Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,161

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: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#182775 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
Stupid, don't engage in vague fear mongering, tell us what effect it can have.
KiMare wrote:
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option.
Moreover, gay couples produce nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Additionally, rights are distinguished in law. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION.
LOL! A thing like you talking about natural design! You are totally screwed up. Two sets of DNA, two different types of tissue you are a failure AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION.

A thing like you is proof god does not exist.
Do you think you should have been aborted?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#182776 Mar 7, 2013
Randy-Rock-Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you spend so much time answering questions with questions?
What are you talking about?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#182777 Mar 7, 2013
barrack obama wrote:
ive donated over 400 million to san fransisco this year for people to have free sex cahnges ...this cult that forced over 800 million people into sex changes operated in africa and south america any poor country..abducting people changeing their aperance and replaceing their memorys with fake child hood memorys and phographs......jones town was real sex changes are real ....this is documented by untied nations and every government on the planet knows about people being forced into sex changes
Ah...so this is why we have the "nuts" judge-it icon.
BeekerBeeker

Covina, CA

#182778 Mar 7, 2013
Personally I don't care what they do with the Glednora, California Taco Bell as long as the employees are taken care of however, I am beginning to find the ad at the top of the page for Dominance by Equinox a bit distracting.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182779 Mar 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah...so this is why we have the "nuts" judge-it icon.
lol

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182780 Mar 7, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither do post menopausal women, sterile people and people who have been "fixed"... yet they are allowed to marry....
They've always been allowed to marry. Why is it an issue now? Its been allowed since the advent of marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182781 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history. No fault divorce has fatally fractured the family. Abortion has 'protected the mother' at the expense of her child. Just two examples.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option. According to the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbian couples rate last, AFTER single parents!
Moreover, gay couples mutually procreate nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, and directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Finally, rights are protected by law, it has no power to create. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION. Calling gay couples married is an imposition of an imposter relationship, hardly just or consistent.
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation."
Wrong... there are 11 species of animals which mate for life... which is basically what marriage is about. Funny how you bring nature into this since there are over 1500 species of animals that have homosexuals in them... which, while not common, makes homosexuality a natural phenomenon.
Moreover, gay couples mutually procreate nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, and directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution."
Neither do post menopausal women, sterile people and people who have been "fixed"... yet they are allowed to marry....
Out of literally millions of animal species, you note eleven (11), yes, eleven species that mate for life.

What you fail to note is that for humans the constraint of marriage flies in the face of evolutionary mating behavior. A drive that is equated to the desire for food, water and air.

Now ask yourself, "Why do we constrain such a powerful drive with marriage?"

Second, scientists have no clear means of judging animal orientation. Moreover, they know that some same sex sexual behavior (SSSB, yes, that is the term scientists use) in numerous species, is clearly not homosexual, but motivated by other purposes.

Which brings us to your attempt to equate an absolute genetic defect with animals, human aging, birth defects and deliberate sterilization. Simply silly stupid.

Here is an analogy of the difference between the rare occasion of childless marriages (96% of marriages historically procreate) and the 100% desolate barrenness of mutual procreation in gay relationships;

The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Smirk.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182782 Mar 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct!
Alas that the court has become so political.
But I expect them to do the right thing regardless.
Don't u mean the left thing?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182783 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
They've always been allowed to marry. Why is it an issue now? Its been allowed since the advent of marriage.
You are the one making reproduction an issue. If it wasn't before, since the advent of marriage, then why are you making it an issue now?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182784 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't u mean the left thing?
lol

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182785 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option.
Moreover, gay couples produce nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Additionally, rights are distinguished in law. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION.
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey spacker, marriage isn't a natural thing. It is a construct of man. It also isn't the only building block of society.
What a mong.
I didn't say it was. I said 'at the fundamental level of natural design and primary function, ie marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a direct defective failure of the very primary goal of evolution, literally 'unmarriage'.

Second, I said 'marriage is the only NATURAL building block of society. As SCOTUS has noted many times, procreation within marriage is the best by far setting for the raising children. The very next default setting is quickly a drastic drop in the social health of children. And in the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbians came in last. AFTER single parents! Gay couples didn't even rate!!!

Next.

Snicker.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182786 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option.
Moreover, gay couples produce nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Additionally, rights are distinguished in law. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION.
<quoted text>
I didn't say it was. I said 'at the fundamental level of natural design and primary function, ie marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective failure of the very primary goal of evolution, literally 'unmarriage'.
Second, I said 'marriage is the only NATURAL building block of society. As SCOTUS has noted many times, procreation within marriage is the best by far setting for the raising children. The very next default setting is quickly a drastic drop in the social health of children. And in the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbians came in last. AFTER single parents! Gay couples didn't even rate!!!
Next.
Snicker.
What you said was:
"Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society."

I replied by saying it was a creation of man. Which ain't natural by most lines of thinking.

Dumdum. It is right up there in plain sight. I dunno why you'd try to deny what you said. Unless you're of the mind that once you turn the page your blatherings are lost in the ether.

The rest of your ramblings are pure idiocy. Verbose attempts to sound as if you're intelligent. Clearly you aren't.

Evolution is a series of accidents. Some survive, some don't. The environment of the time influences what survives. Sickle cell anemia is a clear example of this.

