Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201822 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.

Cookie Gate

Azusa, CA

#149518 Jul 8, 2012
As we all get closer to 4 Nov. 2012, the stark differences have started emerging and doubts are looming on someone who proudly says he's severely conservative.

We all just want to know his plans for future.

Enumerating a 59 points economic agenda is a conundrum of his lack of core values and principle.

Let me help him, Willard Mitt Romney's plan is to have more offshore accounts, outsource more jobs and continue to rip profits on screen companies.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#149519 Jul 8, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Frantic gay twirl...
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302749 ...
"I am a Canadian economist who has worked on family issues in Canada and the U.S. for the past 26 years. Although Iíve mostly studied matters of divorce, custody, child support, and the general institution of marriage, for the past few years Iíve been working on series of empirical projects related to same-sex marriage. Iíve been using a special data set in Canada that is large (over 300,000 individuals) and random (with weights), that directly identifies sexual orientation, and that was designed by Statistics Canada. In the process of working on same-sex marriage I have read almost every study conducted on same-sex parenting...
Rose's Law: Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149520 Jul 8, 2012
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes dear, they would need to.
You see, you're entire argument hinges on procreation. Unless it is a mandate, it can't be used as an argument for denial. Again, you've just demonstrated why you need you little piece of paper.
No, I simply pointed out that SCOTUS validates the right of marriage on the basis of procreation. Gay unions don't qualify. Something you keep avoiding...

Nor does my entire argument hing on procreation. You forgot;

If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.

Quite a few more reasons than procreation, don't you think?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149521 Jul 8, 2012
Cookie Gate wrote:
As we all get closer to 4 Nov. 2012, the stark differences have started emerging and doubts are looming on someone who proudly says he's severely conservative.
We all just want to know his plans for future.
Enumerating a 59 points economic agenda is a conundrum of his lack of core values and principle.
Let me help him, Willard Mitt Romney's plan is to have more offshore accounts, outsource more jobs and continue to rip profits on screen companies.
As opposed to a budget that has twice been rejected 100% by his own party.
Cookie Gate

Azusa, CA

#149522 Jul 8, 2012
The Wilard Mitt Romney campaign is offshore financed.

More money than the history of politics thanks to Citizens United.

Romney with his multiple houses, off shore bank accounts and history of making millions on the backs of working Americans.

He off shored government jobs when he was Governor Closed American Businesses, this is why Citizens United is the gate way for offshore governments to fund his campaign.

With that history, Willard Mitt Romney started out in trouble, and there is no way to change course.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149523 Jul 8, 2012
KiMare wrote:
They don't need to silly boy, for some reason every culture assumes married couples will have children.
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they do silly bitch, and what the culture assumes has zip, nada, nil, to do with what the government requires.
Thank you for admitting that.

We have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149524 Jul 8, 2012
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, dear, the difference here is that we validate ourselves. We aren't in need of a piece of paper or validation from anyone else. That's your issue, not ours.
Smile.
Um, no you don't honey.

You are trying to have gay unions validated as heterosexual marriage.

Apparently you are afraid you can't get your own paper.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149525 Jul 8, 2012
Cookie Gate wrote:
Maybe Willard Mitt Romney should stay on vacation.
Has Obama gotten off vacation yet? He certainly hasn't been to work...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#149529 Jul 8, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>islamics don't need to troll here, there are no gay islamics.
christians don't need to troll here either. This isn't a religious forum.

"There are no gay islamics"!!!!!
What a moron you are. Just like there are no gay Iraquis right Bruno?! But there are flying penguins!!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#149530 Jul 8, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You do admit that would be a reason to question your sanity though?
I don't remember her admitting that. Care to point out where that admission was made?

Liars for Jesus unite, Ms. Deceitful is here to take the reigns!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And you ARE responding consistently.
This is a public forum. Or does your little piece of sanity paper put you in control of how many responses people can have?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I seriously encourage you to get a professional opinion.
Normal people aren't interested in the encouragement of people that require pieces of paper to prove their sanity, regardless of how serious they consider their encouragement.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#149531 Jul 8, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a little reminder, you even labeled me a 'doctor' or 'professor'...
Hurry, you should add "Doctor" to your piece of paper right before your name. Make sure to do it in orange crayon, that always has an air of authenticity.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#149532 Jul 8, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I simply pointed out that SCOTUS validates the right of marriage on the basis of procreation.
Wrong again.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay unions don't qualify.
Wrong again.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Something you keep avoiding...
I've never avoided them. I just recognize them as irrelevant. Until there is a mandate for procreation, solely formed by the two participants of the marriage with no outside assistance, you have no argument. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it. SCOTUS did not mandate procreation, non-assisted or otherwise. You have no case.

