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.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#171820 Dec 21, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, you're stupid. Please continue! It will be fun. It doesn't have to be joyless.
Fun!
Like I said I cant fix stupid. Have a great day sugar nipples

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#171821 Dec 21, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Mating behavior today is the end result of simple genderless life forms evolving into two genders resulting in the ability for those species to survive.
Marriage is simply various customs culture created to support and celebrate the mating behavior union of those two genders. It is a union that hails back to the very roots of evolution, the recreation of a simple single genderless life form.
Duplicate genders cannot in any aspect replicate those basics.
Marriage links the beginning of life to the present. That has always been the case in every single culture. A 'reunion' of genders to 'one.' What has changed? Please, be specific.
Gay couples have never and CAN never replicate that.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
Smile.
Chrisnris wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your idea of the evolution into the two genders for survival, on the flip side of that idea don't you think that maybe the world could be evolving again for the purpose of controlling the population? At this point in time I would have to say that most people would agree that our world is over populated.
I believe that everybody is entitled to their own oppinion, but what I just dont get is why and how can my marriage to another woman instead of a man harm hetrosexual married couples.
I'm not interested in opinions, I'm interested in reality and facts.

As you acknowledged, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on mating behavior. In other words, your ability to have a ss relationship hinges totally on mating behavior between diverse genders. The best setting by far for human fruit is the natural parents compared to any other default option.

That unique purpose deserves and requires a distinct description. Marriage has always been that description of reality.

Gays have the right to pursue a distinct description and rights that meet their unique needs. They are not however the same as a diverse gendered couple for the reasons I listed and more. Many marriage privileges have been instituted to protect a mother and children while the father worked. Gay couples cannot duplicate that setting, they in fact will unfairly dilute resources for the foundational relationship of our culture, the family.

As to population control, you ignore the fact that homosexual percentages have remained consistent through known history regardless of population. You also ignore the reality that evolution requires thousands if not millions of years to adjust to environment. War and famine have beat over population long before evolution has time to respond.

:-)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#171822 Dec 21, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Mating behavior today is the end result of simple genderless life forms evolving into two genders resulting in the ability for those species to survive.
Marriage is simply various customs culture created to support and celebrate the mating behavior union of those two genders. It is a union that hails back to the very roots of evolution, the recreation of a simple single genderless life form.
Duplicate genders cannot in any aspect replicate those basics.
Marriage links the beginning of life to the present. That has always been the case in every single culture. A 'reunion' of genders to 'one.' What has changed? Please, be specific.
Gay couples have never and CAN never replicate that.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
Smile.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, as usual.....you keep trying to tie procreation and marriage together and what you have NEVER understood is that that's not all that marriage is about......if it was, only those couples who could naturally procreate would be allowed that "SPECIAL" title......but in reality that's not ALL that marriage is about.......sucks to be you!!!
I didn't 'try' to do anything. I simply stated reality.

The fact is, the number of married couples that don't/can't procreate is so minor, we don't bother to distinguish.

You are attempting to add redumbant gendered couples who can NEVER mutually procreate. Clearly a distinct relationship!

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.

Smirk.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171823 Dec 21, 2012
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Like I said I cant fix stupid. Have a great day sugar nipples
HAR!HAR!HAR! "I can't fix stupid." So funny! Great comeback Fruitloops!

Maybe think harder or something next time. We can have fun. It doesn't have to be joyless.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171824 Dec 21, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Mating behavior today is the end result of simple genderless life forms evolving into two genders resulting in the ability for those species to survive.
Marriage is simply various customs culture created to support and celebrate the mating behavior union of those two genders. It is a union that hails back to the very roots of evolution, the recreation of a simple single genderless life form.
Duplicate genders cannot in any aspect replicate those basics.
Marriage links the beginning of life to the present. That has always been the case in every single culture. A 'reunion' of genders to 'one.' What has changed? Please, be specific.
Gay couples have never and CAN never replicate that.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I didn't 'try' to do anything. I simply stated reality.
The fact is, the number of married couples that don't/can't procreate is so minor, we don't bother to distinguish.
You are attempting to add redumbant gendered couples who can NEVER mutually procreate. Clearly a distinct relationship!
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.
Smirk.
That should inspire them!

