Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,930

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: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163871 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. If you only knew...
I pass gas that is better educated than you are.
We do know, you childish posts speak for themselves. But keep at it Rose, you will get that GED, I have faith in you.

And we know, when you pass gas it most certainly is the smartest thing in the room.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#163872 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So you produce ad hominem as a defense against the refutation of your claim ? That rape does not occur in nature ? I see you are again sidestepping, as you do so often, instead of admitting that you were erred. But think no more about it, it would only place you into an unrecoverable loop.
Your kitty porn site doesn't prove that animals have the concepts of consent and rape.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163873 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem with facts. But you are just nit-picking, arguing semantics, and playing word games.
Pointing out something that was presented as Quote in fact wasn't, is not nit-picking, it is fact checking.

But most of the time you don't know fact from fantasy, so I understand why this concept is foreign to you.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#163874 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Kindly attempt to divert your limited attention to post #163847..If any of the bigger words confuse you, I will draw pictures....
I ripped that to shreds. You didn't make a single rational argument against gay marriage.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#163875 Oct 18, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Pointing out something that was presented as Quote in fact wasn't, is not nit-picking, it is fact checking.
It's nit picking, just arguing semantics.
You do that because you don't have real arguments.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163877 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's nit picking, just arguing semantics.
You do that because you don't have real arguments.
Kind of like your nonsense about quoting the Declaration of Independence is presenting a "religious" argument.

You really are an idiot Rose.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163878 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I ripped that to shreds. You didn't make a single rational argument against gay marriage.
The only thing you "rip to shreds" is common sense.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163879 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeez, Mike, give a guy a minute to get home and read his posts after 14 hours+ on the road....
She wouldn't do me anyway. Says I have gas. But it's not me, it's wafting over from Rose_NoHo's place. It's smart gas though.
milhouse

Los Angeles, CA

#163883 Oct 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
She wouldn't do me anyway. Says I'm too much of a queen because of the pink pleated skirt I like to wear and my silver colored lip gloss. That's how I roll.
So, you aren't the "masculine" leather kind of homosexual? You "swish" fem queero-sexuals are the worst kind of gay. Even the lesbians are higher up on the pecking order over types like you.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163886 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I ripped that to shreds. You didn't make a single rational argument against gay marriage.
Danth's Law.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163888 Oct 18, 2012
milhouse wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you aren't the "masculine" leather kind of homosexual? You "swish" fem queero-sexuals are the worst kind of gay. Even the lesbians are higher up on the pecking order over types like you.
Nope. Not homosexual at all. Are you?

What kinds are there? You're the expert.

What a dope.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#163890 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
Rights, as defined by..........who ? You ?
The Constitution and the Courts. Didn't you pay attention in 8th grade Civics?
R Hudson wrote:
Marriage is an institution.
It's also a civil right, or haven't you been paying attention now too?
R Hudson wrote:
Procreation is traditionally the endgame of marriage.
And yet throughout all of recorded history there have been marriages which going in are never ever going to be a part of that tradition. If you are talking Christian tradition, you also didn't bother to pay attention in History, either. Marriage wasn't a requirement of the faith until the Middle Ages, you got a blessing for your betrothal, which gave you the go ahead to consummate to your heart's content, marriage was left to local law and custom. The Church did offer an optional blessing in the way of religious ceremony, but for the common folk, not only did you have to pay for it, you had to walk in with live proof that your betrothal had been consummated. The Catholic Church coming out with the requirement that the faithful be married in the Church was one of the catalysts for the Reformation, with Luther, Calvin and others opposed to the Church interfering in that way.

Let me break it down for you hon. We the people have a right to be married in the eyes of the law and according to the common law on that subject, it is a right which can only be denied to we the people, when a compelling interest of the state is served in doing so. Your hang ups about having to share the title of marriage under the CIVIL LAW are of no interest to the state whatsoever. In the case of those who wish to marry someone who is legally eligible to marry, but not legally approved to marry, because they are not of the "right" sex, there is no interest of the state, compelling or otherwise, being served in their denying we the people, our right. In real terms this means, California's amendment is toast, probably without so much as a hearing, the Court will likely announce this shortly after the election when they are going to finally have a case they can kill DOMA with, on election day, marriage equality is likely to be approved by the voters in three states and a constitutional amendment killed in a fourth and all before Christmas.

