Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 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.

just the facts

Madison, WI

#192634 May 19, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL ... so true. He/She or what ever Rose Ho is, is a very sad and lonely person.
LOL, she ain't got crap on Frankie, Topix is his life.
just the facts

Madison, WI

#192635 May 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
My best argument for SSM is that there is no compelling reason against it. It won't hurt you Jizzy. If you don't like SSM, just don't marry a man! Easy!
What a dope!
Really? Why not come clean Frankie? We all know that you appose equality
just the facts

Madison, WI

#192636 May 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
it can't be bigotry. There is no such thing as gay 'marriage'.
Smirk.
<quoted text>
Hardly Queen of DeNial.
A sterile duplicate gendered couple is clearly not equal to marriage.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Literally 'unmarriage'.
Smile.
If procreation, is not a requirement in marriage, why do you contine to base your posts on that very thing??

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#192637 May 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
My posts are fine. If there are errors in grammar, punctuation, or sentence structuring, they were made due to the late hour of my post. Nevertheless, apparently I was clear enough to get my point across to you.
However, your comment misrepresents my post.
I did not indicate that Dr. LeVay was out of line when he made his observation. I clearly indicated that the bioethicist, Dr. Antonio Pardo, might not be qualified to draw any conclusions regarding SSSB in animals because bioethicists do not have a deep, formal training in such matters.
If you can prove that Dr. Pardo is a specialist in the field of breeding behavior of animals, then I'd be a little more interested in what he has to say.
Regarding Simon LeVay... If you look at his work, his focus has been on human sexuality. He writes extensively about the subject. But like Dr. Pardo, he does not specialize--doesn't claim specialization--in the field of breeding behavior of animals.
Surely you would agree that educated people can hold opinions. But these opinions cannot be treated as fact until specialists test various theories.
Neither Pardo, nor LeVay, have conducted such tests.
And to be clear, I am not dismissing their opinions. Rather, I am questioning them.
From my own very brief Google research on the matter of SSSB in animals, no scientist has determined why animals exhibit SSSB. They have only observed that a large number of animals DO exhibit SSSB.
I would only add that in my opinion it isn't necessary to continue to ask the question "Why". I believe we should simply ACCEPT that SSSB in animals and humans represent a natural phenomenon.
To me, trying to understand why it is that some people/animals are attracted to members of their own gender is about as important as trying to understand why some people are drawn to the color red, while others are drawn to the color blue.
Attempting to understand homosexuality mainly has its roots in religious dogma. The only reason that people make such a big deal of the subject is because of some ancient writings and beliefs.
It really is cute to watch the instant dismissal of anyone who does not agree with the homosexual dogma.

Here we have a well regarded scientist in his field, whom is a homosexual, stating that linking homosexual behavior in animals with homosexuality in humans as a way of making it "natural" is complete hogwash. Instantly he is attacked and dismissed.

Really is funny to watch you twist and turn at the end of that rope.

It's kind of like watching the way the black community treats a black republican.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192638 May 19, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>If procreation, is not a requirement in marriage, why do you contine to base your posts on that very thing??
Why would it need to be a requirement? Do you think husbands and wives won't procreate unless the state requires it? Is sex a requirement in marriage? Cohabitation? Love?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192639 May 19, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>LOL, she ain't got crap on Frankie, Topix is his life.
Says the silly jackass sitting on topix posting dopey stuff.

Too funny!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192640 May 19, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Really? Why not come clean Frankie? We all know that you appose equality
Who is this "we" Jizzy? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Suppose I really did "appose [sic] equality" you big dopey galoot, what are you going to do about it? Cry? Whine? Stomp you big dopey clown feet? Sue me?

What a dope!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192641 May 19, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>If procreation, is not a requirement in marriage, why do you contine to base your posts on that very thing??
Procreation is not and never has been a requirement for marriage. But it is one of the biggest reasons that the government gives benefits for marriage.

We know you didn't even go to junior college Jiz, no less a basic class on cultural anthropology, sociology or marriage and the family.
If you had you would have learned the connection on the first day.

But alas, you got stoned and you missed college. Right Jiz?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192642 May 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
it can't be bigotry. There is no such thing as gay 'marriage'.
Smirk.
<quoted text>
Hardly Queen of DeNial.
A sterile duplicate gendered couple is clearly not equal to marriage.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Literally 'unmarriage'.
Smile.
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>If procreation, is not a requirement in marriage, why do you contine to base your posts on that very thing??
The issue isn't what marriage 'requires', it is, are ss couple equal to marriage. If so, then yes, they deserve equal rights.

I simply point out the numerous distinctions where they clearly are not equal to marriage.

ss couples will never ever be more than a sterile duplicated half of marriage. They simply don't measure up.

SMile.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192643 May 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would it need to be a requirement? Do you think husbands and wives won't procreate unless the state requires it? Is sex a requirement in marriage? Cohabitation? Love?
Let's cut through all the niceties with this Jizzy (just the facts) clown. He's stupid. And you can't fix stupid.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192644 May 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would it need to be a requirement? Do you think husbands and wives won't procreate unless the state requires it? Is sex a requirement in marriage? Cohabitation? Love?
Even more ironic, is the this demand for a requirement comes from couples who could never mutually fulfill the requirement!

To top that off, ss couple demand the right to dumb down the definition of marriage for everyone else so they can pretend to be the same. Silly stupid.

Smile.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192645 May 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Even more ironic, is the this demand for a requirement comes from couples who could never mutually fulfill the requirement!
To top that off, ss couple demand the right to dumb down the definition of marriage for everyone else so they can pretend to be the same. Silly stupid.
Smile.
"Silly stupid" exactly! That's why I like this thread. You got Mighty D, Jizzy the jackass, Rose_PsyCho and many others!

Some SSM supporters try to pull a straw man argument on you by insisting that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, as if anyone had said that it was.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192646 May 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You pointed out nothing.
You claimed I made false statements with no specific example. In fact, when we do discuss them, you fail. Every time.
Even 'rev' Alice agrees with me!
Smile.
I don't care who agrees with you. This is hardly a popularity contest. If that's what you're looking for, then you have most certainly come to the wrong place.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192647 May 19, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
It really is cute to watch the instant dismissal of anyone who does not agree with the homosexual dogma.
Here we have a well regarded scientist in his field, whom is a homosexual, stating that linking homosexual behavior in animals with homosexuality in humans as a way of making it "natural" is complete hogwash. Instantly he is attacked and dismissed.
Really is funny to watch you twist and turn at the end of that rope.
It's kind of like watching the way the black community treats a black republican.
Are you saying that every white person should agree with all white people? Are you also saying that every gay person should agree with all gay people?

I wonder if you agree with every white, straight person who claims that same-sex marriage should be legalized. I believe there are quite a few.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192648 May 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that every white person should agree with all white people? Are you also saying that every gay person should agree with all gay people?
I wonder if you agree with every white, straight person who claims that same-sex marriage should be legalized. I believe there are quite a few.
What a childish response.

You know that is not what he is saying. Damn, it has to be humiliating to stoop to such denial.

Once again I ask, why are such tactics necessary for a legitimate cause?
Rotting

Covina, CA

#192649 May 19, 2013
1 million Marines, families got toxic water at Lejeune, N.C..

Tis has put a heavy strain on the infected personnel and family members, as well as those that spread the defects among the healthy populist of America.

As to those who benefited from hiding this hope you and your family rot in hell, and those in the military service that his this hope you and your family rot in hell, and lets not leave out the political idiots in Washington D.C. hope you and your family rot in hell.
Rotting

Covina, CA

#192650 May 19, 2013
1 million Marines, families got toxic water at Lejeune, N.C..

This has put a heavy strain on the infected personnel and family members, as well as those that spread the defects among the healthy populist of America.

As to those who benefited from hiding this hope you and your family rot in hell, and those in the military service that hid this hope you and your family rot in hell, and lets not leave out the political idiots in Washington D.C. hope you and your family rot in hell.
just the facts

Madison, WI

#192651 May 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
it can't be bigotry. There is no such thing as gay 'marriage'.
Smirk.
<quoted text>
Hardly Queen of DeNial.
A sterile duplicate gendered couple is clearly not equal to marriage.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Literally 'unmarriage'.
Smile.
<quoted text>
The issue isn't what marriage 'requires', it is, are ss couple equal to marriage. If so, then yes, they deserve equal rights.
I simply point out the numerous distinctions where they clearly are not equal to marriage.

If say a heterosexual couple, in thier 60's marry, should they to be called a sterile duplicate ???? People in this country are not reguired to be married to have children.

ss couples will never ever be more than a sterile duplicated half of marriage. They simply don't measure up.
SMile.
Are people in thier 60's who are married called
Luke Warm

Tempe, AZ

#192652 May 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that every white person should agree with all white people? Are you also saying that every gay person should agree with all gay people?
I wonder if you agree with every white, straight person who claims that same-sex marriage should be legalized. I believe there are quite a few.
Stamp out prejudice!!!!

Maybe....
just the facts

Madison, WI

#192653 May 19, 2013
If say a heterosexual couple, in thier 60's marry, should they to be called a sterile duplicate ???? People in this country are not reguired to be married to have children.

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.

Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What is Menifee Lakes? (Feb '07) Mon Menifeearian 19
Creating "Probable Cause" for Police: Stalking ... (Oct '11) May 30 Thomas 9
Review: Kim, Jae H MD - Jae H Kim MD (Oct '09) May 29 What are we shygi... 84
hemet is heaven (Mar '10) May 28 recruit gay ray 21
U.S. Post Office SUCKS (Apr '11) May 28 tell your boy 97
Come on already! May 26 Lady Morgana 6
Kings Inn Sun City (Way Back (Mar '14) May 25 marie 2
More from around the web

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]