Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not deal with my actual argument?

Who could tell what it is, it is like a moving target. Each time you are proven wrong you simply change your story and claim to have never made the previous statement.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
And it's silly to say I reached my conclusion that there is no god via faith. I reached it via evidence, or should I say, lack of any evidence.

It is FAITH Rose-

[akpilot]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
None of my conclusions are faith based, you don’t have the perspective to understand the difference between evidence and lack thereof

There was a severe lack of evidence that Dinosaurs existed prior to their discovery, does that mean they didn't exist?

[NorCal Native]

KiMare wrote:

The New Family Structure Study (NFSS) suggests notable differences on many outcomes do, in fact, exist [between same-sex, intact-married, and biological homes]. This is inconsistent with claims of ‘no differences’ generated by studies that have commonly employed far narrower samples than this one.”
Compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to…
Experience poor educational attainment
Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.
Have impulsive behavior
Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
Suffer from depression (by large margins)
Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely)
Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)
As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit
As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
Have a sexually tramsmitted infection (STI)
Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)
Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)
Be unemployed or part-time employed as young adults
As adults, currently be on public assistance or sometime in their childhood
Live in homes with lower income levels
Drink with intention of getting drunk
To smoke tobacco and marijuana
Spend more time watching TV
Have frequency of arrests
Have pled guilty to minor legal offense

Read this:
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/researc...

[akpilot]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
you don’t have the perspective to understand the difference between evidence and lack thereof

Sure I do, it's called PERSONAL BIAS.

[ZEyeed]

Mitt Romney, My vision for America looks even worse the first time.

[Spine]

If the Romney folks are upset that Whoopi asked Queen Ann the question they should have let Willard Mitt Romney borrow Queen Ann's spine and show up himself.

[Deflect]

Any Mormon in the white house is dangerous.

Ann like ALL other mormons did NOT answer the question.

Just because he was serving a "Mormon Mission" shouldn't preclude a person from serving in the Armed Forces, so the question is STILL unanswered, WHY DIDN"T MITT PERFORM ANY MILITARY SERVICE?

To you mormon that think I don't know what I'm talking about know this in advance.

I was born and raised in LDS, SLC, Utah, and am VERY familiar with mormons and their inablity to answer a direct question.

[Go Blue Forever]

Why can't black women, go into a Mormon Temple?

[Rose_NoHo]

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
You're discounting the presence of God or gods based upon the things that mere mortals expect.

I am talking specifically about the god described in the bible. If "god" can mean anything, there really isn't anything to discus.

Winston Smith wrote:

That doesn't mean one or many don't exist. Some of the founding fathers believed in God but didn't think he would waste his time meddling in the affairs of man. Does that one exist? If not can you prove it?

You could ask me the same question about elves. And I would give you the same kind of answer.
Don't know, but I have no reason to believe he does.

Winston Smith wrote:

Remember, a lot of what we know now wasn't known 50 years ago, more when you go back 100 years, still more when you go back 1000 years. No proof of these many things existed to hour knowledge. Yet they still were present.

I know. None of those things are infinite and involved personally in our lives.

[Knt read]

Voter registration has hit record low with Republicans' share of voters has dropped to a historic low statewide and countywide, according to numbers posted by the California secretary of state Friday.

[phaines]

Go Blue Forever wrote:

Why can't black women, go into a Mormon Temple?

why does that sound like the begining of a bad joke?...

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
So you have decided that the only possible "god" is the one described in a book written by man?

No, stupid. I didn't decide that. As I said *before*(several times), I'm talking about the god described in the bible. If "god" can mean anything, there is nothing to discuss.

akpilot wrote:

But, as usual you simply pull things out of context, again showing your ignorance in trying to prove your nonsense.
"When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures"(James 4:3)

I could say the same thing about praying to a bag of Doritos...
Anyway, my quote was talking about asking in Jesus' name, that's not mentioned in your quote.

akpilot wrote:

Also, just like you don't comprehend the meaning of "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment, you do not comprehend the meaning of "in my name" in this context.

I know what ""equal protection" means, it means.."equal protection".

akpilot wrote:

There usually isn't anything to debate with you, you are usually wrong.

You can't point out a single time I was wrong, well other than typos.

akpilot wrote:

That's usually what we find in your posts- are you surprised?

LOL. You can't counter my arguments.
Are you as ugly as Hudson?
My guess is you are.

[FallBack]

And Glendora, California is so much better off since you voted for Tessitor and his gang of thugs?

