth:

Stop Lying, Mr. President' About Willard Mitt Romney's Economic Plan. That plan is a as fat with BS as you are Chris Christie, your own state of NJ is a wasted pile of dung.

motherjones.com
ERIN

Barstow, CA

#161415 Sep 30, 2012
When is the Erin is driving to Victorville, California and also Erin she attended Chaffey College of May 2006 and also she moved up the hill to the High Desert of November 2012 in Victorville and also Erin she's white girl/brown hair with light skin is white and also with along Robert is a Erin's Boyfriend?

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#161417 Sep 30, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose_NoHo.
That is a clever way of your justifying your unscientific "opinion". The facts, though, are in conflict with your "interpretation". According to the science textbook:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," (Genesis 2:4)
LOL! Harry Potter is closer to a science textbook than the buy-bull. I think "Poe's Law" whenever I read your posts.
Ronald wrote:
"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." (Genesis 2:5)
And the plants were growing before the sun was created. So much for it being a science textbook, huh?
Ronald wrote:
"But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." (Genesis 2:6)
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." (Genesis 2:18)
"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;" (Genesis 2:21)
"And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." (Genesis 2:22)
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:23)
Exactly, same bone, same flesh...same DNA. Eve would have been a man.
Ronald wrote:
Where your unscientific conjecture falls short, Rose_NoHo, is failing to account for the fact that God did not create the woman simultaneous to his creating the man.
Actually, I'm basing what I say on that "fact".
Ronald wrote:
You may be aware of recent scientific theory - the so-called "Big Bang" event - that indicates at the time of creation, outward inflation of the universe occurred much faster than today's speed of light. The implication is that the speed of light has slowed to millions of times slower since the time of the creation. In fact, time is a function of the speed of light.
As your Government teacher probably told you, the genetic code can change as a result of light associated interstellar radiation. The historical textbook has revealed that God created the woman some time after he formed the man. Thus, plenty of time passed for the genetic material that was created in the man's rib to become altered. Just as the textbook says, the woman was not a man. Even the most radical of the lesbian and non-lesbian feminist revolutionaries refer to themselves as "Woman" - that is to say they acknowledge they were formed from the Wo(mb)of the man. In fact, in tribute to and in remembrance of that event, many of even the most radical of them keep their father's surname after becoming married to one or another sex.
Ronald
Poe's Law...

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#161418 Sep 30, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. We are merely exercising our 1st Amendment rights to free speech. It is you who wishes to stifle us, with your useless "roses law" and other repetitious matter, i.e. You used 22-3/4 in your unimaginative responses, no doubt fueled by copious amounts of crack and alcohol.
LOL. 1st Amendment? I'm not saying or implying you shouldn't be allowed to say what you want to say.
And Rose's Law is accurate.

I used "22-3/4" in my response because imitation is the sincerest from of mockery.

BTW, I don't drink, and have never touched crack.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#161419 Sep 30, 2012
LBer wrote:
Said to Ronald:
<quoted text>
Will I agree with Roses views in some respects, his/her (didn't know she was transgender did you? lol, only those old timers around here recall...) continuous use of the word "fundie", which no one but her uses - as if it's ubiquitous - gets abit droll. Atleast use a word we all know, or use something else on occasion for variety.
Just sayin'
You are a liar. I'm not transgender. There would be nothing wrong with being transgender if I were, I'm just not.(You can't post a link to a post where I said I am, there isn't one.) I guess you lie to get a reaction. Well, better you get a reaction here than by going out and harming people IRL, like that loser who shot up the theater in CO.

Not my fault you are so ignorant you don't know what "fundie" means, and you can't figure out how to use a search engine.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#161420 Sep 30, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
And the term "homophobe" is a misnomer.
No, it's not. It's what you are.
R Hudson wrote:
It isn't fear we feel.
Irrelevant.
You just parrot con dumb babble.
R Hudson wrote:
it is revulsion at the amount of sickness that you show. Do not attempt to empower yourself by using the term "homophobe", you're not that powerful. That one has long tickled my funny bone. If you could admit the truth, that we are allowed to feel aversion to your kind, we might be able to communicate better. But you seem to feel that only your point of view is valid, and that we, the MAJORITY, have no right to say what we are going to allow to fester in our midst.
LOL.....As if .......
If you find the idea of homosexuality so revolting, just don't think about it.
I think the idea of putting mayonnaise on french fries is revolting, so I don't do it, don't think about it.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#161421 Sep 30, 2012
Tata wrote:
<quoted text>
You are soooooo desparate it's funnnnyyyyyyyy. Stay off the booze and drugs
So, you are claiming our sex isn't determined by our DNA?
You actually believe that creation story is history!?
Talking snakes? Plants growing before there is a sun?

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#161422 Sep 30, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
"You need to look up the definitions of the big words you’re using. If you take the time to do that (which I doubt you will) you’ll come to the conclusion that your post makes absolutely no sense."
-LOL Perhaps you should apply that criticism to yourself first before leveling it out on others.
Normal = Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Homosexuality is NOT normal & is NOT a standard. It is not in the norm, therefore, it is devious. Pay more attention & you might just learn something, dumbass
Well, then normal seems like a bad thing to me. If everybody were normal, we'd still be hunter/gathers.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#161423 Sep 30, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
"What you are calling a "SCIENCE TEXTBOOK" is nothing more than the Bible"
-Oh yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense...NOT. I wasn't even aware Creationism was taught in our biology & physics book. Tell me, rug munchee, when did this happen?
"which is nothing but stories put together by man"
-So Science is just a bunch of "stories"? Calling the truth "lies" & the lies "truth"---How stupid can you get?
"if fact there are many inconsistencies in that book you refer to as a"SCIENCE TEXTBOOK" than can be mentioned in the limited confinements of a post"
-Oh Shut up you stupid dyke. The only thing you've proven is that you know nothing about the sciences. Like all homosexuals, your primitive mind cannot comprehend common sense. Oh the shame!!!
Pssst...Einstein...
It was your homophobe buddy Ronald who claimed the buy-bull is a science text. RnL2008 was just quoting him.

But thanks for the laugh at your expense!

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#161424 Sep 30, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh & what "love" at you talking about?...You're "love" for little boys? Everyone on this thread knows you're a black cross-dressing crackwhore. We all know you're a man in woman's clothing. I'm sure your parents must be proud./sarcasm
LOLSER, I said, ""love" is a non issue".
Damn, you are funny!

BTW, provide any evidence I'm a cross dresser or admit you are lying. Deal?
:::crickets chirping:::
:::crickets chirping:::

Didn't think so, you just don't have any real arguments, so you attempt to demonize me.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#161425 Sep 30, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
"No reason to come up with a better argument......fools like yourself can't grasp the reality of the issue......"
-Can't grasp the reality of what issue? That marriage is between a man & a woman? Cool Story bro.
"Due Process and Equal Protection under the law."
-No stupid. The Due Process & Equal Protection prohibit discrimination for racism, a skin color---something people are actually born with!
The equal protection clause says ANY person. Doesn't mention race.
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
thisGuy wrote:
It was intentionally made to end slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery had already been ended. Look up "13th Amendment".
thisGuy wrote:
There is NOTHING mentioned about sodomy & sexual deviousness being mentioned the 14th Amendment. What's next? Do crack users have Equal Protection to do all the crack they want, despite is lethal side-effects? Don't make me laugh!
You don't seem to have any idea what is meant by "equal protection".
BTW, I think all drugs should be legal. Our drug laws are determined by social stigma, not science. Alcohol has lethal side effects, it's legal. Pot hasn't killed a single person in all of recorded history, it's illegal.
thisGuy wrote:
"If the Justices could see posts from folks like yourself......they would clearly understand that the reasons for these bans is strictly based on animus towards a group of individuals solely on who they are and who they love!!!"
-OH PLUEEZ. You freaks have pretty ruined the word "love". If all that matters is that they're in "love", then what does that say about pedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, & other sexual deviants?
I used to be into sadism, necrophilia and bestiality, but then I realized I was just beating a dead horse.
thisGuy wrote:
Where do you draw the line? There's nothing "loving" about doing devious behavior, it's just plain PERVERTED & is repulsive!
If you think so, quit thinking about it!
thisGuy wrote:
It's clear you freaks have your moral compasses fucked up. Tell me something, would you be a lesbian today if you hadn't lost your mother? Personally, I'm tired of you freaks imposing your immoral code on everyone. Nature is Pro-heterosexual. Many religions are pro-heterosexual. Marriage is Pro-heterosexual---just look at the damn definition! You don't like it? Tough.
Switch to decaf.

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.

Delano Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hoes in delano 3 hr Big Johnson 3
why do fat people work at fast food places?? 3 hr national inquiry 5
Vallarta down main!!! Clerks!!!! 9 hr el compa 3
Whats the most ratchet thing you experienced in... 16 hr vote for Trump 41
Iris aguilera y Carlos Aragon 20 hr The one u luv to ... 1
Tweakers in delano Fri Lmao 1
what norteños are putting in work. Fri nwa 11
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Delano Mortgages