Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
177,001 - 177,020 of 200,570 Comments Last updated 36 min ago

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204262
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The reunion of a man and woman in marriage reflects the very roots of human existence, genderless life.
Go back in a ss couples' history, and what do you find? Immediately? A mother and father.
Which brings us to the life-giving result of a man and woman united in marriage reaching into the future.
A ss couple? No past, and no future. A duplicate gendered half of marriage making the hilarious claim they are the same.
Here is the fallacy in your argument...

You say, "Which brings us to the life-giving result of a man and woman UNITED IN MARRIAGE reaching into the future." (emphasis added)

The truth is that "marriage" is not key in producing offspring. As you and I both know, marriage is a manmade construct that has not been around since the beginning of mankind.

"Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago."

"The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia."

You can see that humans were creating offspring LONG BEFORE marriage came into existence.

In the modern world, we often see children born "out of wedlock".

You misconstrue "mating" as "marriage".

If all of a sudden legal marriage were to be removed from our culture, "mating" would still continue. Children would continue to be born.

In this day and age, people marry for many reasons; one of which is to raise a family. There is no one, singular, universal reason for all marriages.

You always jump the tracks when you confuse marriage and mating. We try to bring you back to the discussion at hand, but you have a death-grip on your "marriage equals mating and offspring" argument.

If you continue to do this, no one will take you seriously. Many of us already know that you are purposefully being misleading because of your agendas.

Don't continue to be a loser.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204263
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you associate my post with idiotic statements that have nothing to do with what I actually said only exposes your inability to mount a reasoned response.
Get real big dummy.
Is this an example of a situation where you are being a "reviler" who won't get into the Kingdom of Heaven, according to Paul?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204264
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the fallacy in your argument...
You say, "Which brings us to the life-giving result of a man and woman UNITED IN MARRIAGE reaching into the future." (emphasis added)
The truth is that "marriage" is not key in producing offspring. As you and I both know, marriage is a manmade construct that has not been around since the beginning of mankind.
"Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago."
"The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia."
You can see that humans were creating offspring LONG BEFORE marriage came into existence.
In the modern world, we often see children born "out of wedlock".
You misconstrue "mating" as "marriage".
If all of a sudden legal marriage were to be removed from our culture, "mating" would still continue. Children would continue to be born.
In this day and age, people marry for many reasons; one of which is to raise a family. There is no one, singular, universal reason for all marriages.
You always jump the tracks when you confuse marriage and mating. We try to bring you back to the discussion at hand, but you have a death-grip on your "marriage equals mating and offspring" argument.
If you continue to do this, no one will take you seriously. Many of us already know that you are purposefully being misleading because of your agendas.
Don't continue to be a loser.
No fallacy, and nothing misconstrued.

I have always acknowledged the distinction between evolutionary mating behavior and marriage. In fact, YOU are the one who feigned ignorance about it. I accurately note that the cross cultural social construct of marriage effectively enhances the health and safety of procreation.

But this false rabbit trail ignores the fact that marriage connects the past and future of humanity. SS couples do neither.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204265
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this an example of a situation where you are being a "reviler" who won't get into the Kingdom of Heaven, according to Paul?
Lol

I expose a gay troll attack and you ignore the attack and call my exposť contentious!

Silly queen.

Remember , I'm a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian. Mocking hypocrisy models the Master.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204267
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh please, humor me again. I can't remember your counter of my last post.
Marriage clearly does not define your relationship.
You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, Greg.

I didn't respond to your last post. But I, and countless others, have responded many, many, many times to the same thing.

I'm done humoring the humorless troll.

Carry on, Pastor.
OhStewOne

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204268
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Your fans have a message for you:

Oh Tommy Tucker your still a jerk!

I found the one your looking for it's neatly wrapped around your head and neck, tightly.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204269
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because he accurately points out a physical fact that exposes the mating behavior defect of homosexuality.
Who'd done that? Oh, that's right. No one.

We gays are capable of mating just fine c*nt. We have been for centuries now. Your labeling our mating a defect is about as accurate as you labeling gravity a defect. It's a statement that gives you pleasure but ultimately is meaningless. Like 99% of what you post. Just some fictitious opinions, nothing more.

When you finally buy a dictionary, here are some words you should look up, since your posts make it obvious you currently don't know how to employ them properly:

"accurately"
"fact"
"exposes"
"mating"
"defect"

Smile. I'm still legally married, and none of your posts, your made up terms, or your denial will change that!! Sucks to be you!!

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204273
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I accurately note that the cross cultural social construct of marriage effectively enhances the health and safety of procreation.
And the health and safety of adoption.

And the health and safety of 2 people who have no intention of bearing children.

Marriage as we know it today as a legal contract, same sex and opposite sex, with children or without children, enhances the health and safety of the people who are married. There are many benefits of marriage, and there may be drawbacks to being married, depending upon the individuals involved. The basic question is, "is the legal contract of marriage being carried out equally for all concerned". The answer is, "yes in some places, and no in others". And actually the concept of religious marriage is actually being carried out somewhat equally, as some religion permit it and others do not. A reasonable balance where religion is concerned.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204279
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No fallacy, and nothing misconstrued.
I have always acknowledged the distinction between evolutionary mating behavior and marriage. In fact, YOU are the one who feigned ignorance about it. I accurately note that the cross cultural social construct of marriage effectively enhances the health and safety of procreation.
But this false rabbit trail ignores the fact that marriage connects the past and future of humanity. SS couples do neither.
You're like a stuck record... Is every single aspect of your marriage directly related to procreation? Is that the only reason you married your wife? Is that the sole reason that you married?

