Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201880 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204537 Jul 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever been in love with someone who is the same gender? Have you ever developed a deep and intimate relationship with another man? How do you know anything about the depth of a same-gender relationship?
I don't pretend to know about your relationship. I "assume" that it's very similar to what other people experience in their long-term relationships. There are no different or unique dynamics.
Two people who love one another to a degree that they wish to spend eternity with one another; that's no different than if it's composed of same or opposite genders.
You don't get to tell other people what their truths are. You don't get to live in someone else's skin. You may think you know, but unless you're psychic, you're not going to know how people feel about the person they are with.
The bottom line is that people who are in same-gender relationships are satisfied. They are deeply satisfied. And that's all that counts.
If they are happy in the relationship that they are in, who are you to determine whether or not it meets your criteria for being authentic?
1. I'm not trying to understand a ss relationship.
2. I'm not trying to change anyone's personal description of their relationship.
3. I'm not judging anyone's personal relationships.

I simply and accurately noted the reality of a core distinction between ss couples and marriage.

That has NOTHING to do with your statements above.

NOTHING you said changes the reality of what I wrote.

I'm simply pointing out that the reunion of a man and woman in marriage connects humanity with the very roots of their existence and, at the same time, reaches into the future with the next generation.

A ss couple just cannot equate to that depth of diversity in a heterosexual couple united as one, in anyway, shape or form.

The past and future joined by a man and woman into the present embarrassingly exposes the absolute barrenness of a ss couple.

It really makes it shameful to even speak of equating the two relationships.

You need to address the points I made, and not change the subject. Perhaps you need to just admit that these points ARE a profound difference between ss couples and marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204538 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
I find it hilarious that homosexuals keep talking about no 'requirement' for procreation.
Especially when marriage needs protection NOT to procreate, and gays need protection to HAVE sex!
LOL
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You said--and these are your exact words--"marriage is mating behavior".
All we are saying is that sometimes marriage involves mating behavior and sometimes it doesn't. And mating behavior is not required for marriage.
Finally, not all gays need protection in order to have sex. There are many different types of sexual behavior that does not require protection. Also, after a married couple knows there status--whether they are gay or straight--protection is not needed.
If a straight man married a straight woman who has HPV, genital warts, HIV, or herpes; then he would need to use protection in order to have intercourse with her. So, heterosexual couples must also sometimes use protection to HAVE sex.
1. Your partial quote is meaningless without context.

Mating behavior is at the root of the marriage constraint. That is a simple social science fact. Sexual attraction is rooted in mating behavior.

2. Nowhere have I ever said all gays need to have protection to have sex. I am saying that the identifying sexual practice of gays does require protection to be marginally safe.

3. Anal sex always needs protection, even within a faithful relationship. Natural sex within a marriage where neither the man or woman has ever had any other partners NEVER needs protection.
bmw annie

Sonoma, CA

#204539 Jul 24, 2013
what we need said the congressman is for the minimum wage to disappear as it causes businesses to fail and/or not start. he is willing to compromise and says that if we absolutely must have this socialist stain on our books then let it be at the proven real amount that folks can get by on as long as they dont hoard their money. he says that studies have shown that when the wage was $2.25 an hour, why everyone was happier then and what we have now is a time when everyone is not happy so lets go back to the tried and true and get the wage to a stable $2.25 an hour, with no union meddling and no insane benefits for hobo bums who just want free stuff, then everyone can be happy again. We have to trust the party to have studied this and come to a conclusion that will benefit us all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204540 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Fine lets the polygamist marry. When you find that 12 year old girls are being forced into marriage, DO NOT flucking come crying about it. YOU want it you got it. Clueless moron.
Hellllooooooo....."Sister Wives".'nuff said.
Pezz

Covina, CA

#204541 Jul 24, 2013
The pezz dispenser is temporality out of business.
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204542 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wiki cut and paste. Priceless.
Snarky comment. Worthless.
Zapata