WOOHOOO!
VegOmatic

West Covina, CA

#171826 Dec 21, 2012
Noting better than watching the stupid fools in washington DC - Republicans and Tea Party fudgers play with 98% of Americans lives.

Theser stupid fools ran away andare thinking they are going to fnd happy works in their home states, BAD IDEA, once they find they are home the bell ringing andf phone calls will shatter there stupid peace.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#171830 Dec 21, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
It takes no daring, at all, to state what is right, and what is wrong. It is a desire to not see the societal fabric torn, beyond recognition. It is not any more hate and ignorance, to tell you that SSM is wrong, that it takes to tell a child that their behavior is wrong. Do you hate a child, when you are telling it "no" ? Of course not. Children occasionally need reminded, as do the gay segment of our population.
For thousands of years, a marriage has been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.
Those who choose to live together in life-long homosexual relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages. I do not deny your right to live with whoever you choose, i merely refuse to accept a lowering of the bar, in order to allow you to call your relationship "a marriage". It is not. It is a sham. If you wish to call it a marriage, you are voting for misidentification, and that sets precedents for changing anything, any portion of reality can be denied, and we have not come all this way, through the mist of time, simply to give in to libertines that wish to change reality.
Live with whoever you please, just don't expect it to be called a marriage, when the majority of us know differently. Until we all receive polls in the mail, no poll can claim to know how the majority of us feel about this issue. I do not believe anyone who claims that the majority of Americans support SSM, they are either liars, or misinformed. Any poll can be manipulated, through the use of carefully screened participants.
Whoa Rock, thats a big ole load of manure you are passing off.

Procreation is not a requirement of marriage, never has been. Buttercup, you don't have to be married to have children. People do it all the time. The way you make marriage sound, and older couple pass the age of procreation should be denied the priviliage of marriage. Now please tell me just how telling a child that something is wrong is the same thing as dening two concenting adults the privilage of marriage. I will wait for your half ass answer

Now if you care to do just a little work ( Google) you will find that same sex marriage goes back a few thousand years. Shoot son, 1100 years ago you can find record of it in churches. So back up the bus and read before you make such silly claims.
VegOmatic

West Covina, CA

#171831 Dec 21, 2012
The state Department of Finance has demanded in recent weeks that 19 Orange County cities and the county itself turn over a combined $263 million in unused funds previously earmarked for low- and moderate-income housing.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#171833 Dec 21, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read it , and still don't understand it, ask a grown-up to explain the big words. Guess all you want, it is nothing more than an evasion, on your part. You don't have to guess. I am not scared of gay people. I refuse to accept redefinition of terms, simply in order to satisfy a minority.
I see you then feel that the majority should always win right? Guess what buttercup, this is a republic not a democracy. The wimms of the majority wont be allowed to trample the rights of the minority. So until you find sound reason to justify exclusion of Gay rights, go away, you bore me.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171835 Dec 21, 2012
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Like I said I cant fix stupid. Have a great day sugar nipples
Wait, wait! Don't go Fruitloop.

You forgot to tell us- why can't a man marry a tree?

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#171837 Dec 21, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would he need to, has he been with your wife ?
oh hello "Mr Hand"

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171838 Dec 21, 2012
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Whoa Rock, thats a big ole load of manure you are passing off.
Procreation is not a requirement of marriage, never has been. Buttercup, you don't have to be married to have children. People do it all the time. The way you make marriage sound, and older couple pass the age of procreation should be denied the priviliage of marriage. Now please tell me just how telling a child that something is wrong is the same thing as dening two concenting adults the privilage of marriage. I will wait for your half ass answer
Now if you care to do just a little work ( Google) you will find that same sex marriage goes back a few thousand years. Shoot son, 1100 years ago you can find record of it in churches. So back up the bus and read before you make such silly claims.
Yes. I agree 100%. Procreation is irrelevant to marriage. That is one reason that incest marriage should be allowed.

