Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201810 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.

Edgar

Spring, TX

#164104 Oct 19, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, for a split second there, it began to look like you were catching on ....
I'm not in a habit of "catching on" to dysfunctional, bigoted, narrow-minded, self-contradicting mentalities.

What you are proposing is either a bubble of cluelessness or the muting of gay people trying to gain rights vocally.

No matter which of the two is what your point resembles, there's no way you'll ever see me "catch on" to it.

(By the way, quite frankly, if you're afraid about homosexual talk infecting minors...walk a day in my shoes. Public school students, at least in my neck of the woods, are the most flaming homophobes you'll ever meet. "Gay" is a synonym for "Dumb" or "Dull" at our schools. I deal with closed-minded people like you every goddamn day.)

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#164105 Oct 19, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike the Founding Fathers, we now have science that shows that a creator is not necessary for our existence...
No, the Big Bang theory and evolution do not, in and of themselves, "prove" that there is no creator (science can not do that!), but they work quite well to explain existence without invoking supernatural actions.
You miss the point. While the founders most certainly felt there was a "creator" in the fashion of a supreme being, the fact that science has lead away from that does not change the purpose and signifigance of the statement.

Creator does not have to be relegated to a "religion" in the context of this argument, it simply holds to the premise that we all have "right's" which are inherant in us simply by birth, they are not given nor can the be taken and the only purpose of government is to protect them.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#164106 Oct 19, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Says the guy who thinks the Constitution doesn't Enumerate Rights.
The guy who, in his latest escalation of insanity, claims that the Right to vote doesn't exist...
Never mind the TEXT of the 19th Amendment to the CONSTITUTION....
It's hard to fathom someone SO stupid being SUCH an an arrogant asshole, thinking they are smart, but here you are.
Aren't you tired of having your a$$ handed to you yet?
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#164107 Oct 19, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are fundies such racists? Don't you believe Jesus thought enough of black people to die for us?
Rose_NoHo.

"Racist"? What do you mean by "racist"? I have never heard of any "fundies" (as normalphobes pejoratively call them) contend that the Homosexuals and the lesbians are any better than Africans.

Ronald

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#164108 Oct 19, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
So the "creator" just popped of thin air.
<quoted text>
We don't have a creator. The SCOTUS can determine law, but not reality.
<quoted text>
I'm making fun of your making an issue of the use of the word "quote" WRT to something John Adams said, or was it something he wrote, or something....
Were you toilet trained at gun point?
And before you ask...
http://www.acronymfinder.com/Toilet_Trained-A...
<quoted text>
LOL. If you only knew...
You really aren't very bright are you? Do you need instruction on how to sign your welfare check?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164110 Oct 19, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice critique, but the fact remains that you have focused on nothing except that facile view that you wish us to focus on, thus ignoring the more complete description that I have previously stated. 2 men or 2 women cannot possibly substitute for the complete upbringing provided by a balanced and natural biological set of parents. These children would be denied the access to one or the other parent, and the result is that these children will be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with them. They will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests. Period.
Yours is a tired and fatuous argument, given that what children learn from loving parents is universal - love, patience, selflessness, joy, persistence, limits, loyalty, honesty, compassion, empathy, generosity, consistency, and hope. Teaching these things is a loving parent's job, and a loving set of parents does this job, regardless of their genders. Why don't you know this?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164112 Oct 19, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You miss the point. While the founders most certainly felt there was a "creator" in the fashion of a supreme being, the fact that science has lead away from that does not change the purpose and signifigance of the statement.
Creator does not have to be relegated to a "religion" in the context of this argument, it simply holds to the premise that we all have "right's" which are inherant in us simply by birth, they are not given nor can the be taken and the only purpose of government is to protect them.
If they are endowed, or 'given', akpilot, they do not need our flimsy mortal protection - we simply have them forever and always. Since they are impossible to lose, by your reckoning, it logically follows that Government is here to recognize and facilitate them, not 'protect' them, and therein lies a fallacy of today's politics. Inalienable endowed rights, cannot disappear - they can only fail to be recognized by one's government.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#164113 Oct 19, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought that you were catching on to a clue, not at all bringing up your LBGT frineds with all those qualities that you listed. Their bubble of cluelessness, etc., hasn't yet been muted, else you'd not be here now. Walk your own shoes. Your teen angst leaves me unmoved.
It's not teen angst, it's logic.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#164115 Oct 19, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>If they are endowed, or 'given', akpilot, they do not need our flimsy mortal protection - we simply have them forever and always. Since they are impossible to lose, by your reckoning, it logically follows that Government is here to recognize and facilitate them, not 'protect' them, and therein lies a fallacy of today's politics. Inalienable endowed rights, cannot disappear - they can only fail to be recognized by one's government.
Oy.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#164120 Oct 19, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds an awful lot like whining, to me.
To you.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#164121 Oct 19, 2012
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
To you.
And me.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#164124 Oct 19, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
Or Mike.
Mike probably thinks it's "TOO funny!"
Edgar

