Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201878 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199072 Jun 30, 2013
SCOTUS ruled that ss couples are equal to marriage. Reality is not listening.

Ss couples are still ever only a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered half of marriage. Maybe SCOTUS needs a unanimous decision??? Think that will work???

The bottom line is still this; Reality is disobeying SCOTUS!!! What is Obama going to do now??? Someone needs to file suit!

YOUR NOT LISTENING!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199074 Jun 30, 2013
Sparkle_is_stripper wrote:
<quoted text>REALITY is that your a lonely azz worthless internet troll who has nothing more in his life then his hate and a keyboard... must suck being you
Reality is you are steeped in bondage and denial.

Why do you hate the people who try to help you and embrace the ones who don't care?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199075 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote: I understand that mating behavior and procreation are confusing realities for homosexuals, in that mating behavior is meaningless and procreation is impossible for ss couples. However, for 98% of the population it is not. But to be straightforward, for you to call anal sex natural, but not procreation, really exposes the depth your denial delusions! Kind of scary VV.
<quoted text>
Man... I mean Queen, that must have took some work to totally avoid the substance and gay twirl my comments!!!
I simply said that MOST (98%) of the population understand mating behavior and procreation. You clearly do not.
I then pondered how you can call anal sex natural, but deny that procreation isn't natural. You didn't explain.
I then noted that the degree of your denial is troubling. I repeat that.
Get help VV.
1.) I clearly understand mating behavior and procreation. I have observed it all of my life. I further specified my comments by saying that not every single instance of intercourse, or as you call it "mating behavior", does not result in childbirth. It is not a very difficult concept.

2.) I call anal sex "natural" because millions of heterosexual and homosexual people have been engaging in it for eons. That fact, in and of itself, makes the act "natural". If people didn't like it, then it wouldn't be so widespread.

3.) I only respond to your comments so that others can be educated by your obvious ignorance on the subject. It is a corrective moment...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199076 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide proof of that claim. I debunked it for you a while ago, it seems you are trying to slip an old lie in again.
Additionally, most people scream in pain and degradation when analized. Very few victims enjoy it. That is why most gays would rather be the perpetrator.
I don't recall you ever debunking my claim. I would have remembered such ignorance.

Here's a paragraph on heterosexual anal sex practices...

"Heterosexual anal sex has been around for millennia. Paintings and etchings from Japan, China and Europe all depict men performing anal sex on women, as do ancient erotic drawings, sculpture and pottery from the Mediterranean and South America. In some Polynesian cultures, anal sex was practiced explicitly as a means of birth control. Today, some adolescents regard anal sex as a means to prevent conception, regardless of increased risks for transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Over the past decades, heterosexual anal sex rates have climbed. In the Fifties, anal sex was reported by fewer than fifteen percent of the population. Modern overall rates suggest that around a third of men have performed anal sex on a woman, and slightly fewer women have received anal sex. The rates are still higher in sexually active adult in their twenties." ("Psychology Today", David J. Ley, Ph.D., February 6, 2011)

And as I pointed out in my previous answer, "According to a 2006 survey completed by the Centers for Disease Controlís National Survey of Family Growth showed that 38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex."

Finally, I have to wonder, "How does he know what 'most gays' would prefer with regards to anal sex?" You, being allegedly heterosexual, don't know what "most gays" prefer. It's been my experience that most gay men I've known are versatile when it comes to anal sex. They can either be a "top" or a "bottom", depending on any variety of factors.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199077 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote: I understand that mating behavior and procreation are confusing realities for homosexuals, in that mating behavior is meaningless and procreation is impossible for ss couples. However, for 98% of the population it is not. But to be straightforward, for you to call anal sex natural, but not procreation, really exposes the depth your denial delusions! Kind of scary VV. Man... I mean Queen, that must have took some work to totally avoid the substance and gay twirl my comments!!! I simply said that MOST (98%) of the population understand mating behavior and procreation. You clearly do not. I then pondered how you can call anal sex natural, but deny that procreation isn't natural. You didn't explain. I then noted that the degree of your denial is troubling. I repeat that. Get help VV.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) I clearly understand mating behavior and procreation. I have observed it all of my life. I further specified my comments by saying that not every single instance of intercourse, or as you call it "mating behavior", does not result in childbirth. It is not a very difficult concept.
2.) I call anal sex "natural" because millions of heterosexual and homosexual people have been engaging in it for eons. That fact, in and of itself, makes the act "natural". If people didn't like it, then it wouldn't be so widespread.
3.) I only respond to your comments so that others can be educated by your obvious ignorance on the subject. It is a corrective moment...
More gay twirl lies on gay twirl lies...