Los Angeles, CA

#204543 Jul 24, 2013
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204544 Jul 24, 2013
Over the Sholder wrote:
July 2013 the latest cup report is the average bra size rises to 34DD.
That is simply related to higher rates of obesity.
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204545 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'm not trying to understand a ss relationship.
2. I'm not trying to change anyone's personal description of their relationship.
3. I'm not judging anyone's personal relationships.
I simply and accurately noted the reality of a core distinction between ss couples and marriage.
That has NOTHING to do with your statements above.
NOTHING you said changes the reality of what I wrote.
I'm simply pointing out that the reunion of a man and woman in marriage connects humanity with the very roots of their existence and, at the same time, reaches into the future with the next generation.
A ss couple just cannot equate to that depth of diversity in a heterosexual couple united as one, in anyway, shape or form.
The past and future joined by a man and woman into the present embarrassingly exposes the absolute barrenness of a ss couple.
It really makes it shameful to even speak of equating the two relationships.
You need to address the points I made, and not change the subject. Perhaps you need to just admit that these points ARE a profound difference between ss couples and marriage.
Every relationship is different in some way than any other relationship. So what? Is that your only point? Or does different equate to better/worse?
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204546 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
I find it hilarious that homosexuals keep talking about no 'requirement' for procreation.
Especially when marriage needs protection NOT to procreate, and gays need protection to HAVE sex!
LOL
<quoted text>
1. Your partial quote is meaningless without context.
Mating behavior is at the root of the marriage constraint. That is a simple social science fact. Sexual attraction is rooted in mating behavior.
2. Nowhere have I ever said all gays need to have protection to have sex. I am saying that the identifying sexual practice of gays does require protection to be marginally safe.
3. Anal sex always needs protection, even within a faithful relationship. Natural sex within a marriage where neither the man or woman has ever had any other partners NEVER needs protection.
Anal sex only requires protection when disease is present. The same applies to vaginal sex.
Fast writer

Covina, CA

#204548 Jul 24, 2013
http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/07/24/how-quo...

Sad ending to a promising career.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#204550 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'm not trying to understand a ss relationship.
2. I'm not trying to change anyone's personal description of their relationship.
3. I'm not judging anyone's personal relationships.
=
Are you f'ing serious? At the very core of what you do here is judgment. You are the queen of Topix trolls, albeit a bad troll like R1. There's a special place in Hell for you and R1, GDK, and I can only hope that you'll enjoy your karma payback.
Troll on, Hunty.
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204555 Jul 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd know tubby. We'll defer to your experiences with morbid obesity.
You seriously need to get a life dude. For the record, I am not overweight. You're thinking of the obese straight people like yourself. Most gay people know better. Troll on fool.
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204556 Jul 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd know. We'll defer to your expertise on anal matters.
Your post made no sense, as usual. Just the usual snarky crap in an attempt to stir something up. You just make yourself look like an idiot but apparently in your head think you're funny. How sad for you, little troll. Your response to this post will be the usual predictable snarkfest...

Since: Jul 13

Beijing, China

#204558 Jul 25, 2013
Dalai Lama: Teachings about Sex

please see here:
http://www.xzmzjiemi.com/en/...

(Photo: tw.myblog.yaoo.com )
© Sacred Sex
Here are some interesting quotes from the 14th Dalai Lama regarding sex as taught and understood in the context of Tantric Buddhism.
“Being able to have sexual contact without releasing semen is something needed when you practice the advanced stages of the complete stage." - The 14th Dalai Lama (Berzin Archives)
•••
"For Buddhists, sexual intercourse can be used in the spiritual path because it causes a strong focusing on consciousness if the practitioner has firm compassion and wisdom. Its purpose is to manifest and prolong deeper levels of mind (described earlier with respect to the process of dying), in order to put their power to use in strengthening the realization of the emptiness. Otherwise, mere intercourse has nothing to do with spiritual cultivation. When a person has achieved a high level of practice in motivation and wisdom, then even the joining of the two sex organs or so-called intercourse, does not detract from the maintenance of that person’s pure behavior..."
"Through special techniques of concentration during sex, competent practitioners can prolong very deep, subtle, and powerful states and put them to use to realize emptiness. However, if you engage in sexual intercourse within an ordinary mental context, there is no benefit." - How to Practice, Way to a Meaningful Life, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Translated by Jeffrey Hopkins
•••
"Actually,[..] the sexual organ is utilized, but the energy movement which is taking place is, in the end, fully controlled. The energy should never be let out. This energy must be controlled and eventually returned to other parts of the body. And here we can see there is a kind of special connection with celibacy." - Quoted from "The Good Heart," H.H. the Dalai Lama
•••
"There's a great difference between the movement of the regenerative fluids for two individuals engaged in ordinary sexual intercourse as opposed to a highly realized male yogi and female yogini who are engaged in sexual intercourse...
"In principle, the general difference between the two types of sexual act is the control of the flow of regenerative fluids. Tantric practitioners must have control over the flow of the fluids, and those who are highly experienced can even reverse the direction of the flow, even when it has reached the tip of the genitals. Less experienced practitioners have to reverse the direction of the flow from a higher point. If the fluids descend too far down, they are more difficult to control." - Sleeping, Dreaming, and Dying, by The Dalai Lama (1997, Wisdom Publications, ISBN 0-86171-123-8)
•••
"Although I am using this ordinary term, sexual climax, it does not imply the ordinary sexual act. The reference here is to the experience of entering into union with a consort of the opposite sex, by means of which the elements at the crown are melted, and through the power of Meditation the process is also reversed. A prerequisite of such a practice is that you should be able to protect yourself from the fault of seminal emission. According to the explanation of the Kalachakra Tantra in particular, such emission is said to be very damaging to your practice. Therefore, because you should not experience emission even in dreams, the tantras describe different techniques for overcoming this fault." - The 14th Dalai Lama
•••