It's a simple question.

If there were other reasons that you married her, then you must agree that there are other reasons that people get married. Procreation is not the sole reason for marriage. It may be a popular reason for joining with someone, but it's not the "only" reason.

Answer the question...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204280
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol
I expose a gay troll attack and you ignore the attack and call my exposť contentious!
Silly queen.
Remember , I'm a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian. Mocking hypocrisy models the Master.
So, "The Master" has given you free reign to "mock"? Then Paul must have been wrong.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204282
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, Greg.
I didn't respond to your last post. But I, and countless others, have responded many, many, many times to the same thing.
I'm done humoring the humorless troll.
Carry on, Pastor.
Here is an example of a gay troll ad homoan attack exposing hatred and ignorance.

It is clear you had no response directly to my last post. But nor have you ever had a response to the subject of my last post as you claim. You lie.

But that's nothing new is it?

I noticed you still are nowhere near married.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204283
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
And the health and safety of adoption.
And the health and safety of 2 people who have no intention of bearing children.
Marriage as we know it today as a legal contract, same sex and opposite sex, with children or without children, enhances the health and safety of the people who are married. There are many benefits of marriage, and there may be drawbacks to being married, depending upon the individuals involved. The basic question is, "is the legal contract of marriage being carried out equally for all concerned". The answer is, "yes in some places, and no in others". And actually the concept of religious marriage is actually being carried out somewhat equally, as some religion permit it and others do not. A reasonable balance where religion is concerned.
Among many other distortions, you dumb down marriage to a contract (how romantic and inclusive of human nature), ignore the essence of marriage to fallaciously equate a duplicate gendered half to marriage, and try to compare natural families with default families that immediately hinder a child's safety and future.

Moreover the selective censoring if my post completely ignores the point that marriage connects humanities past and future. SS couples do neither. They are a defective mutation of mating behavior.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204284
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You're like a stuck record... Is every single aspect of your marriage directly related to procreation? Is that the only reason you married your wife? Is that the sole reason that you married?
It's a simple question.
If there were other reasons that you married her, then you must agree that there are other reasons that people get married. Procreation is not the sole reason for marriage. It may be a popular reason for joining with someone, but it's not the "only" reason.
Answer the question...
Nothing in my post asserts any such thing.

Go back and read it again. Get someone to help you.

Marriage connects the roots of humanity and the future. SS couples do neither. They are a clear mutation mistake that has no direct connection to past or the future.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204285
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So, "The Master" has given you free reign to "mock"? Then Paul must have been wrong.
Now you are defending Paul against Christ?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204286
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D is way out there today with the irrelevant idiotic statements, eh? UFOs and sh!t. Wow.
As usual.

Thanks for your help!
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204287
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you associate my post with idiotic statements that have nothing to do with what I actually said only exposes your inability to mount a reasoned response.
Get real big dummy.
You donít get to talk about facts until you acknowledge the fact that same sex couples are married, legally, and recognized by the state and federal government as equal to any other marriage.

I am real, you are the one that seems totally clueless about facts.
OhStewOne

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204288
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Your fans have a special message for you:

Oh Tommy Tucker your still a jerk!

I found the one your looking for it's neatly wrapped around your head and neck, tightly
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204290
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You're like a stuck record... Is every single aspect of your marriage directly related to procreation? Is that the only reason you married your wife? Is that the sole reason that you married?
..
I feel sorry for his wife, I would have married mine whether she could have children or not. I cannot even imagine a marriage where the man only thinks of his wife as a baby producing appliance.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204294
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You donít get to talk about facts until you acknowledge the fact that same sex couples are married, legally, and recognized by the state and federal government as equal to any other marriage.
I am real, you are the one that seems totally clueless about facts.
How can they be "equal", when various state marriage laws, including those that deal with annulment, reference the male female sexual union?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204295
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go again...
1. I'm talking about marriage identifying with the very roots of human life. You ignore the incredible significance of that fundamental essence.
2. You dumb down marriage to a piece of paper. I'm talking about the past and future life and life giving fruit of marriage, something ss couples have absolutely NO identification with in any way.
3. Moreover, you foolishly attempt to deny the connection between the very existence of life, including homosexuals and marriage. Marriage is the wise constraint of human culture combined with nature's mating behavior to produce the best and safest place for reproduction.
This separation DEMANDED by couples who have zero potential of mutually procreating human life, placed on the only couples best suited to do so. Not just inappropriate, but idiotic.
...and here you go again, repeating yourself.

these facts remain :
1. same sex marriage is legal in several states.
2. prop 8 case findings and decision made by judge walker stands that prop 8 is unconstitutional, per SCOTUS' rulings.
3. DOMA, section 3, is declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
4. your opinion disagrees with the previous facts. then again, your opinion does not drive secular law in these united states. so, again, your opinion doesn't really matter.

i'm hoping someday you can get off the broken record so your posts might become interesting and fresh for a change. at least we can all discuss different points.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

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 ]
•••