Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,987

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

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#201385 Jul 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The sad thing is not how idiotic your gay claim is, it is the fact that you are willing to throw children under the bus to maintain your facade.
It's not simple, it's diabolical.
No dear, trying to deny children that need and want a loving and supportive home from obtaining such, simply because as a fundamentalist bigot you dislike people who have characteristics that are different from yours, THAT is diabolical.

Children raised in gay headed households are not "thrown under the bus". Attempting to deny them those loving households IS "throwing them under the bus".

Your a hypocrite, and you care nothing about children. You only care about your fundamentalist agenda, regardless of how ugly and indecent it exposes you to be.

laughing man

UK

#201387 Jul 10, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No dingle berry, he's bragging because the minority of c*nts like yourself that think their acceptance of our marriages is somehow important to us are being shown the door.
Your acceptance is completely irrelevant. It always has been, and always will be.
But don't let that FACT stop you from continuing to post. We love it when people like yourself peacock their bigotry for everyone to see. Fundamentalist Christians are such lovely people.
We can't let such a breathtakingly stupid post get lost in the shuffle.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/los-angeles-c...

"peacock their bigotry "

Pull the trigger, shitferbrains.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#201388 Jul 10, 2013
CaptainMorgan2015 wrote:
<quoted text>

Oral sex is unhealty?
asked michael douglas

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#201389 Jul 10, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Hey bro don't worry. Everyone, to varying degrees, struggles in trying to understand the Bible.
There are several factors that sometimes make the Bible hard to understand. First, there is a time and culture difference. Depending on what part of the Bible you are studying, there is between 3400 and 1900 years between when the Bible was written and us today.
Second, there is the fact that the Bible contains different types of literature. The Bible contains history, law, poetry, songs, wisdom literature, prophecy, personal letters, and apocalyptic literature. Historical literature must be interpreted differently from wisdom literature. Poetry cannot be understood in the same way as apocalyptic writings. A personal letter, while having meaning for us today, may not have the exact application to us as it did to the person(s) to whom it was written. Recognizing the fact that the Bible contains different genres is key in avoiding confusion and misunderstanding.
Trying to understand the Bible can sometimes be a difficult task, but with God’s help, it is possible.
Got any more questions I can help you with fake rev?
I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Sorry, I wasn't ready for so much bullshyt in such a short amount of time. I'm good now though. Carry on.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#201390 Jul 10, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Sorry, I wasn't ready for so much bullshyt in such a short amount of time. I'm good now though. Carry on.
Maybe you are keeping it in too long. Or in the wrong end.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#201391 Jul 10, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you are keeping it in too long. Or in the wrong end.
Maybe you have a wrong end, but I don't. All my ends are good dear. But thanks for your concern.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#201395 Jul 10, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you have a wrong end, but I don't. All my ends are good dear. But thanks for your concern.
TRANSLATION: Jonah1 is confused again.
laughing man

UK

#201396 Jul 10, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Should Haz-Mat be notified?
laughing man

UK

#201397 Jul 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's my favorite Jonah1 post too.
It's "dark and stormy night" Smithsonian grade stuff.

:)

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#201398 Jul 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Peacocking bigotry!
I'm so glad that my use of peacock as an intransitive verb has given you so much pleasure today. The English language is quite wonderful when employed properly. Glad you could not only learn something, but that you are trying to integrate it into your vernacular as well. Bravo Tizzy. Look at you trying to edge your way into the grown up table. Good boy.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#201399 Jul 10, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>asked michael douglas
You did? And what did he say? Did he provide you with medical research that the act itself was inherently unhealthy? Will you be sharing his response? I mean, since you brought up that you asked him and all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#201400 Jul 10, 2013
CaptainMorgan2015 wrote:
<quoted text>Still falling back on "What about the kids". Look lady, having children has nothing to do with marriage. You don't have to have kids if you are married, and you don't have to be married to have kids. Simple.
Actually it's simply a weak rationale for ssm. Marriage and procreation are linked whether or not u wish to acknowledge it. Various court cases, such as , Baker vs Nelson, have.

Baker vs

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#201404 Jul 10, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No dear, trying to deny children that need and want a loving and supportive home from obtaining such, simply because as a fundamentalist bigot you dislike people who have characteristics that are different from yours, THAT is diabolical.
Those fundamentalist bigots, trying to deny children the loving plural marriage family that their raised in, recognition, just because their parents have a different characteristics, and/or belief system that are different. THAT is diabolical.
Children raised in gay headed households are not "thrown under the bus". Attempting to deny them those loving households IS "throwing them under the bus".
[/QUOTE[

Yeah, and in plural marriage headed families too!