1. The fact that not all heterosexual sex produces children does nothing to equate them to the absolute procreation desolation of ss couples.

2. Yes you did call anal sex natural, while denying it's inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature.

Meanwhile, you called procreation unnatural.

Both claims are idiotic.

3. You were claiming something about ignorance???

Get help for your denial VV.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199078 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
SCOTUS ruled that ss couples are equal to marriage. Reality is not listening.
Ss couples are still ever only a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered half of marriage. Maybe SCOTUS needs a unanimous decision??? Think that will work???
The bottom line is still this; Reality is disobeying SCOTUS!!! What is Obama going to do now??? Someone needs to file suit!
YOUR NOT LISTENING!!!
More nonsense... Your entire post is unintelligible.

"Reality is not listening?" What does that even mean?

"Maybe SCOTUS needs a unanimous decision??" Please elaborate as to why they would need a unanimous decision. That's never been the standard in the past. Why would it need to be the standard now?

"Reality is disobeying SCOTUS!!!" Again, this makes no sense.

As always, your efforts to be clever stand in the way of your ability to clearly express your ideas.

Even a near-senile, jack-ass would understand the importance of clarity.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199079 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote: I understand that mating behavior and procreation are confusing realities for homosexuals, in that mating behavior is meaningless and procreation is impossible for ss couples. However, for 98% of the population it is not. But to be straightforward, for you to call anal sex natural, but not procreation, really exposes the depth your denial delusions! Kind of scary VV. Man... I mean Queen, that must have took some work to totally avoid the substance and gay twirl my comments!!! I simply said that MOST (98%) of the population understand mating behavior and procreation. You clearly do not. I then pondered how you can call anal sex natural, but deny that procreation isn't natural. You didn't explain. I then noted that the degree of your denial is troubling. I repeat that. Get help VV.
<quoted text>
More gay twirl lies on gay twirl lies...
1. The fact that not all heterosexual sex produces children does nothing to equate them to the absolute procreation desolation of ss couples.
2. Yes you did call anal sex natural, while denying it's inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature.
Meanwhile, you called procreation unnatural.
Both claims are idiotic.
3. You were claiming something about ignorance???
Get help for your denial VV.
1.) Another one of your contrived phrases, "the absolute procreation desolation of ss couples."... I've got to admit, you never let the English language stand in your way when trying to make a point.
Why do you think a ss couple's inability to procreate is so horrible? Do you think all sexual intercourse should result in offspring?
Isn't it possible that many--if not most--people engage in sexual activity as a means of "love making", "deepening of a relationship" or "simple pleasure"?

2.) There is inherent harm in just about anything; especially if it's not done correctly. There is inherent harm in heterosexual sexual activity if not done correctly. Unexpected pregnancy--leading to abortion leaps to mind. STDs are possible if safeguards are not in place. And there's always the possibility of discomfort--usually from a woman's perspective--if the man is too aggressive or uninterested in satisfying a woman by bringing her to climax.

3.) Show me where I've ever stated that procreation is unnatural.

Waiting...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199080 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
More nonsense... Your entire post is unintelligible.
"Reality is not listening?" What does that even mean?
"Maybe SCOTUS needs a unanimous decision??" Please elaborate as to why they would need a unanimous decision. That's never been the standard in the past. Why would it need to be the standard now?
"Reality is disobeying SCOTUS!!!" Again, this makes no sense.
As always, your efforts to be clever stand in the way of your ability to clearly express your ideas.
Even a near-senile, jack-ass would understand the importance of clarity.
Go outside and find someone. Anyone. A kid, whatever.