And sure, SSM has always been around. We remember all those same sex couples from the history books! George and Harry Washington. Abraham and Bruce Lincoln. Marge and Bertha Thatcher. Very common.

WOOHOOO!
VegOmatic

West Covina, CA

#171839 Dec 21, 2012
Stocks sink after Republicans cancel budget vote in Washington D.C..

Investors sent Washington a reminder Friday that Wall Street is a power player in talks to avoid the "fiscal cliff."

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171840 Dec 21, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think that we have any misconceptions about gay people, why don't you explain the realities to us ? This oughta be good.....
He's priceless, ain't he? Gonna be fun.
Topeka

West Covina, CA

#171844 Dec 21, 2012
You to old bruders, really should patch things up between you to and get on with it. Or flip a coin to see you goes first.

“LIFE'S TO SHORT TO LET TOPIX”

Since: Aug 08

TROLLS GET YA DOWN:-)

#171846 Dec 21, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Gays have the right to pursue a distinct description and rights that meet their unique needs. They are not however the same as a diverse gendered couple for the reasons I listed and more.
Gay and Lesbian couples have THE RIGHT to pursue MARRIAGE.......period, not something you claim is different, but EXACTLY the same marriage as what heterosexuals get to do.......why? Because PROCREATION IS NOT NOW OR EVER BEEN A REQUIREMENT TO GET MARRIED, and therefore it is an IRRELEVANT issue!!!

Something you simply don't understand.....as long as there is ONE heterosexual couple who CAN NOT OR DOES NOT want children.......that argument has already lost!!!

“LIFE'S TO SHORT TO LET TOPIX”

Since: Aug 08

TROLLS GET YA DOWN:-)

#171850 Dec 21, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Gay couples have never and CAN never replicate that.

The fact is, the number of married couples that don't/can't procreate is so minor, we don't bother to distinguish.
Who said ANYTHING about replicating another's relationship? Gay and Lesbian couples can and do create children and the law DOESN'T care how the children are conceived or if they are adopted......both are considered the offspring of the couple!!!

It DOESN'T matter how many opposite-sex couples CAN/DO/DON'T have children.......if one heterosexual couple is allowed to marry and CAN'T have children.....there goes the procreation argument.......just like it only took one woman to fight for the right to an abortion.....and we have that today!!!

The fact is that the institute of Marriage has been evolving steadily over the last 500 years and it matters not if you agree with it or like it....YOUR APPROVAL OR ACCEPTANCE is not REQUIRED!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#171851 Dec 21, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay and Lesbian couples have THE RIGHT to pursue MARRIAGE.......period, not something you claim is different, but EXACTLY the same marriage as what heterosexuals get to do.......why? Because PROCREATION IS NOT NOW OR EVER BEEN A REQUIREMENT TO GET MARRIED, and therefore it is an IRRELEVANT issue!!!
Something you simply don't understand.....as long as there is ONE heterosexual couple who CAN NOT OR DOES NOT want children.......that argument has already lost!!!
Since when did ANYONE have to require procreation???

Since when did the government have the POWER to require procreation???

Are you for real???

Marriage is the cross cultural constraint on mating behavior. Gays are a direct and devastating defect to mating behavior.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#171852 Dec 21, 2012
Seriously?!?!

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#171855 Dec 21, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw, the hell with it. I'm sorry to hear it.
it was really sad :(

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
Legalize COCKFIGHTING in AGRI ZONINGS to fund p... (Feb '13) 11 hr Un agenda 21 and ... 13
Mrs moller May 22 proud mother 3
Review: Massage By Karin (at Embody Day Spa) May 18 jjberri 1
Review: Wiegand Cort V Attorney At Law May 14 Walmart 1
Azenth Castillo she will try to take your man k... (Jul '13) May 12 friend 6
News Suspect in fatal Oakdale shooting dies in Stani... (Jan '13) May 10 Hard knox 22
News Ryan Neal Mazzariello, 25, of Oakdale suspected... (Nov '12) May 5 Emily 48
More from around the web

Oakdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]