Spring, TX

#164125 Oct 19, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't whine to me. I don't care.
You don't care.

Which explains why you've spent so much time degrading people on this website with dozens upon dozens of condescending, hypocritical, bigoted, closed-minded, hateful comments.

Yep. You don't care.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#164126 Oct 19, 2012
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't care.
Which explains why you've spent so much time degrading people on this website with dozens upon dozens of condescending, hypocritical, bigoted, closed-minded, hateful comments.
Yep. You don't care.
Relax Edgar. Never let em see you sweat.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#164127 Oct 19, 2012
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike probably thinks it's "TOO funny!"
Well... yeah.

!
Edgar

Spring, TX

#164128 Oct 19, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax Edgar. Never let em see you sweat.
You're right.

HEY GUYS DON'T LOOK I'M SWEATING

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164130 Oct 19, 2012
Rose Theodor wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sorry.
Well, at least you got this part right.
Rose Theodor wrote:
<quoted text>I bet when that post was in your head, you expected it to come out as English and be logical. Maybe, if you put it back in your head and try again it might make sense next time.
What are you betting? I'm all over this.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand, GO!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#164131 Oct 19, 2012
Rose Theodor wrote:
<quoted text>You really are dumb. First that is not true. The studies noted if the straight men had engage in anal sex, as in tried. That does not make mention of regularity. Studies showed that only 2% of straight men and women used anal sex as a primary sex method. Only 2% of the men engage in oral anal sex.
Compare:
91% of gay men engaged in regular anal penile sex.
99% of gay men engaged in regular anal oral sex.
In other words, not only do gay men have a life time "back stage pass", they have an oral fixation on it. Lunch.
Unless your so-called "facts" are nothing more than the result of an anal prefrontal cortex inversion, pray tell, where did you ever come up with such amazing information about my sex life? Well actually, not, but it's your homoerotic fantasy, not mine. I just have to know who learnt you those little intellectually challenged nuggets. Who tolt you that we all go around sticking our tongues in each others butts? This should be entertaining.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164132 Oct 19, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But I DO know those things, I am merely looking the finished product, as it were, of missing elements. You named a fine set of qualities, but you are simplifying the issue, and thereby avoiding the rest of the picture.
You are missing the point. Bringing up children involves a fairly simple, straight-forward paradigm: Love your kids, as if they are the hope of the world, and teach them how to be.

Frankly, I see no difference between the 'mom & dad' variety, and the 'mom & mom' or 'dad & dad variation, on this theme. If you do, I have to assume you can point out what that difference is.

Begin.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#164133 Oct 19, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't that, in fact, the same reason that you, baby hulk, are here ?
Please, don't go all hulk on me ........Yikes !!!!
The reason I'm here is to:

a) make jokes when necessary (which by the way, i seem to remember you never being able to accept)
b) provide a younger, more youthful perspective on social issues like this
c) have discussions over politics.

BABY HULK JUST GOT TECHNICAL ON YO BEHIND

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
Monterey Public Officials VIOLATING FEDERAL LAWS May 26 Un agenda 21 and ... 4
public officials violating federal laws May 24 Un agenda 21 and ... 3
the music thread (Apr '12) May 23 Musikologist 19
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) May 23 ikestubbs 1,535
News Letters: Charter application superior (Jan '11) May 21 Yin Simons 13
News Taking extraordinary measures to wear an extrao... May 18 outtogether 2
News Police: Armed robbery at Santa Cruz sandwich sh... May 11 bump 1
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]