SCOTUS stated "fundamental to our very existence and survival..." The marriages of gay couples and the children they raise (biological or NOT) are just as fundamental to our very existence and survival. But please, don't let facts get in the way of your baseless repetition!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor does my entire argument hing on procreation.
You forgot;
No, I didn't forget. How could I? You post this mindless claptrap almost everyday. It's still as retarded as you are.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
Denying marriage to a relationship will not prevent love. The discussion is marriage, not love. They are two seperate entities.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
I don't demand that any committed relationship be called marriage. Relationships and marriage are two seperate entities.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
I don't claim rights and benefits can only be acquired by marriage. Rights and benefits and marriage are different entities.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
I don't equate these. I recognize that diversity comes from the individuals, not their genders.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
I can desecrate these things all I want. This is the United States. Marriage, btw, is a civil institution totally independent of your sacred traditions.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
I'm free to violate historic practice. That's why I don't see doctors that use leeches, or believe that women are property of their husband. Your "historic practice" is completely irrelevant and are free to be violated. They are meaningless.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
I believe it will have an affect. The affect will be positive for gay people and society as a whole. And whether there is an affect is irrelevant unless that affect can be deemed harmful to society. Thus far, you and your fellow religitards are unable to demonstrate that.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
I believe that all relationships have distinctions. None of them "crucial" to the institution of marriage.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#149533 Jul 8, 2012
Continuing with KiMare's stupidity....
KiMare wrote:
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
I beleive no one pretends this. I also believe that masculiinity and feminity are irrelevant to marriage. Mostly because they are.
KiMare wrote:
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you beleive that children having two same gender parents is a condemnation, then I believe you should be able to prove it. I beleive that if children don't have two opposite gender parents then can have a perfectly normal, loving, and productive childhood. If you beleive otherwise, prove it.
KiMare wrote:
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
I don't believe any one ignores their natural design or their sexual unions. And I don't believe that any acts of homosexuals are harmful. If you disagree, prove it.
KiMare wrote:
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
I believe that nature has proven that varying sexual orientations are natural, and I don't believe that homosexuality is a genetic dead end. My two children prove that. I also believe that evolutions "law" is irrelevant to marriage. If you disagree, prove that procreation is a requirement of the institution.
KiMare wrote:
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you believe that the health of relationships is determined solely by the gender of the participants, prove it. If you believe that homosexual relationships are the "unhealthiest", prove it.
KiMare wrote:
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
I believe that the birthplace of relationships originates with the individuals in them, not from the relationships of their parents.

I believe that reproduction is completely irrelevant, because it is. SCOTUS has placed no mandate of procreation, nor has the state.
KiMare wrote:
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
I believe no dilution has occured. If you disagree, demonstrate the dilution that all straight marriages have encountered since gays started marrying.
KiMare wrote:
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Why, becuase you say so. Sorry, doesn't work that way. I don't believe any of the points you indicated. Not one. Nor am I "equainting" same sex unions with marriage. Marriage equates with marriage. Completely regardless of the gender of the participants.
KiMare wrote:
Quite a few more reasons than procreation, don't you think?
I didn't see any reasons. I just saw your unfounded beliefs.

Beliefs aren't reasoning bitch. Never will be. When you can present some factual "reasoning" let us know.

My guess, you'll just cut and paste this diatribe yet again. Know why I guess that? Cause you got NOTHING.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#149534 Jul 8, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Thank you for admitting that.
We have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
And "from" the people. Smile bitch.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#149536 Jul 8, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no you don't honey.
You are trying to have gay unions validated as heterosexual marriage.
Apparently you are afraid you can't get your own paper.
Smile.
"It so happens that I have a letter from psychologists validating that I am capable of living on my own in society."

--Now I know why you had to get a letter to leave the looney bin.

No genius...they are increasingly having gays marrying. No "validations of heterosexual" marriages fool.

