Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 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.

Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182362 Mar 2, 2013
I have thought of a rather novel approach to this whole issue.....What if we legalized polygamy, as polygamy is rooted more firmly in nature than homosexuality. Then, all the SSM crowd could marry into a herd and no-one would wonder about the sexual relations. We'd all just assume that heterosexuality was the primary form the marriage was taking, and if the various members wanted to "experiment" with each other, we wouldn't have any thoughts on the matter ? Observing, of course, the proper legal matters of not including children in these marriages, even though that would upset JizzyTurds little view of polygamous relationships ?
Hell, it works for me...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182363 Mar 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you can't get it up. It's not her fault.
I've offered to help ... I imagine that his pride would get in the way, though...
OldRocker

Covina, CA

#182364 Mar 2, 2013
Why even bother asking permission frm me.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182365 Mar 2, 2013
OldRocker wrote:
Why even bother asking permission frm me.
I wasn't consulted, either, I think that it is an oversight ...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182366 Mar 2, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Again...crazy fluck....how are the psych evaluations going?
You're failing badly. Worse than last year. You might have to stay in the mental ward for a while until we get you stabilized.

Meanwhile, try to stay calm and don't do dopey stuff. Do not bother or annoy the other patients.

Dr. Rizzo.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182367 Mar 2, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Whats up my biotch
Why don't you ask her, instead of hanging out on the gay threads?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182368 Mar 2, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFL!!!
I was going to answer but realized you're bath-shit crazy to begin with.
Ever figure out who you were yet?
What stupid post.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182371 Mar 2, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFL!!!
I was going to answer but realized you're bath-shit crazy to begin with.
Ever figure out who you were yet?
I know exactly who I am.

And you are a sissy coward.

Everyone knows it now.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182373 Mar 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have nothing but ad homoan gay twirl troll attacks. Not one single rational response.
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons;
One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design.
And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
Smile.
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are a bit touched if you think intercourse is at the heart of every union. Or perhaps you're just shallow. Yeah, that seems to be the case. But you could be a bit touched as well. That sure appears to be so.
You've not provided anything rational to respond to rationally. You may want to try getting over yourself someday. It'll make you more apt to be able to engage in a meaningful conversation.
I really have no experience with anal sex, so I tend to not harp on about it. The notion is unappealing to me. You, OTOH, seem obsessed with it to the point I'm convinced your head is deep inside your own anal orifice.
Oh, BTW, no couple tries to duplicate evolution. That really sounds dumb. Like a lot of your commentary.
Since you think anal intercourse is a reflection of a genetic defect, do straight couples who practice anal sex get to claim that defect too?
What is it about lesbian sex that you find demeaning? Really? Oral sex? Let me guess, you only have sex for procreation in the missionary position while fully clad in your K Mart sourced PJs.
Out of touch?

I have a letter certifying that I am sane and perfectly able to live on my own. Signed by three professional psychologists.

You are afraid to ask your family and friends if they think you are sane.

As to intercourse being at the heart, you deny the primary focus of mating behavior? Or that in marriage, the culmination of union is being one in body, mind and spirit? And you call me 'out of touch'?

Then you top your stupidity off by talking about rationality???

You admit your ignorance about anal sex, and then deny the violation of design. You don't even need a brain to see mistaking a septic system for a playground, all you need is eyes!!!

Heterosexuals have an alternative. They simply expose themselves as idiots when they violate each other anally. Gays don't have that alternative to exist in their orientation, do they.

As to lesbians, while not harmful, oral sex is unhealthy, unless you view urine as lemonade and shit as chocolate pudding.

You simply express the silliness of pretending ad homoan attacks are reason. A near senile old man just kicked your ass with common sense, and you still have no straight answer (pun intended).

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#182374 Mar 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have nothing but ad homoan gay twirl troll attacks. Not one single rational response.
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons;
One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design.
And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
LOL! Look at what is talking about a genetic defect.
KiMare wrote:
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
Smile.
Look at what is talking about a 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form!
Do you think you should have been aborted?
KiMare wrote:
Out of touch?
I have a letter certifying that I am sane and perfectly able to live on my own. Signed by three professional psychologists.
You are afraid to ask your family and friends if they think you are sane.
As to intercourse being at the heart, you deny the primary focus of mating behavior? Or that in marriage, the culmination of union is being one in body, mind and spirit? And you call me 'out of touch'?
Then you top your stupidity off by talking about rationality???
You admit your ignorance about anal sex, and then deny the violation of design.
You mean like having two sets of DNA?
LOL!
KiMare wrote:
You don't even need a brain to see mistaking a septic system for a playground, all you need is eyes!!!
Heterosexuals have an alternative. They simply expose themselves as idiots when they violate each other anally. Gays don't have that alternative to exist in their orientation, do they.
As to lesbians, while not harmful, oral sex is unhealthy, unless you view urine as lemonade and shit as chocolate pudding.
Guess the male member can't be used for sex, men urinate from them.

