Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,038

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.

Full Story

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192623 May 19, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you should proofread your posts.
Second, tell us again how you, with your little MSW degree from some no name school, are smarter than the neuroscientist whom attended Cambridge, Göttingen, and Harvard?
Third, isn't it funny how quickly you dismiss anything that doesn't reinforce your narrative? If it agrees with you it is "proven science" if it doesn't it is simply nonsense.
BTW, what agenda was the good doctor whom is homosexual pushing when he said this line of thinking was wrong?
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.
Stuffers

Covina, CA

#192624 May 19, 2013
Fell free to post stupid stuff.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192625 May 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
When the Queen of DeNial can't argue the merits of the message, he assaults the messenger.
Gay troll twirling.
Smile.
<quoted text>
That's priceless Queen.
I nail you for your gay troll bully ad homoan attack on another person instead of addressing the issue, and you turn and do the same to me.
Clearly the Queen has no substance in the land of DeNial...
SMile.
I am not attacking you when I point out that you have made numerous, false scientific statements on this and other TOPIX forums.

Stating a fact is not an attack.

When you can bring actual facts to the table, then I would be happy to entertain them.

Until then, stop whining.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#192626 May 19, 2013
Give us your best argument for SSM Rose ...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192627 May 19, 2013
Bruno wrote:
Give us your best argument for SSM Rose ...
Rose's best argument for SSM is that your argument against it is no good and you got it from the buy bull and why are you a racist?
just the facts

Madison, WI

#192628 May 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose's best argument for SSM is that your argument against it is no good and you got it from the buy bull and why are you a racist?
Whats your's Frankie? Why not come clean and stop spreading the manure?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192629 May 19, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Whats your's Frankie? Why not come clean and stop spreading the manure?
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!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192630 May 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not attacking you when I point out that you have made numerous, false scientific statements on this and other TOPIX forums.
Stating a fact is not an attack.
When you can bring actual facts to the table, then I would be happy to entertain them.
Until then, stop whining.
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.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#192631 May 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose's best argument for SSM is that your argument against it is no good and you got it from the buy bull and why are you a racist?
LOL ... so true. He/She or what ever Rose Ho is, is a very sad and lonely person.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#192633 May 19, 2013
Rose, just say it's your opinion. We are all entitled to an opinion. No need to put people down because of their religion or why they don't care for a particular group of people. You must have been disliked by many of your friends at one time, maybe it's because you are such a bigot and hater yourself. Have a nice day
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.

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
HemetFor now, judge won't block Hemet fire switch 8 hr EastEndResident 1
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 9 hr RiccardoFire 16,008
HemetHEMET: Firefighters want voters decide dep... 11 hr EastEndResident 3
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sun No Time for Tea 5,084
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Sep 27 Bucketeers 7,965
Diamond valley middle school Sep 25 Hopeing this is n... 1
Review: Hemet Eye Care Center Of Optometry (Oct '13) Sep 21 hi5432j 2

Hemet News Video

Hemet Dating

more search filters

less search filters

Hemet Jobs

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Hemet News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hemet

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]