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204559 Jul 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'm not trying to understand a ss relationship.
2. I'm not trying to change anyone's personal description of their relationship.
3. I'm not judging anyone's personal relationships.
I simply and accurately noted the reality of a core distinction between ss couples and marriage.
That has NOTHING to do with your statements above.
NOTHING you said changes the reality of what I wrote.
I'm simply pointing out that the reunion of a man and woman in marriage connects humanity with the very roots of their existence and, at the same time, reaches into the future with the next generation.
A ss couple just cannot equate to that depth of diversity in a heterosexual couple united as one, in anyway, shape or form.
The past and future joined by a man and woman into the present embarrassingly exposes the absolute barrenness of a ss couple.
It really makes it shameful to even speak of equating the two relationships.
You need to address the points I made, and not change the subject. Perhaps you need to just admit that these points ARE a profound difference between ss couples and marriage.
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Every relationship is different in some way than any other relationship. So what? Is that your only point? Or does different equate to better/worse?
I usually don't respond to your posts because they are so irredeemably stupid. Nor do they ever directly respond to the point of my posts.

I will make an exception.

An abusive relationship is different. Does that equate to "better/worse"?

Or here is my question to you. Does it matter how we define a relationship? Say when you tell the police you are the victim of an abusive relationship vs a friendship?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204560 Jul 25, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Anal sex only requires protection when disease is present. The same applies to vaginal sex.
You are scary dumb.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204561 Jul 25, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you f'ing serious? At the very core of what you do here is judgment. You are the queen of Topix trolls, albeit a bad troll like R1. There's a special place in Hell for you and R1, GDK, and I can only hope that you'll enjoy your karma payback.
Troll on, Hunty.
Ah, another censored post...

At the core of my posts is simple statements of reality.

That is why you can only mount ad homoan troll attacks on me personally.

Here is a simple statement of reality. Your duplicate gendered relationship is fundamentally different from marriage.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204562 Jul 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>Or here is my question to you. Does it matter how we define a relationship? Say when you tell the police you are the victim of an abusive relationship vs a friendship?
What matters is that you will not be defining others relationships.

Fact: same sex couples are married, as married as any other couple.

deal with it :)
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204563 Jul 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, another censored post...
At the core of my posts is simple statements of reality.
That is why you can only mount ad homoan troll attacks on me personally.
Here is a simple statement of reality. Your duplicate gendered relationship is fundamentally different from marriage.
have you yet stated the reality that same sex couples are married, or do you still have your eyes shut on that one

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
Is dr Carl Bergstrom out of prison Sep 13 Marino 1
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Sep 8 Tberruiser 1,555
Lost wedding ring on Carmel beach Sep 6 Rey 1
East Garrison ... Gold or Ghetto? Aug '17 NoJigsPlease 1
who is the best hung man in Carmel Jul '17 Joe 4
Marina infested with gang boys (Mar '11) Jul '17 Losers join gangs 19
News Trump's North Korea red line could come back to... (Jan '17) Jul '17 Mark 12

Monterey Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages