Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Mike DiRucci]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Rose's Law.

Mike's Law. Rose_NoHo is a dope.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL.

Nothing funny about it Rose, it's a fact. One you can't deny. Hence your "LOL" response.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Well, at least you admit you are a racist.

Gee, should I act like Rose here, and make you show me where I made that statement?

Nah, you would just twist in the wind like the ignorant buffoon you are.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
It didn't reference Skinner v OK as the *source* of marriage as a right.

It most certainly did Rose, I have posted it many times for you. Here is is again.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)."- Loving V Virginia

Maybe if I post it twice it will make it through your thick skull.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)."Loving V Virginia

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Skinner v OK wasn't about marriage, it didn't say marriage is a right. It said, "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race". The case was about using forced sterilization as a means of punishment (how fking barbaric). The use of the word "marriage" was incidental.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/31...
How many times you want to go round on this?

Ok, maybe you need to see it 3 times.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)."- Loving V Virginia

BTW Rose, we all know what Skinner V Oklahoma was about. It's a good thing the courts are smarter than you, and were able to understand what was meant by the Skinner V Oklahoma and as such apply it to Loving V Virginia.

Poor little puppet, you are so easily confused by logic.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Rock claimed I site false reports and bogus surveys. Tell us how my response proved I site false reports and bogus surveys.
Well?
Oooops, you got caught in a lie!

He claimed many things, most of which were factual and proven by your reply to him. The fact that you want to point to one thing out of many and claim everything isn't true is hilarious, and shows more than you know how correct he was about you.

Like I said, you simply don't know when to shut up.

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't even worth responding to.
1 You refuse to answer direct questions with anything other than deceit and spin.

You Wrote:
Total BS.

You failed to answer, as usual.

R Hudson wrote:
3 You apply a double standard to the posters this room.

You Wrote:

Example?

Here is one- Calling everyone a racists without providing the same requirement of stating which race they hate that you require from someone calling you a racist.
This is also another example of what Hudson claimed in Item 1.

R Hudson wrote:
4 You are on welfare, thus presenting yourself as the lowest form of dirt in here.

You Wrote:LOL! A total lie. I get you are a racist, and assume I'm on welfare because I'm black. But I have an advanced degree and I'm fully employed.

Proving my point. No one thinks you are on welfare because you are "black" Rose, in fact we don't even know for sure that you are- we claim you are on welfare because you are too ignorant to support yourself.

No need to go further, all of your other responses simply provided further examples of what was claimed in item 1.

[akpilot]

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
You contradict yourself with the last statement, Rose. We have no proof of these unknown fossils yet you acknowledge that they might exist. How do you know that there is not evidence for the existence of a god that we just haven't located yet?
OTOH, I can prove no elephant is in my bathtub. But you, however, cannot. You can't see my bathtub, nor do you know how big or sturdy it is. I cannot prove that someone, somewhere, doesn't have an elephant in their bathtub. Just mine, because I can see it.

Are you trying to use logic in a discussion with Rose...

You silly thing, you will drive yourself insane.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
I said:
"It's quite possible there is life on another planet without our having any evidence of it."
Sheesh, you're dumb.

So, it is possible that there is life on another planet without evidence. But it is impossible that there is a "god" because we have no evidence of one?

Do you ever think things through before you spout them off?

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me try to make this really simple for you.
If all all powerful, all knowing ever present being who never lies and promises to fulfill any request made in Jesus' name existed we'd have evidence of his existence.

Where was this promised?

BTW Rose, what makes you think the "god" of the bible is the only possibility? You can no more prove that an all knowing, all powerful, ever present being doesn't exist, than it can be proven that one does.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Life on another planet could be a one celled thing that's almost as dumb as you are, and does nothing but photosynthesize as its moon orbits around a planet that orbits around its sun. It's not all powerful, ever present, and doesn't say it will answer any prayers at all. It would be easy for such a thing to exist, yet we have no evidence of its existence. In fact, it's likely we would have no evidence of its existence. It wouldn't even have a Facebook page so we could like it.

We are all pretty sure you are living on another planet Rose. You seem to function just fine with only one brain cell. The fact that you are as ignorant as you are yet still survive may be all the proof we need that there is in fact a "god".

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Shut up, shyte for brains.

Oooooo...
Good come back.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course I can. The same way I can prove there is no elephant in my bathtub. If there were an elephant in my tub, there would be evidence, I could see it, hear it, touch it...

Like I said Winston, you should just give up on Rose-- Logic fails her.

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
So, it is possible that there is life on another planet without evidence. But it is impossible that there is a "god" because we have no evidence of one?
Do you ever think things through before you spout them off?