[QUOTE]
Your a hypocrite, and you care nothing about children. You only care about your fundamentalist agenda, regardless of how ugly and indecent it exposes you to be.
Need I say more. Children in plural marriages need support too.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#201410 Jul 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it's simply a weak rationale for ssm.
"What about the kids" is a weak rationale for ssm? Really? Since when? Who exactly is using this as the rationale? Is it the only rationale, or just one of many? Please try specifics sometime.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage and procreation are linked whether or not u wish to acknowledge it.
Oh, we've acknowledged it. Plenty actually, given the ridiculous number of times it's been brought up. Here's another thing that's been brought up too....

Marriage and procreation are not requirements of one another whether or not u wish to acknowledge it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Various court cases, such as , Baker vs Nelson, have.
Baker vs
Which one of these various court cases concluded that procreation was a mandate for marriage?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#201411 Jul 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Those fundamentalist bigots, trying to deny children the loving plural marriage family that their raised in, recognition, just because their parents have a different characteristics, and/or belief system that are different. THAT is diabolical.
<quoted text>
Need I say more. Children in plural marriages need support too.
Yes, I imagine they would need support. Perhaps if you weren't so busy using them as a red herring, you could actually support them with some of your time. Seems though that you are just interested in using them to try further other agendas that you are incapable of defending without deception. Typical behavior of your ilk.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#201412 Jul 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me predict an answer-
And this would be different today because ....?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#201413 Jul 10, 2013
CaptainMorgan2015 wrote:
<quoted text>You better get checked
HPV: the facts
•&#8201;There are more than 100 variants of HPV (human papillomavirus). They appear in different parts of the body and manifest themselves in different ways – some cause warts, but most are symptomless.
•&#8201;Some are spread by skin-to-skin contact, while others are typically spread during sex. When HPV is found in the mouth, it probably got there as a result of oral sex.
•&#8201;HPV is common – if you're a sexually active adult, you've probably had it. By the age of 25, 90% of sexually active people will have been exposed to some form of genital HPV.
•&#8201;Around 15 types of HPV are linked to increased cancer risk, but it can't be explicitly said to cause any particular cancers. It's a long-term risk factor: over years and decades the risk is increased, rather than overnight.
•&#8201;It is calculated that between 25% and 35% of oral cancers are HPV-related – meaning that it seems to be involved in 1,500-2,000 diagnoses a year.
•&#8201;Overall, HPV-related oral cancers are most common in heterosexual men in their 40s and 50s.
•&#8201;Teenage girls in the UK and elsewhere are now vaccinated against HPV, which should in time both protect them from cervical cancers and – it's believed – future partners from HPV-related oral cancers.
Great stats.

Let's also remember to point out to KiMare and her minions, that the spreading of disease has to do with the status of the partners, NOT any particular act. Labeling particular sex acts as "harmful" is one of the stupidest tactics that fools like her love to try.
laughing man

UK

#201415 Jul 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The English language gets silly when it is employed so melodramatically.
I say, old chap, but the bung cultist DID employ it properly.
laughing man

UK

#201416 Jul 10, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Great stats.
Let's also remember to point out to KiMare and her minions, that the spreading of disease has to do with the status of the partners, NOT any particular act. Labeling particular sex acts as "harmful" is one of the stupidest tactics that fools like her love to try.
I simply must ask:

Are you a bug chaser or a gift giver?
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#201417 Jul 10, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You may not believe in the Bible [a book of fairy tales] but you grew up surrounded by Bible bashing Christians like we all did and you have not freed yourself of all the Christian homophobic baggage that you carry around and falsely believe is your own. All homophobic is learned behaviour it is NOT something you were born with or something you came up with yourself. You learned it from stupid Christians.
A society that excludes minorities because of a religious prejudice with in the majority is NOT a moral society, but instead a corrupt one and a sick despicable one. You and the theocracy you would like to live in is an immoral society.
First of all you are a hetero trying to be a homo, so STFU
you don't know anything about how I was brought up. If you must know, I was brought up in a strong wholesome American family structure, there was no need to talk about homophobia because you queers stayed in the closet with the rest of the dust mops and brooms. You second class people jumped up and down yelling and screeming to the U.S. Government DEMANDING to be accepted. Just because you made a little head way doesn't mean you have accomplished your dream. The supreme court once again acted in haste and under your pressure, they failed to obsrve a 25 day window, so that will come back and kick you in the ass once again.
You are such a waste of government time.

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.

Brentwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 5 hr ForkBelly 7,962
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 11 hr Flaggstaff 5,083
Kim Kardashian Facing Fur-ious Protest At Calab... (Apr '12) Sun fancy 2
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Sun theos 2,276
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Sep 18 Pizza 16,000
Mickey Rourke leaves his shirt unbuttoned flash... Sep 17 jillymayr 2
Beverly Hills Shuns Bike Paths in Resisting Tra... Sep 14 Roger Edgar 7
•••

Brentwood News Video

•••
Los Angeles Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Brentwood Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Brentwood People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Brentwood News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Brentwood
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••