Thanks for playing, but we've already gotten past you.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#163891 Oct 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Be fine if she looked like her picture. But it's probably some fat old pervert dude in pink bra and panties. Maybe Rose_NoHo. Yecch.
Fantasize much?
Edgar

Spring, TX

#163892 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are simply incapable of comprehending rationality. Leave it to the grown-ups.
Close the dictionary, Rock. No cheating.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163893 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice one, Mike, Nice.
Danth's Law (also known as Parker's Law) states:
“If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.”
It was formulated on the popular Roleplaying Game forum, RPG.net and named after the now-banned user who inspired it. As an internet discussion grows and grows, it's often tempting to declare victory and move on, especially if you've rammed the point home too many times and your opponent just ignores everything you say. In this case, declaring victory and moving on may be legitimate and excusable.
Unfortunately, the majority of the time, declaring victory is just spin: a last desperate attempt to trick people into believing you came out on top (providing that they don't actually go and read the discussion, of course). Sometimes, the individuals declaring victory may well be convinced that they're right; often they'll have gone into the discussion knowing that they're right and with no possible option that they might be wrong. When combined with the ability to expel someone from the discussion, Danth's Law takes on a more sinister tone - indicating that a group or individual can only defend themselves on their own terms, through the medium of extreme deceit.
More specifically, the person declaring themselves victorious against strong opposition generally cites the quantity of opposition as why they won and no longer have to argue to prove their point - after all, if they weren't so right, why would people be so desperate in refuting them with post after post? This may consist of complaining about the opponent's 'way' of arguing, or just the amount of arguing, number of points brought up, or number of people arguing against them as evidence of their victory, as nonsensical and contradictory as that assertion logically is.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Danth%27s_Law
This explains ross-no-hope/a.k.a. Chongo perfectly....
It should be renamed Rose_NoHo's Law.

It's the real "Rose's Law". Forget that dopey one about morons and children she thinks is even smarter than her stinky farts.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163894 Oct 18, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The Constitution and the Courts. Didn't you pay attention in 8th grade Civics?
<quoted text>It's also a civil right, or haven't you been paying attention now too?
<quoted text>And yet throughout all of recorded history there have been marriages which going in are never ever going to be a part of that tradition. If you are talking Christian tradition, you also didn't bother to pay attention in History, either. Marriage wasn't a requirement of the faith until the Middle Ages, you got a blessing for your betrothal, which gave you the go ahead to consummate to your heart's content, marriage was left to local law and custom. The Church did offer an optional blessing in the way of religious ceremony, but for the common folk, not only did you have to pay for it, you had to walk in with live proof that your betrothal had been consummated. The Catholic Church coming out with the requirement that the faithful be married in the Church was one of the catalysts for the Reformation, with Luther, Calvin and others opposed to the Church interfering in that way.
Let me break it down for you hon. We the people have a right to be married in the eyes of the law and according to the common law on that subject, it is a right which can only be denied to we the people, when a compelling interest of the state is served in doing so. Your hang ups about having to share the title of marriage under the CIVIL LAW are of no interest to the state whatsoever. In the case of those who wish to marry someone who is legally eligible to marry, but not legally approved to marry, because they are not of the "right" sex, there is no interest of the state, compelling or otherwise, being served in their denying we the people, our right. In real terms this means, California's amendment is toast, probably without so much as a hearing, the Court will likely announce this shortly after the election when they are going to finally have a case they can kill DOMA with, on election day, marriage equality is likely to be approved by the voters in three states and a constitutional amendment killed in a fourth and all before Christmas.
Thanks for playing, but we've already gotten past you.
Bla bla bla... You're welcome.

Does anyone read this long winded blather?

Funny!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163897 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's nit picking, just arguing semantics.
You do that because you don't have real arguments.
Stick a fork in yourself Rose_NoHo. I think you're just about done.

Why you mad?

Funny!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163899 Oct 18, 2012
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Fantasize much?
Nope. Don't need to. Got what I need. You?
Edgar

Spring, TX

#163901 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Cheating ? How ?
Oh, silly me, the use of multisyllabbic words, jeez, I didn't mean to frighten you, want me to use smaller words ?
wel i meen if u want 2 stoop down 2 mi lvl off thinkin i meen bi al meens plz do

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163903 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You fell for it. Now, I will never reply to you again! LOLSER! And you'll keep posting more and more /toabout me, trying to get my attention, and response. But you won't get one.
Gotcha.
SO Funny!

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.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 11 min Just saying 15,988
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 23 min J RULES 69,321
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 2 hr brasso 2,263
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 6 hr just a post 5,064
The inconvenient 17-year pause in global warming (Sep '13) Sep 12 Earthling-1 123
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep 11 gotti jr 9
Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Sep 10 refer13 1,513
•••
•••
Monterey Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Monterey News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••