BTW, most people WIPE and clean up after using the restroom. I figured you didn't.
KiMare wrote:
You simply express the silliness of pretending ad homoan attacks are reason. A near senile old man just kicked your ass with common sense, and you still have no straight answer (pun intended).
Where was the common sense?
LOLSER!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182375 Mar 2, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes for a stronger marriage if you actually love the person you're a fiddin' to git hitched to.
Absolutely.
That is why I asked my wife to marry me. Sex is the icing on the cake, not the entire cake. It took me a long time to find someone I was happy with. Someone I could converse with or sit in total silence just happy to be with.
As did I, that is why I asked my wife as well. Never the less, the state doesn't care if two people love each other, or just like each other. Romantic love, as any marriage counselor will state, is not the foundation for long term marital success. I'm not saying its not important, but there's a reason for the "honeymoon period", and "the honeymoon is over". That's when the real love takes place.

QUOTE]
You must be really old....
Ancient, I was actually born in the last century. Imagine that.

[QUOTE]
to be offering up the reason marriage developed as if you have authority over and access to such "facts." I'd be willing to bet there were a great number of reasons behind the development of the contractual agreement we currently call marriage. In some cultures the bond was agreed upon before the blushing bride even knew the groom. So much for your "sex is the reason for marriage" theory. Many purposes are served including the guarantee of future cooperation between family groups.
If human procreation wasn't sexual, would it matter to society, any society, who married who? Would marriage as we know it, even exist? Take away the sexual aspect of marriage, and there not much the state has any real interst in. Why prohibit sibling from marrying? If they really love each other....
You're monochromatic view of the world is just as absurd as K-Mart's. The two of you are in good company with Brian_G.
Just good old fashioned biology. We're all products of a sexual union of a man and a woman. Marriage serves as society's means of recognizing that, and protecting the products of that union. Any other aspect of marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is secondary to that.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182376 Mar 2, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Look at what is talking about a genetic defect.
<quoted text>
Look at what is talking about a 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form!
Do you think you should have been aborted?
<quoted text>
You mean like having two sets of DNA?
LOL!
<quoted text>
Guess the male member can't be used for sex, men urinate from them.
BTW, most people WIPE and clean up after using the restroom. I figured you didn't.
<quoted text>
Where was the common sense?
LOLSER!
Is that a leg lamp or your real leg?
gokkod

Pittsburgh, PA

#182377 Mar 2, 2013
youtube.com/watch...
Whats the price? and what do you expect
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182379 Mar 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Just good old fashioned biology. We're all products of a sexual union of a man and a woman. Marriage serves as society's means of recognizing that, and protecting the products of that union. Any other aspect of marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is secondary to that.
Is that right? I didn't realize that you spoke for the State.... how exciting for you. Perhaps you can explain why we permit non-reproductive couples to marry. Must be scarey to see your influence fading away.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182380 Mar 3, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not evolution, it is sheer derailment.
Such a drama queen.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182381 Mar 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Its simple biology, not a "puritanical" opinion. At what point does marriage evolve, or perhaps devolve is the better word, where its no longer recognizable? Or no longer a need or reason for state interest and/or recognition?
No longer recognizable? Marriage is a legal contract.... what's biological about THAT? Almost everybody understands what it means. It creates legal kinship between two non-related adults.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182382 Mar 3, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
They make perfect sense. Try mouthing the words.
Oh puh-leez.... it took you three tries to respond to one post.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182383 Mar 3, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think your backward, puritanical opinion is going to stop the decriminalization of poly marriage? You can either adapt, or you can go extinct.
Is polygamy being decriminalized?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182384 Mar 3, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Honestly, and for true.
How about that.... You said it, so it MUST be true. Who needs evidence or proof when you have calumny for an excuse?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182385 Mar 3, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
200 businesses that have no business meddling in the affairs of the nation. These same businesses were against this exact issue 20 years ago, based on financial analysis, now, they have been infiltrated by the same lobbyists that wish to turn Amerikkka into their private experiment. They have thrown financial wisdom out the window, to accommodate personal views. It is part of why Amerikkka is dying. And, no, the majority of Amerikkka does not support SSM, spit out your venomous propaganda elsewhere, if you please. Because this is a bald-faced lie. I haven't met anyone who seems to support it, and I travel extensively. And I do ask people. On the CB radio, in stores, all over the place, just to test this theory of yours. It does not stand up to the test of reality. Most people do not seem to care one way or the other. Far cry from "supporting" it. Very few support it. Most with any feelings on the matter are against it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262668/d...
http://www.nomblog.com/24660/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher...
Now, I know that my words will be ignored, or discounted, as your side finds the words of my side as easily banished, but I have tested this theory, and it does not stand up to an honest and fair test. But these links will state some of my assertion.
CB radios?

hahahahaha
ahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahha
ahahahahhahahaha
ahahahahahahahha
ahahahahahhaha
ahahahahahahha
ahahahahahahha
ahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahah

A test of reality?

hahahahaha
ahhahahaha
ahhahahaha
ahhaahahha

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
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) 14 hr Jacqueline 1,533
News Letters: Charter application superior (Jan '11) Thu 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
News Business on hold for P.G. pot club (Mar '10) May 9 Mike 8
News Looking Back at Monterey County: Fire on Canner... May 5 Joe 1
News Seaside street name could honor Obama (Feb '10) May 1 Apathy 99
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]