And what's beautiful is about 99.76% percent in these forums don't need papers stating "We're OK enough now to be set free"....LOL!!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149542 Jul 8, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"It so happens that I have a letter from psychologists validating that I am capable of living on my own in society."
--Now I know why you had to get a letter to leave the looney bin.
No genius...they are increasingly having gays marrying. No "validations of heterosexual" marriages fool.
And what's beautiful is about 99.76% percent in these forums don't need papers stating "We're OK enough now to be set free"....LOL!!!!
Danny, it's a simple fact of reality. Changing the definition of a word doesn't change reality.

ANYONE looking at two couples; a heterosexual couple and a gay couple will see the difference.

Especially the child who sees mom and dad.

That will never change.

The sad thing is that you boys are angry that I am simply warning you about reality.

Back to the response at hand;

Ironically the post referred to mocking me about a paper validating normality while gays vainly attempt to acquire a paper validating their normality with heteros.

Incredible irony!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149543 Jul 8, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Thank you for admitting that.
We have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And "from" the people. Smile bitch.
Jonah, everyone knows when you go to 'bitch' you have no answer.

Do you know how often you go to 'bitch'?
ELH

Vancouver, WA

#149544 Jul 8, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a little reminder, you even labeled me a 'doctor' or 'professor'...
I was honoring your MAIL ODER MA is asshatteries and PHd in denial... Just like "Doctor" Bachmann! Funny.
ELH

Vancouver, WA

#149545 Jul 8, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...I lied to get my letter.
Really? Do you think that it wasn't 100% clear to me that someone who refers to themselves as a "broken mutant monster" is anything but bat shit crazy.

But THANKS for playing this round of "OMG THAT'S OBVIOUS!"

You have won $450.00 that you can apply towards your sterilization or next ECT treatment.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149546 Jul 8, 2012
Jonah1 wrote:
Continuing with KiMare's stupidity....
<quoted text>
I beleive no one pretends this. I also believe that masculiinity and feminity are irrelevant to marriage. Mostly because they are.
<quoted text>
If you beleive that children having two same gender parents is a condemnation, then I believe you should be able to prove it. I beleive that if children don't have two opposite gender parents then can have a perfectly normal, loving, and productive childhood. If you beleive otherwise, prove it.
<quoted text>
I don't believe any one ignores their natural design or their sexual unions. And I don't believe that any acts of homosexuals are harmful. If you disagree, prove it.
<quoted text>
I believe that nature has proven that varying sexual orientations are natural, and I don't believe that homosexuality is a genetic dead end. My two children prove that. I also believe that evolutions "law" is irrelevant to marriage. If you disagree, prove that procreation is a requirement of the institution.
<quoted text>
If you believe that the health of relationships is determined solely by the gender of the participants, prove it. If you believe that homosexual relationships are the "unhealthiest", prove it.
<quoted text>
I believe that the birthplace of relationships originates with the individuals in them, not from the relationships of their parents.
I believe that reproduction is completely irrelevant, because it is. SCOTUS has placed no mandate of procreation, nor has the state.
<quoted text>
I believe no dilution has occured. If you disagree, demonstrate the dilution that all straight marriages have encountered since gays started marrying.
<quoted text>
Why, becuase you say so. Sorry, doesn't work that way. I don't believe any of the points you indicated. Not one. Nor am I "equainting" same sex unions with marriage. Marriage equates with marriage. Completely regardless of the gender of the participants.
<quoted text>
I didn't see any reasons. I just saw your unfounded beliefs.
Beliefs aren't reasoning bitch. Never will be. When you can present some factual "reasoning" let us know.
My guess, you'll just cut and paste this diatribe yet again. Know why I guess that? Cause you got NOTHING.
There you go trying to inject your 'beliefs' instead of dealing with reality.

Beliefs aren't reasoning bitch. Never will be. When you can present some factual "reasoning" let us know.

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.

East Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Felon Arraigned on Assault, Robbery, Attempted ... Jun 29 Larry Miller 1
News Brothers Sought After Skipping Hearing in Moles... Jun 26 Jesse 1
Can white people call themselves African American? (Sep '12) Jun 22 Nathan 108
morning sky school in mountain center ca (Mar '13) Jun 22 djelectro1986 38
Hemet eye care center on Morton place FRAUD (Mar '11) Jun 20 concerned resident 48
Mexico Walmart in San Jacinto (Apr '11) Jun 18 I hate douce bags 69
Now what? (May '14) Jun 17 Larry Miller 9
More from around the web

East Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

East Hemet Mortgages