Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,976

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: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#170551 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it amusing, how he claims to be LBGT friendly, and then uses "gay", as an insult ? I'm surprised that gay community hasn't chided her about that, yet ....I would expect even Chongo to have an opinion about that....
hey shouldnt you two be in church... hmmmmm not very christian

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#170552 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, with the "I'm here because it's OK, but it's not OK, for you" theme. How does your presence, here, become justified by the presence of a twisted wreck of a child ? A fragile child, that cannot help itself, in any way, as per your boast, to be ready to cut anyone who messes with it ? You know that you screwed up with your EMO, don't you ?
i'd cut your azz from head to toe if you messed with my kiddo.... never waver on that

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170553 Dec 9, 2012
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>so tell me why would a "hetero man" spend all day when not driving a dirty truck on a gay topix.... hhhmmm.... i'm here because i have a trans child... he is here why??????? everyday???? really... hell im not here but a short period each week
So time spent on Topix is directly proportional to gayness? Is that what you're saying toots?

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#170554 Dec 9, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
So time spent on Topix is directly proportional to gayness? Is that what you're saying toots?
your beeting a dead horse dumbazz

sweet my verification number was 6666

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170558 Dec 9, 2012
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>your beeting a dead horse dumbazz
sweet my verification number was 6666
I'm not afraid of your sillyass imaginary boss toots.

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#170560 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I would take that knife from you, reach down through your throat, and pull that knife up, through your ass, and cut you all, the way up, on the inside, if you ever tried to get near me with a knife.
oh i'm so worried about you... not!!!!!!!!!!
Winston Smiths dog

Riva, MD

#170561 Dec 9, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want to equate the rare exceptions to procreation in marriage to the absolute desolation of procreation in ss unions???
Really?
Kind of silly stupid, don't you think???
Smirk.
<quoted text>
Nothing you said addressed the facts I stated.
They certainly did not disqualify my facts;
1. Heterosexual couples who do not procreate are still a large minority.
You simply argue that heterosexual couples are delaying or may not at this time choose to have children (those 'decisions' change all the time). Minor fluctuations in rates does not change my facts.
2. Gay couples are 'absolutely desolate' by mutual procreation.
You blatantly attempt to make the same idiotic, deceitful comparison.
-The unnatural barrenness of heterosexual couples to the absolute mutual desolation of every single gay couple.
-Even worse, your 'solution' leaves the child always absent one parent and one gender! A horrible and cruel deprivation of a child's well-being. Something that is diabolical and should be criminal. Anyone deliberately perpetrating this on a child is despicable.
This is a example of what evil consequences the attempt to equate duplicate couples to marriage leads to...
Your denial is sick and dangerous!
In your first post you started with a massive lie. You're still promoting that porkie, bub. The fact is that more than half of all married couples do not have children according to the data in the census report from 1990 to 2000. Yes, I know that doesn't mean they will never have children, but the numbers are much higher than I thought they'd be.
article wrote:
Younger couples also are making the childless choice. A 2011 study by the Center for Work-Life Policy finds that a surprisingly large number of Generation Xers people born between 1965 and 1978 are delaying parenthood or forgoing it completely.

The center reported that 43 percent of Gen-X women and 32 percent of Gen-X men did not have kids.
That is huge! Not a tiny fraction as you claimed initially. Gen Xers are nearing the end of their reproductive lives. This doesn't equate to delaying so much as simply opting out. One out of 5 women don't have kids compared to 1 out of 10 in the 70s. You can lump a huge number of men into that stat somewhere as they're kind of important in terms of creating a baby.

You go on at the close of the above quoted post to make the mistake of asserting your opinion is fact. Your nattering on about depriving children of one parent is horseshit. That happens regularly in the heterosexual world. Where's your outrage? If it is criminal why aren't we arresting single parents rampantly?

Where is your proof that having a married gay couple raising a child will harm the child? Oh, yeah, you don't have any because gay marriage isn't something that has been around very long.

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#170562 Dec 9, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not afraid of your sillyass imaginary boss toots.
hey isnt your rapture soon

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#170564 Dec 9, 2012
The fundamental basis of marriage is a cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

There is an obvious distinction between redumbant gender couples and diverse gendered couples. You know, the union of Mars and Venus vs the collision of Uranus and Uranus.

Which brings us to the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning factor of anal sex. A violent abuse of evolutionary design.

On a more personal level, a love relationship between diverse genders results in human fruit. The singular birthplace of every single other relationship. Worth of distinction and protection. You are a product of such. However, your duplicate relationship is absolutely desolate. There is no more a profound distinction...

All of this makes it absolutely idiotic to equate the two relationships. A silly attempt to impose an imposter relationship on marriage. A counterfeit that becomes more and more exposed the closer it is joined to the real thing.

Smile.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170565 Dec 9, 2012
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>hey isnt your rapture soon
What the hell is a rapture and when is yours? Is it some kind of imaginary religious thing?

What are you one of those quacked out fundies? Tell me Rev Phelps, what harm would a loving marriage of two men or women cause you?

Don't tell me Jesus said it's bad.

Your Buy bull is off topic. Take it to church toots. We don't wanna hear it!

