Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201889 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.

Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182926 Mar 9, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Who gives a flying fuck in a rolling doughnut about judge-its? Honestly? I find them to be quite funny as they're applied not by what one posts but by who posts it. So no real thought goes into 'em so why should any come out of 'em?
I do have to call you out on a bit of the above commentary...
Specifically regarding the legalisation of pot. Do you really think legalisation will increase usage? If so, you really ought to take a long hard look at prohibition and what it did, or rather didn't do, for alcohol consumption. Oh, you can look at what it did for organised crime if you want, as that was a magnificant failure for progress.
All criminalisation has done for us is fill jails and give people who could otherwise function in society a criminal record. Substance abuse is a mental health issue, not a criminal justice one. Now if you want to debate some of the criminal activity that goes on in the presence of substance abuse I'm all for it.
BTW, didn't mean to sidestep your question.
No, I do not think that it will increase usage, and I do agree with you that our prisons are full of people that do not belong there, merely for recreational drug use.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182927 Mar 9, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheesh, you are distorting my meaning. Is a hammer inferior to a drill? These differing relationships are unequal in their desire to get a hand-out. MOST heterosexual couples do not get married to receive govt. bennies. You feign shock, but you do not mean it. You are not taken aback, as there is no need to point out your sides argument, we have heard it all before.
A hammer is inferior to a drill for putting holes in metal. A drill is inferior to a hammer for putting nails in wood.

A lot of heterosexuals are inferior parents.


Yes, I'm surprised you can't see that you're belittling people based upon their sexual orientation. It is there whether or not you've got the ability to recognise it.

Desire to get a hand-out? Is that what you're reducing this to? Are you talking about tax benefits? This is only advantageous in marriages where couples have a bit of income disparity. Most of the gay couples I know consist of two gainfully employed individuals. For that matter most heterosexual couples I know consist of two gainfully employed individuals. Usually with comparable incomes.

I'd like to believe that most couples marry because they genuinely love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. A commitment to each other if you will. At least in this country. With this comes the long list of benefits that guarantees the participants that outsiders in their relationship won't step in and piss all over their wishes after their demise or worse yet, during their demise. That isn't a handout.

I already mentioned the flaw that AKpilot sees in the federal oversight of such matters, and quite frankly I agree with him. But we're here under the present conditions regarding legal matters.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182928 Mar 9, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But, please, read these reports, and then, give us your considered opinion. Tell us what you, and your experience in the military, think of these reports. Wack a doodle, eh? Please, dismiss these with a wave of your hand and tell us all that we're safe. I'm sure that if YOU tell us that it isn't so, we'll all believe you.
http://coupmedia.org/terror-threats/chinese-t ...
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/chinese-t ...
http://www.ufolab.info/Chinese_on_our_border ....
topix has butchered your links. Put up the full URLs with gaps in them so they can be copied and pasted into a new browser.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182929 Mar 9, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But, please, read these reports, and then, give us your considered opinion. Tell us what you, and your experience in the military, think of these reports. Wack a doodle, eh? Please, dismiss these with a wave of your hand and tell us all that we're safe. I'm sure that if YOU tell us that it isn't so, we'll all believe you.
http://coupmedia.org/terror-threats/chinese-t ...
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/chinese-t ...
http://www.ufolab.info/Chinese_on_our_border ....
See what happens when you go off your meds? You become a paranoid goofball.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182931 Mar 9, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
A hammer is inferior to a drill for putting holes in metal. A drill is inferior to a hammer for putting nails in wood.
A lot of heterosexuals are inferior parents.
Yes, I'm surprised you can't see that you're belittling people based upon their sexual orientation. It is there whether or not you've got the ability to recognise it.
Desire to get a hand-out? Is that what you're reducing this to? Are you talking about tax benefits? This is only advantageous in marriages where couples have a bit of income disparity. Most of the gay couples I know consist of two gainfully employed individuals. For that matter most heterosexual couples I know consist of two gainfully employed individuals. Usually with comparable incomes.
I'd like to believe that most couples marry because they genuinely love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. A commitment to each other if you will. At least in this country. With this comes the long list of benefits that guarantees the participants that outsiders in their relationship won't step in and piss all over their wishes after their demise or worse yet, during their demise. That isn't a handout.
I already mentioned the flaw that AKpilot sees in the federal oversight of such matters, and quite frankly I agree with him. But we're here under the present conditions regarding legal matters.
But, I am not belittling them, I am a traditionalist, and wish to see some institutions left intact. This world we live in is being turned upside down, and we are not benefiting from it. "Desire to get a hand-out? Is that what you're reducing this to?" Most of the reasons that I have heard thrown around in here are centered around "rights" and "benefits" to be had. "Are you talking about tax benefits..." Ask them, they have used it as an argument, not me.
"I'd like to believe that most couples marry because they genuinely love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together." This they can do, whether or not they have been "married".
"With this comes the long list of benefits that guarantees the participants that outsiders in their relationship won't step in and piss all over their wishes after their demise or worse yet, during their demise.". Wills cover these issues.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182932 Mar 9, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
topix has butchered your links. Put up the full URLs with gaps in them so they can be copied and pasted into a new browser.
http://coupmedia.org/terror-threats/chinese-t...