Ask them to explain it to you.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199081 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Another one of your contrived phrases, "the absolute procreation desolation of ss couples."... I've got to admit, you never let the English language stand in your way when trying to make a point.
Why do you think a ss couple's inability to procreate is so horrible? Do you think all sexual intercourse should result in offspring?
Isn't it possible that many--if not most--people engage in sexual activity as a means of "love making", "deepening of a relationship" or "simple pleasure"?
2.) There is inherent harm in just about anything; especially if it's not done correctly. There is inherent harm in heterosexual sexual activity if not done correctly. Unexpected pregnancy--leading to abortion leaps to mind. STDs are possible if safeguards are not in place. And there's always the possibility of discomfort--usually from a woman's perspective--if the man is too aggressive or uninterested in satisfying a woman by bringing her to climax.
3.) Show me where I've ever stated that procreation is unnatural.
Waiting...
1. You are still trying to equate the natural ability of heterosexuals to procreate with the defective absolute failure of ss couples to do so? Really???

2. You are calling the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex natural, once again trying to equate it with the natural design of intercourse. Really dumbing down again...

3. POST 198969;

"Mating behavior" or as the rest of us call it "sexual intercourse" does not always result in children. Marriage unions do not always result in children. So, it is not a "natural result" of sexual intercourse; and certainly not a "natural result" of the marriage union.

VV, look at the last sequence of posts. You are like a slimy snake avoiding reality. It is truly psychotic denial. Get help!
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#199082 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You are still trying to equate the natural ability of heterosexuals to procreate with the defective absolute failure of ss couples to do so? Really???
2. You are calling the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex natural, once again trying to equate it with the natural design of intercourse. Really dumbing down again...
3. POST 198969;
"Mating behavior" or as the rest of us call it "sexual intercourse" does not always result in children. Marriage unions do not always result in children. So, it is not a "natural result" of sexual intercourse; and certainly not a "natural result" of the marriage union.
VV, look at the last sequence of posts. You are like a slimy snake avoiding reality. It is truly psychotic denial. Get help!
Actually, I think your last sentence applies directly to you. Maybe you should read it again...'You are like a slimy snake avoiding reality. It is truly psychotic denial. Get help!'

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199083 Jun 30, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I think your last sentence applies directly to you. Maybe you should read it again...'You are like a slimy snake avoiding reality. It is truly psychotic denial. Get help!'
Please be specific. What did I say that denied reality?

Actually?

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#199084 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
SCOTUS ruled that ss couples are equal to marriage. Reality is not listening.
Ss couples are still ever only a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered half of marriage. Maybe SCOTUS needs a unanimous decision??? Think that will work???
The bottom line is still this; Reality is disobeying SCOTUS!!! What is Obama going to do now??? Someone needs to file suit!
YOUR NOT LISTENING!!!
Yes I'm sure all the judges @ SCOTUS are blondes. Maybe they should wear wigs, as they do here.

Major smirk.
Dorn

Altadena, CA

#199085 Jun 30, 2013
Overpopulation is depleting the Earth's resources.
Same sex marriages are good for the Planet.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199086 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote: SCOTUS ruled that ss couples are equal to marriage. Reality is not listening. Ss couples are still ever only a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered half of marriage. Maybe SCOTUS needs a unanimous decision??? Think that will work??? The bottom line is still this; Reality is disobeying SCOTUS!!! What is Obama going to do now??? Someone needs to file suit! YOUR NOT LISTENING!!!
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I'm sure all the judges @ SCOTUS are blondes. Maybe they should wear wigs, as they do here.
Major smirk.
Still only scoffing masquerading as intelligence.

At least five are, right?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199087 Jun 30, 2013
Dorn wrote:
Overpopulation is depleting the Earth's resources.
Same sex marriages are good for the Planet.
We have not yet over populated the earth.