You may not insert your head into the usual location.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182787 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>lol
Does that mean Xbox found my response funny?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182788 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one making reproduction an issue. If it wasn't before, since the advent of marriage, then why are you making it an issue now?
It wasn't questioned before. Did anyone seriously doubt the link between procreation and marriage before the onset of SSM?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182789 Mar 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you belittling the scarcity of my goldfish that had a beautiful marriage ceremony last week?
( wait, they are both female… maybe they dont know about Prop 8 )
Let be guess....the bride and groom wore tails.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#182790 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history. No fault divorce has fatally fractured the family. Abortion has 'protected the mother' at the expense of her child. Just two examples.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option. According to the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbian couples rate last, AFTER single parents!
Moreover, gay couples mutually procreate nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, and directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Finally, rights are protected by law, it has no power to create. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION. Calling gay couples married is an imposition of an imposter relationship, hardly just or consistent.
<quoted text>
Out of literally millions of animal species, you note eleven (11), yes, eleven species that mate for life.
What you fail to note is that for humans the constraint of marriage flies in the face of evolutionary mating behavior. A drive that is equated to the desire for food, water and air.
Now ask yourself, "Why do we constrain such a powerful drive with marriage?"
Second, scientists have no clear means of judging animal orientation. Moreover, they know that some same sex sexual behavior (SSSB, yes, that is the term scientists use) in numerous species, is clearly not homosexual, but motivated by other purposes.
Which brings us to your attempt to equate an absolute genetic defect with animals, human aging, birth defects and deliberate sterilization. Simply silly stupid.
Here is an analogy of the difference between the rare occasion of childless marriages (96% of marriages historically procreate) and the 100% desolate barrenness of mutual procreation in gay relationships;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smirk.
Calling you a human is the imposition of an impostor thing hardly just or consistent.

BTW, you can't make a good analogy. The ability to produce apples is part of the definition of an apple tree. In fact, it pretty much is the definition, a tree that produces apples. But, the ability to produce offspring is not part of the definition of marriage.
Can you come up with a reason you should not have been aborted?

LOL!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182791 Mar 7, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
What you said was:
"Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society."
I replied by saying it was a creation of man. Which ain't natural by most lines of thinking.
Dumdum. It is right up there in plain sight. I dunno why you'd try to deny what you said. Unless you're of the mind that once you turn the page your blatherings are lost in the ether.
The rest of your ramblings are pure idiocy. Verbose attempts to sound as if you're intelligent. Clearly you aren't.
Evolution is a series of accidents. Some survive, some don't. The environment of the time influences what survives. Sickle cell anemia is a clear example of this.
You may not insert your head into the usual location.
And I said 'natural building block OF SOCIETY' which isn't nature natural either. However, marriage within society is 'natural'.

You know exactly what I'm saying and have no intelligent defense, so you revert to ad homoan denial followed by another childish gay twirl; Evolution thrives on mutation. Some mutations enable survival of the fittest, others are defective barren mutation mistakes.

My head won't fit there, you already mistook a septic system for a playground. No surprise by the stupidity you post.

Smirk.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182792 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And I said 'natural building block OF SOCIETY' which isn't nature natural either. However, marriage within society is 'natural'.
You know exactly what I'm saying and have no intelligent defense, so you revert to ad homoan denial followed by another childish gay twirl; Evolution thrives on mutation. Some mutations enable survival of the fittest, others are defective barren mutation mistakes.
My head won't fit there, you already mistook a septic system for a playground. No surprise by the stupidity you post.
Smirk.
You said marriage was the "only" natural building block of society. I simply disagreed. Because there are many building blocks of society. Marriage is but one, and it has changed numerous times over the years regarding ceremony and recognition by various entities including church and state.

Your head lives in your food exit. That much is obvious. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting half the idiotic BS you seem to thrive upon. It is the fundamental building block of your personality. Which is quite tedious.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182793 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let be guess....the bride and groom wore tails.
Quite colorful ones at that. It was quite festive.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182794 Mar 7, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
You said marriage was the "only" natural building block of society. I simply disagreed. Because there are many building blocks of society. Marriage is but one, and it has changed numerous times over the years regarding ceremony and recognition by various entities including church and state.
Your head lives in your food exit. That much is obvious. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting half the idiotic BS you seem to thrive upon. It is the fundamental building block of your personality. Which is quite tedious.
So now you shift from 'natural' to 'only', which further proves you are naturally stupid and only full of BS.

You tried to insinuate that gay couples are a building block. Now you try again. Just a heads up, gay couples are never a building block within their relationship.

Procreation is limited to heterosexual couples. That core element of marriage has never changed. In every culture throughout human history, the constraint of marriage has been the natural and best setting for human fruit. All other options are considered default settings. Most often by the mother, father and children.

Funny you should troll attack with ass assertions. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. That's not my head up there...

Bazinga!

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 6 hr scirocco 71,008
Carmel River diverted to allow dam removal, pre... Dec 16 Clint 1
Calif. cop may be fired for giving suicidal stu... Dec 13 John Smith 1
Kristen Scannell Saratoga Springs NY Adds New H... Dec 12 Alex Montgomery 1
Who do you think is the MOST corrupt Monterey C... Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 5
Help! In need of opiates preferably boi Dec 5 Njp9080 1
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:14 pm PST