http://coupmedia.org/terror-threats /chinese-troops-seen-in-mexico -1703
with no gaps.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182933 Mar 9, 2013
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/chinese-t...

http://www.activistpost.com/2012 /04/chinese-troops-reportedly- amassing-near.html
again, with no gaps
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182934 Mar 9, 2013

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182935 Mar 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
P.s. I didn’t mean to jump on your case earlier, but the whole "marriage is for making babies" argument just pisses me off.
No problem amico
It could not be farther from the truth.
How so?
One of my daughters is incapable of having children for medical reasons, and to think anyone would belittle her marriage to her husband because "marriage is only about making babies" makes me what to hit someone... and I am a peaceful person... but go after my kids and the hair raises on the back of my neck.
No one is belittling her marriage, or my marriage, we're discussing the concept of marriage, it's definition, and the state's, and/or society's interest in it.
I know that was not your intent, but there is a HUGE hole is the "marriage is for making babies" argument.
It is a lame excuse of an argument.
Grazie
None of my children happen to be gay, but I would be fully supportive of any of them if they happened to be. I do have an extended family member that is gay, and she got married before prop 8 and is one of the 18,000 legally married same sex couples in California, and I applaud them and wish them well.
As would I if one of my children, or other family member were. However that doesn't mean a public policy has to necessarily change for me or anyone else for that matter.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182937 Mar 9, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is there a need for it now? Because there is. We've arrived to a time when we're civilised enough to recognise that homosexuals aren't mentally ill deviants in need of treatment. There are throw backs in every society, but they're a dying breed. Homosexuals are just people, like you and I. We've matured as a species to the point where we have learned that a lot of what was believed 100 years ago simply isn't true. And what was commonly accepted truth 500 years is hogwash. Even more so for the "truth" of 1000 years ago. I could go further back in time, but hopefully you understand what I mean. Sure we've got cultures that still see women as second class citizens - they're missing out on the full potential of 1/2 of their population (if not more). We've got past the notion that blacks are inferior beings. Now it is time to get past the notion that gays are inferior beings.
This brings us back to your question, why should gays marry? This gets into territory that irks AKpilot and I understand his point. However, we're where we are and marriage takes care of so much more than procreation. More than 1000 rights come with it. National recognition of marriage for gay couples brings those rights to them with the stroke of a pen. It is simplicity. No need for every state to pass legislation regarding ssm marriage. No chance for some states to discriminate and disallow the rights granted in another when someone relocates. That approach is too complex. The legal rights that come with a marriage certificate are the same from state to state. Unions by other nomenclature are the subject of each state's legislature and that just makes it too complicated.
At what time during the course of human history, did sex between men and women, STOP resulting in conception? That hasn't changed. We still do it, still understand what it does, still need for it to happen. That's the one constant? Men and women married each other. There are TWO sexes.

Why is there a sudden need for SSM? What will happen if men don't marry men, and women don't marry women? Will anyone even notice? Why is such a small percentage of SSCs, who can legally marry, actually do? Why do female couples marry more often than their male counterparts?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#182938 Mar 9, 2013
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey dude, you think you're a knight in shinning armor? Screw you. You think you're tough because you're a [email protected]???? Fk you.
I'm not gay, why is that always the response from haters like you? Plz feel free to offer some substance to your posts. If you have any. There have been gay people around since the beginning of time, did you just figure out there are people that are not like you? I'm not gay but also very different then you. My Bible says to love others and not judge, calling you a hater is what you are.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#182940 Mar 9, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I can provide you with some links:
http://coupmedia.org/terror-threats/chinese-t...
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/chinese-t...
http://www.ufolab.info/Chinese_on_our_border....
Some will say that these reports are not to be taken seriously, but make up your own mind...
Rumors...During the cold war, it was Russians are waiting at our border. Do you think with all the violence on the northern Mexico border that China men would be even safe themselves? If China wants to destroy America, they could shut down wal mart. It's easy to start bogus crap on the internet.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182942 Mar 9, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Rumors...During the cold war, it was Russians are waiting at our border. Do you think with all the violence on the northern Mexico border that China men would be even safe themselves? If China wants to destroy America, they could shut down wal mart. It's easy to start bogus crap on the internet.
These are not rumors. Nor is the destruction of our protections.

http://arewelivinginthelastdays.com/news/vid/...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182943 Mar 9, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Those are quite childish remarks anyway. Oh, and they're insults as well as ad hominem attacks. You seem to suffer quit a bit of the ol' pot calling the kettle black routine."
Don't you think it would be fair of you to say the same thing to rose-no-ho? Her childish remarks about abortion to Kimare are easily comparable in level, not to mention irrelevant to the thread.
Sheesh, I think that you must have missed a post...

