Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,820

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.

Read more
kookaa

Long Beach, CA

#197126 Jun 21, 2013
get outta my neighborhood wrote:
<quoted text>
NAMBLA thanks you.
Get outta my neighborhood!
Fail.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#197130 Jun 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if you understand how Kimare is defining marriage.
He is saying that marriage exists because men must be legally (or traditionally) tied to a woman so that he will take care of the family.
He is saying that without marriage, men would go around, spreading their seed, impregnating one woman after another, but not hanging around to care for the offspring.
He's saying that women aren't as capable of providing the resources needed to raise the children. That's why men must be tied down in a relationship.
Now, look at your own marriage (I'm assuming you're married). Is that how your own marriage is defined? Is that why you entered into marriage?
Most people agree that "love" became the significant basis for marriage in the 17th and 18th century--during the period of enlightenment.
And I would argue that the basis for the vast majority of marriages today is love. Some people still marry for wealth or status. Some marry because of an unplanned pregnancy. Some marry due to physical attraction.
I don't agree with Kimare's primitive notion--his theory.
I just want you to think about what Kimare is saying about marriage--that's all.
Wow, where is the confusion now???

Let me show you where it really is.

1. I defined marriage in no such way. Social science does. Your argument is with science honey, not me.

2. I did not assert that men go around spreading seed unless tied to marriage. Evolution dictates that across species. Are you denying evolution too?

In fact, just yesterday CNN posted this article;

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/opinion/
laslocky-monogamy-marriage/ind ex.html?iref=allsearch

3. I didn't assert that woman are incapable of raising children without support, the government did. Hence, most single mothers get more support from the government than a man can provide. Notice, they are not 'doing it on their own'.

4. How I live out marriage on the surface does not negate the roots of why I married. That's like arguing food is not necessary for life, because I eat food more often because I like it, rather than because I am hungry.

5. History shows that love has ALWAYS been a driving force of marriage. It has not always been an option for survival however.

I want you to think about the degree of your denial of reality. And the distortion you exist in.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#197131 Jun 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Now you are confused about an i-phone spell checker flub (replace 'I'd' with 'of'), but not enough to not respond. Interesting. This while you ignore the slimy gay twirl slide you continue.
I always get a kick out of a ss couple who will NEVER procreate telling married people about the validity of kids. But laying that aside, 96% of married couples do have children. Those who are unable would if they could. That leaves a fraction who choose not to have children. In very large, we ARE marrying to have children.
I'm not surprised when you reject the Bible to hold your denial, but when you really expose your ignorant bias when you reject science. I understand that for a gay, mating behavior is confusing, but again, you have no qualification to speak for a heterosexual couple. Especially in contradiction to science.
The bottom line, this isn't my opinion, it's simple science;
At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what I get a kick out of? I get a kick out of you thinking that you're some mystical, magical, god just because you happened to fall on a woman a few times and ended up spitting out some kids.
It's hardly special. People have been having kids since the beginning of mankind.
And I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but the number I found was that there are about 58,410,000 married couples living in the U.S. Of that number, 28,896,000 do not have children. That means about 50.6% do not have children.
There has been an 80% increase between 1976 and 1980 in the number of women aged 40-44 who have never given birth.
In case you haven't noticed, the baby-boom has passed. The economy is in the tank. People aren't having kids at the rate they once did. More women are deciding to not marry--to pursue careers. And those who do marry are deciding, largely for economic reasons, to remain childless.
Be gone, you fool... Nobody cares about your contrived definitions or your horrendous mathematical skills.
Wow, pushed some buttons there VV. Kicked your gay twirl into a class 5 tornado...

Lets get this straight.

-Noting the silliness of a mutually sterile couple dictating the place of children in marriage makes me the victim of a 'god complex'??? Did you really try that idiotic argument???

-As to the percentage of children, you need to expand your understanding past gay twirl censorship. I wasn't referring to the changing percentage in the US. In world history, the average is estimated at 96%.

Moreover, the point remains, the vast majority of marriage does or would include children if possible.

Be gone, you fool... Nobody cares about your contrived, dumbed down restrictions on marriage or your horrendous thinking skills.
get outta my neighborhood

UK

#197132 Jun 22, 2013
kookaa wrote:
<quoted text>
Fail.
In what manner, Brucie? All thinking people know that NAMBLA watches you Folsom Street types very closely. Since the Common Man has been cowed into "accepting" the blight of Society©, then their turn is next.
get outta my neighborhood

UK

#197133 Jun 22, 2013
get outta my neighborhood wrote:
<quoted text>
In what manner, Brucie? All thinking people know that NAMBLA watches you Folsom Street types very closely. Since the Common Man has been cowed into "accepting" the blight of Society©, then their turn is next.
The bestiality bunch has certainly been emboldened after what Neil Patrick Harris has done with a dog for two years in a row.