Look around, a big building here, a big building there, nothing has changed for those business people on Glendora Avenue, what's going on with the antique lights on Glendora Avenue, traffic has gotten worse and worse, our mountains are littered with more and more homes and Tessitor misses so many city council meetings it's pathetic. Clifford and Herman ran for cover, why doesn't Tessitor get the message?

You seriously can't call Glendora the Pride of The Foothills anymore.

[KiMare]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Read this:
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/researc...

Read this, make sure you catch the reviews.

This is the study yours was taken from;

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content...

[Fleshed]

And Glendora, California is so much better off since you voted for Tessitor and his gang of thugs?

But if you ask Douglas Tessitor he is still a giant in his own mind. But it was a backroom effort RICO activity among other politicans and developers and bankers etc. and cities..

Look around, a big building here, a big building there, nothing has changed for those business people on Glendora Avenue.

What's going on with the antique lighting districts, traffic has gotten worse and worse, our mountains are littered with more and more homes.

Douglas Tessitor misses so many Glendora city council meetings it's pathetic.

Gary Clifford and Ken Herman ran for cover, why doesn't Douglas Tessitor get the message? Douglas the rats are leaving the ship.

You seriously can't call Glendora the Pride of The Foothills anymore.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
No, stupid. I didn't decide that. As I said *before*(several times), I'm talking about the god described in the bible. If "god" can mean anything, there is nothing to discuss.

No stupid, you didn't say that you were only talking about the "god" described in the bible until you were backed into a corner. In fact we have had this very same discussion with similar results when discussing the "creator" as described in the Declaration of Independence.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I could say the same thing about praying to a bag of Doritos...
Anyway, my quote was talking about asking in Jesus' name, that's not mentioned in your quote.

We know you have trouble with critical thinking. If it isn't in black and white, you can't comprehend it.

That's why so many call you ignorant.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I know what ""equal protection" means, it means.."equal protection".

Yes Rose, it means "equal protection" does not mean "equal outcomes."

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You can't point out a single time I was wrong, well other than typos.

Are you still making the claim that going back and forth between my name and another posters in the same reply was a "typo".

Give it up Rose.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
LOL. You can't counter my arguments.

You haven't made any valid arguments, when you do I will be sure to counter them.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you as ugly as Hudson?

Would this be you presenting a "valid argument?"

[Mike DiRucci]

Go Blue Forever wrote:

Why can't black women, go into a Mormon Temple?

Well? Why? What's the punchline? Don't leave us hanging here. Why can't they?

Funny!

[Mike DiRucci]

Go Blue Forever wrote:

Why can't black women, go into a Mormon Temple?

because phaggs like you prefer men?

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
No stupid, you didn't say that you were only talking about the "god" described in the bible until you were backed into a corner.

I said it SEVERAL times. I wasn't backed into a corner. I had assumed people knew I was talking about the god of the bible and not Morpheus, or a bag of Doritos. My bad. So, I made it clear.

akpilot wrote:

In fact we have had this very same discussion with similar results when discussing the "creator" as described in the Declaration of Independence.
We know you have trouble with critical thinking. If it isn't in black and white, you can't comprehend it.
That's why so many call you ignorant.

We? Stand up for yourself, pussy.
I have no problem with critical thinking.
That's why I know this "god" stuff is BS.

akpilot wrote:

Yes Rose, it means "equal protection" does not mean "equal outcomes."

Attacking another straw man. I've never said it did.

akpilot wrote:

Are you still making the claim that going back and forth between my name and another posters in the same reply was a "typo".
Give it up Rose.

It was.
Don't let truth get in the way of your obsession with me.
Why would be my motivation to use your name on purpose when it wasn't your post?

akpilot wrote:

You haven't made any valid arguments, when you do I will be sure to counter them.
<quoted text>
Would this be you presenting a "valid argument?"

Dodge!

[Mike DiRucci]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
No, stupid. I didn't decide that. As I said *before*(several times), I'm talking about the god described in the bible. If "god" can mean anything, there is nothing to discuss.
<quoted text>
I could say the same thing about praying to a bag of Doritos...
Anyway, my quote was talking about asking in Jesus' name, that's not mentioned in your quote.
<quoted text>
I know what ""equal protection" means, it means.."equal protection".
<quoted text>
You can't point out a single time I was wrong, well other than typos.
<quoted text>
LOL. You can't counter my arguments.
Are you as ugly as Hudson?
My guess is you are.

WOW! Another of Rose_NoHo's "intelligent and insightful" posts.

Each line is a gem but I especially like "I know what ""equal protection" means, it means.."equal protection"."

The last 2 lines seal the deal.

Mike's Law. "Rose_NoHo is a dope."

SO Funny!