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#182944 Mar 9, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
These are not rumors. Nor is the destruction of our protections.
http://arewelivinginthelastdays.com/news/vid/...
2 different issues, I'm just saying I doubt that there are any China troops on our border. The Mexican drug Lords are not run by their own government, let alone China-men. I doubt in today's time that our Government could hide this from the citizens if it was the case. It's easier to fool the public on stuff like the flu shot.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#182945 Mar 9, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Are you a hater? dude, you sound real brave sitting behind a keyboard.
He is a hater. It's the only method he has for making his micro penis chubby.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182946 Mar 9, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
http://www.ufolab.info/Chinese _on_our_border.htm
http://www.ufolab.info /Chinese_on_our_border.htm
Also, no gaps.
From your link:

"The internet has been a great evolution in the enlightenment of the world's population for the sharing and opening of previously esoteric information."

It has also opened the door for all manner of tinfoil hat wearin' loons to post up sensational "fact" based conspiracty theories. Not to mention just plain piss poor information propagation making mountains of mole hills.

In addition to that Honda 750 pictured to the left of my post I own a Honda Valkyrie. Some years ago the interwebby was awash with tales of a rash of tire failures for the Dunlops spooned on the back rim in OEM trim. There were delaminations galore. After it all settled down ALL of these delaminations were linked back to one tire failure. Given the amount of debris on the road and the propensity for motorists to ignore tire pressures I was willing to stick with the Dunlop tires on mine for many a happy mile (tire pressures monitored closely of course).

Now on to the following from the same link:

"Some of the websites actually tell of eye witness accounts, all of which have yet to be proven or at least validated. No coordinates have been provided as of yet. The story continues to develop. Coup Media has not received any validating information from its sources to support that any of these accounts of chines troops and armored vehicles in Mexico or Canada might be valid."

What I read goes on to indicate a trucker seeing a claimed 10,000 armored vehicles. Each one of them beasts is gonna be fairly massive and be a little difficult to hide. Camo you say? Well how'd the trucker see 'em.
Then we read of eyewitness reports (err is that report) of a bunch of asian and caucasion troops in an area.

I am reminded of the possibility that most UFO spottings are done by people of questionable mental acuity or sobriety.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182947 Mar 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
At what time during the course of human history, did sex between men and women, STOP resulting in conception? That hasn't changed. We still do it, still understand what it does, still need for it to happen. That's the one constant? Men and women married each other. There are TWO sexes.
Why is there a sudden need for SSM? What will happen if men don't marry men, and women don't marry women? Will anyone even notice? Why is such a small percentage of SSCs, who can legally marry, actually do? Why do female couples marry more often than their male counterparts?
What will happen of they're allowed to marry? Will anyone notice after the mongfest cries of the sky is falling blows over? Thank you for that earth shattering news about there being two sexes. I wasn't aware of this fact.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182948 Mar 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
At what time during the course of human history, did sex between men and women, STOP resulting in conception? That hasn't changed. We still do it, still understand what it does, still need for it to happen. That's the one constant? Men and women married each other. There are TWO sexes.
Condoms, IUDs, the pill, tubal ligation, vasectomy...
Sex isn't just for reproduction. We like it and we like it with the partner of our selection, whether that be like or opposite sex. That hasn't changed either.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182949 Mar 9, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheesh, I think that you must have missed a post...
Yep. There is a lot of detritus in here. From both sides. I tend to scan the thread, often not looking at entire pages other than to see who is posting and only look at the ones I find interesting. Or the ones making some outlandish claims (I recognise this happens from both corners). I will often just follow a dialogue between myself and another poster and just ignore the rest too.

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
Tommy Lauver Kidnapping in 1974 (May '09) Mon Leilani 21
Felony charges likely against... (Jan '16) Aug 27 Your Service Prov... 9
Wanted on 242 PC Charges Aug 25 KES 8
1224 7th st .. trash in alley Aug 25 muddmann41 1
susan bender missing since 1986 (Jan '11) Aug 15 David M Little 15
Full force and effect Cease and Desist Aug 15 KES 1
News Modesto's Calvary Temple Academy To Close (Jun '08) Aug 14 Rebecca 38

Oakdale Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Oakdale Mortgages