Let me try again with you, dummy. Maybe this will make it clear.
1. God - unlimited.
2. Life on other planets - limited.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Oooooo...
Good come back.

About as good as yours:

Rose Law...

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me try again with you, dummy. Maybe this will make it clear.
1. God - unlimited.
2. Life on other planets - limited.

You still haven't proven anything Rose. Even Winston is trying to explain it to you, yet you are too dense to comprehend it.

Critical Thinking- you should take a class in it.

[monroe48]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You still haven't proven anything Rose. Even Winston is trying to explain it to you, yet you are too dense to comprehend it.
Critical Thinking- you should take a class in it.

Are u the same akpilot who has been posting beastialty stories on the human sexuality forum?
The story about you and the Great Dane was well written.

[akpilot]

monroe48 wrote:

<quoted text>
Are u the same akpilot who has been posting beastialty stories on the human sexuality forum?
The story about you and the Great Dane was well written.

Let us know when you move out of your parents house.

[Mona Lott]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
And that is the whole of the law...I like Mikes Law. Succinct, accurate and no margin for error.

Sort of Rose's statement about your penchant for stating the obvious.

[Winston Smith]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course I can. The same way I can prove there is no elephant in my bathtub. If there were an elephant in my tub, there would be evidence, I could see it, hear it, touch it...

You have offered no proof of God's existence or lack of existence. Can you see, touch or hear the vacuum on the far side of Pluto? Can you see, hear, or touch the subatomic particles that make up a fraction of one of your vertebrae? Can you prove that someone doesn't have an elephant in their tub somewhere else on the planet? If seeing, hearing, or touching something is your litmus test for the existence of something you're not going to be able to prove that man is capable of thought.

[Mona Lott]

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
You have offered no proof of God's existence or lack of existence. Can you see, touch or hear the vacuum on the far side of Pluto? Can you see, hear, or touch the subatomic particles that make up a fraction of one of your vertebrae? Can you prove that someone doesn't have an elephant in their tub somewhere else on the planet? If seeing, hearing, or touching something is your litmus test for the existence of something you're not going to be able to prove that man is capable of thought.

Thinking about something is NOT proof of its existence.

[Winston Smith]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Thinking about something is NOT proof of its existence.

Does thought exist?

[AscendedFalmer]

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>You have offered no proof of God's existence or lack of existence. Can you see, touch or hear the vacuum on the far side of Pluto? Can you see, hear, or touch the subatomic particles that make up a fraction of one of your vertebrae? Can you prove that someone doesn't have an elephant in their tub somewhere else on the planet? If seeing, hearing, or touching something is your litmus test for the existence of something you're not going to be able to prove that man is capable of thought.

We have other evidence to provide us with that kind of knowledge. Scientists have not detected an atmosphere, with telescopes or sensors, both of which produce visual evidence, and therefore they infer that there is a vacuum on Pluto, like the rest of space. We also have electron microscopes to physically see subatomic particles. Your examples don't make much sense.

[akpilot]

AscendedFalmer wrote:

<quoted text>
We have other evidence to provide us with that kind of knowledge. Scientists have not detected an atmosphere, with telescopes or sensors, both of which produce visual evidence, and therefore they infer that there is a vacuum on Pluto, like the rest of space. We also have electron microscopes to physically see subatomic particles. Your examples don't make much sense.

It does make sense, and the point it, claiming something doesn't exists simply because we lack evidence is foolish. If that is true, we should tell scientists to just give up, they are wasting their time trying to discover new things.

To accept this logic one must accept that Dinosaur's didn't exist prior to 1824 when William Buckland discovered and assigned a scientific name to the newly discovered animal species. Prior to that there was no evidence of their existence, thus they did not exist.

Fact is, those whom believe in a "god" and those whom do not, arrive at their respective conclusions the same way- FAITH!

[Cal In AZ]

AscendedFalmer wrote:

<quoted text>
We have other evidence to provide us with that kind of knowledge. Scientists have not detected an atmosphere, with telescopes or sensors, both of which produce visual evidence, and therefore they infer that there is a vacuum on Pluto, like the rest of space. We also have electron microscopes to physically see subatomic particles. Your examples don't make much sense.

Actually, you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. One of the problems with measuring the diameter of Pluto with accuracy is that it's atmosphere makes it look BIGGER than it really is. How much bigger it appears in a telescope due to it's atmosphere is a subject of ongoing scientific study.

Hopefully, in about 6 - 7 years, the New Horizons spacecraft will reach the Pluto-Charon system (Their barycenter lies between the 2 bodies), and will be able to very accurately measure it's diameter and measure other things in the Pluto-Charon system of scientific interest.