There is no such thing as ss couples being married. It is an oxymoron.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199088 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Go outside and find someone. Anyone. A kid, whatever.
Ask them to explain it to you.
I'd rather have you explain it to all of us in clear, understandable English. Do you suppose you can do that?
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#199089 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Please be specific. What did I say that denied reality?
Actually?
Specific? How about the fact that you're on here day after day trying to invalidate and discount SS relationships? They exist, they are meaningful and real to the people in them, yet YOU deny that reality because they don't fit within your bigoted view.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#199090 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
We have not yet over populated the earth.
There is no such thing as ss couples being married. It is an oxymoron.
Yes we have over populated the earth! Care to explain how a third of all the animals on this planet are now extinct and we are running out of fresh water supplies? BTW DOMA is now history, so there are plenty of SS marriages to prove you wrong. The only oxymoron is your denial that they exist.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199091 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You are still trying to equate the natural ability of heterosexuals to procreate with the defective absolute failure of ss couples to do so? Really???
2. You are calling the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex natural, once again trying to equate it with the natural design of intercourse. Really dumbing down again...
3. POST 198969;
"Mating behavior" or as the rest of us call it "sexual intercourse" does not always result in children. Marriage unions do not always result in children. So, it is not a "natural result" of sexual intercourse; and certainly not a "natural result" of the marriage union.
VV, look at the last sequence of posts. You are like a slimy snake avoiding reality. It is truly psychotic denial. Get help!
1.) I am not trying to equate a couple's ability to procreate with another couple's inability to procreate. I'm simply saying that there is no reason to compare the two. Why do you try to equate one another based on procreation ability?
Being able to procreate or possessing the desire to procreate IS NOT a prerequisite for marriage. If it were, then there would be REQUIREMENTS for couples to do so. And since NONE of the attorneys in these two cases maintained that any couples, heterosexual or homosexual, MUST agree to procreate in order to marry, your continued focus on this issue is pointless.

2.) I AM calling anal sex "natural". I have maintained that all along. I have provided proof that all orientations engage in it and have engaged in it for eons. If it was harmful, demeaning, degrading, or un-pleasurable then people would not engage in it.

3.) You've got to be kidding. You said in your previous post that I claimed mating behavior is unnatural. And looking at my post, you can clearly see that I DID NOT say this.
I said that procreation is not a "natural result" of mating behavior (i.e. sexual intercourse). If procreation was the result of ALL mating behavior then couples would only have sex for procreative purposes.
And since many newlyweds have sex several times a week, they would end up with a little over 30 children (could be more if they have twins) by time they reached their 25th wedding anniversary.
Did you have a child each time you climbed on top of your wife and banged her like a storm door in a hurricane?
Probably not. You probably used some method of birth control. That's why you have a few kids instead of a small platoon.
As many have said to the "Duggar Family" of the TV show "Nineteen Kids and Counting", the womb is not a clown car--to see how many people will pop out.

4.) Pull your head out of your ass... It's demeaning, unnatural, and painful.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#199092 Jun 30, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we have over populated the earth! Care to explain how a third of all the animals on this planet are now extinct and we are running out of fresh water supplies? BTW DOMA is now history, so there are plenty of SS marriages to prove you wrong. The only oxymoron is your denial that they exist.
Agent Smith said it so well, evil genius that he was:

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.

Lexington Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Vagos motorcycle club targeted in Southern Cali... (Mar '06) Sat Im mee 4,851
City water in highland Aug 17 JOE 1
News Street Smarts: Capitola traffic cam catches the... (Jul '10) Aug 13 1962 grand prix 35
Target is new located at 27902 Greenspot Rd. Hi... (Jul '15) Aug 9 ESalazar 2
Review: Highland Meadows Apartments (Apr '11) Aug 6 MARIBEL VS HECTOR 1,071
moving to guadalupe Aug 5 Yea 19
News Twenty years later, former Santa Cruz mayor get... (Jul '08) Aug 2 is he american 53

Lexington Hills Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lexington Hills Mortgages