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170566 Dec 9, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Take notes? People should completely ignore you, you are like a black hole of intellect.
BTW Rose, you have called people names in each and every one of your replies. Why do you expect different when others are replying to you?
As predicted in post 170451

"You can't argue against that, so you'll just call me names.
Now, if only I were this good at predicting lottery numbers.:)"

LOL. One would think you'd be embarrassed to do exactly what I predicted you would do. Guess it takes a certain amount of character to be embarrassed.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170567 Dec 9, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
As predicted in post 170451
"You can't argue against that, so you'll just call me names.
Now, if only I were this good at predicting lottery numbers.:)"
LOL. One would think you'd be embarrassed to do exactly what I predicted you would do. Guess it takes a certain amount of character to be embarrassed.
What is there to argue moron? You haven't presented an argument.

You told me to take notes, and then you went on to explain the meaning of your made up words? I guess it is your form of baby language?

And yes, you should be embarrassed, hell I am embarrassed for you.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170568 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Fourteenth Amendment also gives Congress the authority to uphold the correct definition of marriage. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation. That is to say, Congress may pass legislation that prevents states from violating Fourteenth Amendment rights. Pursuant to this power, for example, Congress has passed the various civil-rights statutes. Now, if marriage were redefined to include gay relationships, straight married couples would lose the unique burdens and privileges that come with traditional matrimony. Marriage is a public act: by redefining marriage to be what it is not, states would violate the right of all persons to receive the social benefits and uphold the social expectations of being wedded to a human being of the opposite sex.
You just ramble on, ugly. Requiring that a person marry someone of the opposite sex violates the 14th Amendment just like requiring they marry someone certain races did.
And, you homophobes act as if people are trying to get rid of opposite sex marriage.

Didn't bother with the rest of your crap in that post. But it's clear, you aren't a Wiccan, why did you lie about that?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170570 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
It certainly isn't a question of genitalia. It is because homosexual marriage is banned for either gender, thus making it a non-gender issue.
Damn, you are as dumb as you are ugly. And that is dumb!
What you said it the laws against inter-racial marriage didn't involve race because they applied to people of all races.

If a man goes into the JP and asks to marry a man, he'll be told, "No". A woman doing the exact same thing will be told, "Yes" Why? Because of their genders (genitalia).

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170572 Dec 9, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
What is there to argue moron? You haven't presented an argument.
"You can't argue against that, so you'll just call me names.
Now, if only I were this good at predicting lottery numbers.:)"
akpilot wrote:
You told me to take notes, and then you went on to explain the meaning of your made up words? I guess it is your form of baby language?
I made up the words "equal" and "rights"?
Wow, I'm impressed with myself.
Since I have the ability to reach though time and space, maybe I will play that lottery!
akpilot wrote:
And yes, you should be embarrassed, hell I am embarrassed for you.
You don't have enough character to be embarrassed, you are a spineless nobody who think he is all that and a side of chips.

So, counter my argument, or STFU, you stupid b!tch. Deal?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170575 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
How original of you, to post like that...But you couldn't afford me, is right, besides, as I support myself, you'd never have the chance to own me, and I'd end up owning you, anyway. Natural superiority would show through, and you'd still end up on crack, using my computer to entertain the masses.
LOL! How are you superior to me? I'm much smarter and better looking than you are.
I could afford to feed you, I just said you aren't worth it. If it cost only a penny to feed you for a life time, that would be more than you are worth.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#170577 Dec 9, 2012
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170578 Dec 9, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
"You can't argue against that, so you'll just call me names.
Now, if only I were this good at predicting lottery numbers.:)"
Tactic 1 and 2
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I made up the words "equal" and "rights"?
Wow, I'm impressed with myself.
Tactic 1 and 2 again.

Misdirect as she knows damn well the terms we are talking about are LOLSER and CONDUMB not Equal and Rights. This could also fall into the "acting stupid" category.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I have the ability to reach though time and space, maybe I will play that lottery!
Tactic 1
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You don't have enough character to be embarrassed, you are a spineless nobody who think he is all that and a side of chips.
So, counter my argument, or STFU, you stupid b!tch. Deal?
Tactic's 2,3 and 7

Good work Rose, I am proud of you.

Rose tactic #1- Act stupid-(not so sure it is an act)
Rose Tactic #2- Misdirect
Rose Tactic #3- Make stupid comments until opposition is tired of replying then claim victory
Rose Tactic #4- Attack the poster- scream Racist, Bigot, Homophobe
Rose Tactic #5- Act intelligent by making silly statistical references such as- Most people who have anal sex are straight-
Rose Tactic #6- Falsely accuse others of lies- when proven wrong through links to previous posts revert back to tactics 2 and 4.
Rose Tactic #7- Claim to have made an argument, then claim others can't counter the argument that doesn't actually exist.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170579 Dec 9, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
"You can't argue against that, so you'll just call me names.
I highly doubt that I am the first, and the internet is the only place- you have been called a moron.

That is probably why you get so upset about it.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#170580 Dec 9, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to
heterosexuality?
Actually, I didn't mention either.

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.

Oakdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 11 hr free for all 5,081
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 23 hr surfs up 7,955
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Fri scoop 2,273
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Sep 18 Pizza 16,000
OAKDALE (NWO) FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP being bui... (Nov '08) Sep 16 🙈🙈 99
michael walker? Sep 15 meh 1
I am a multi millionaire (Aug '13) Sep 9 KeS 16
•••
•••

Oakdale Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Oakdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Oakdale News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Oakdale
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••