This world is long lost. There's only way to recoup some semblance of Civilization.
correction

UK

#197134 Jun 22, 2013
There's only oneway to recoup some semblance of Civilization.
laughing man

UK

#197135 Jun 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, now you're just sounding geriatric.
Isn't it always the older generation who looks at the younger generation and throws up their hands in exasperation?
And yet, the world keeps spinning, society continues to thrive, people continue to marry, babies continue to be born, and life goes on.
We've given you the world, and what are you doing with it, Caligula? You and your "parents", such as they were, have given nothing. Mother Gaia is infested with a parasite.

Thank me for this moment of Enlightenment.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#197136 Jun 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Another gay post by Bruno. I liked you better when you were straight.
Francis Rizzo, use your own slogan you fruit.
Frankie Rizzo

Westminster, CA

#197137 Jun 22, 2013
Yes I swallow
FlatRock

Monrovia, CA

#197139 Jun 22, 2013
Still stacking the skeets are you?
laughing man

UK

#197140 Jun 22, 2013
FlatRock the Covina kook wrote:
Still stacking the skeets are you?
Kinda slow in the global warming racket, eh?
FlatRocks

Monrovia, CA

#197141 Jun 22, 2013
Laughing man sounds more like a cow standing over a flat rock and letting the water fly.
laughing man

UK

#197142 Jun 22, 2013
There must not be much action on your hemp thread either, Emo.
America did this too

Monrovia, CA

#197143 Jun 22, 2013
Here's some Bush family news: A direct ancestor of both George H.W. and George W. Bush was a notorious slave trader, according to new historical reports.

Bush's ancestor was called an "inhuman monster" by one British anti-slavery activist, died in 1797 when the crew on one of his vessels mutinied, killing him and throwing his body overboard.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197144 Jun 22, 2013
America did this too wrote:
Here's some Bush family news: A direct ancestor of both George H.W. and George W. Bush was a notorious slave trader, according to new historical reports.
Bush's ancestor was called an "inhuman monster" by one British anti-slavery activist, died in 1797 when the crew on one of his vessels mutinied, killing him and throwing his body overboard.
Is that why Obama is failing? Because great great grandpa Bush was bad man?

Priceless.
laughing man

UK

#197153 Jun 22, 2013
America did this too wrote:
Here's some Bush family news: A direct ancestor of both George H.W. and George W. Bush was a notorious slave trader, according to new historical reports.
Bush's ancestor was called an "inhuman monster" by one British anti-slavery activist, died in 1797 when the crew on one of his vessels mutinied, killing him and throwing his body overboard.
Here's some Sharpton and Jackson and Waters and McKinney news too:

When the slave ships came over the African horizon, who rounded up another load bound for America?

Bonus round:

Was Bull Connor a Republican (Democrap Lite) or a Democrap?
laughing man

UK

#197155 Jun 22, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Laugh at it all you want. It protects your side and limits the posts that you have to respond to. It is also a power tool, used to protect your side. Unless Chongo has been banned as well, which I'm starting to suspect. All those posts about giving kids pearl necklaces and stuff.
That's only to protect Topix. You can bet your last money they'd give carte blanche to NAMBLA if they knew they could.

This world is in a serious state of mental illness, and that's no joke.
laughing man

UK

#197158 Jun 22, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
He won't admit any errors. There aren't many who will.
I knew it wouldn't, and you're right, they never do. They're immoral and unethical.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197160 Jun 22, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, is it? I thought it was using the stupidity and immaturity of another to demonstrate the immaturity and stupidity to it. In case you hadn't noticed, Kukla, Fran and Oliie, it was Jizzy that posted in this way, to circumvent filters. D-Ooohhh....(Smacks head). Grow up, choad-boi.
I have fun making Jizzy so frustrated and mad that he does silly-stupid stuff like that.
laughing man

UK

#197167 Jun 22, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text> derring-do.
SWISH bucklers!

aHAHAHAHAHA haha HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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
Brittany CROUCH Mon tellinitlikeitis 2
Review: Cindy's Pawn Mar 29 phoenix 4
kevin duffy (Aug '09) Mar 27 tellinitlikeitis 8
Lou Pittam's Store (Apr '10) Mar 26 Chris 3
Black teens loitering outside E. Hemet stores (Jul '11) Mar 23 ignorancekillsus 40
bradley rd. Mar 23 DMJBF 3
News Gurzi Pleads Guilty, Sentenced to 12 Years in P... (Dec '07) Mar 22 tracy 8
Hemet Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]