Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201480 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#194168 Jun 2, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok what ever you stupid Ho
Shuddup and have a banana Bluto. You third rate jackass!

“Out and Proud”

Since: Dec 10

Concord, California

#194169 Jun 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.(The Supreme Court of California also held that the right to marry is fundamental.) Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.
So why is polygamy illegal? Why don’t Mormons have the right to enter into multiple marriages sanctified by their church, if not the state? There’s a short answer to this question but not a very good one: polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
The answer to that question is that most Polygamist societies either are two class societies or they become two class societies eventually.

Generally speaking in a society there is roughly the same amount of women as their are men. So a society could maintain itself well enough, through monogamy. One wife one husband. It works out mathematically and everyone is happy.

The only thing is most societies did not do that. Most societies in history allowed more than one wife, though often there may have been a lot of rules about it.

Let us say that one third of the men marry all of the women. Then what do all the other men do?

You have two thirds of the men who are milling about. And then a war starts. Suppose that this war is against strict monogamists (a foreign nation). Who is going to fight harder, the monogamists or the polygamists?

Remember the two third men who are milling about? Do they look to you to be all motivated, to fight for the one third with the wives to you?

Once the fighting begins the monogamist are organized and are a band of the brothers and for most part everyone loves each other, where as the polygamists hate each, at least the two third hate the one third.

So the monogamists win in battle, they institute their laws and there language, and monogamy becomes the law for everyone, because eventually the monogamist take over everyone. The entire world becomes monogamist eventually.

This actually happened. First the monogamist Greeks, then the monogamist Romans, took over the world of Mesopotamia. Whenever the other countries fought against them the Greeks and then later the Romans, were far superior in actual combat. Band of brothers verses people that were jealous and envious and hated each other.

It really is as simple as that. Call it societal Darwinism. The Greco-Roman society is where our laws about marriage primarily come from. All the countries of Europe continued the Greco-Roman tradition of monogamy.

Europe in turn became the preeminent power in the world, thanks in no small part to the policy of monogamy, while at the same time as this was happening, the rest of the world was mostly polygamist.

Monogamy-ism helps social cohesion leading to greater cooperation among the soldier class, and also greater economic prosperity as well (the economic class is likewise more cooperative with each other).

In a nutshell that is why our laws and traditions are the way that they are.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#194170 Jun 2, 2013
Where does it end? Does everyone have the "right" to have their consenting adult personal intimate possibly sexual, relationship designated "marriage" by the state?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#194171 Jun 2, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If you truly support and embrace incestuous relationships and legal marriage, then you would not be insulted by someone suggesting that your father is also your brother. Rather, it would be a neutral issue to you. Apparently it isn't.
You seem frustrated and angry, Frances. Why's that?
Suggesting my father is my brother was an insult. And you intended it to be an insult.

Just like me intentionally and with malice bringing up a negative aspect of homosexuality and saying you shouldn't be offended by it. You'd try to have me arrested!

I am not interested in entering into an incest relationship. I just want to discuss marriage equality. Why do you fear discussing incest and poly? I suggest it's to avoid revealing your hypocrisy.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#194172 Jun 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Where does it end? Does everyone have the "right" to have their consenting adult personal intimate possibly sexual, relationship designated "marriage" by the state?
With most of these jackasses, it ends just when they get what they want and then no more. So much for marriage equality.

VV doesn't like poly or incest because it's icky. Where have we heard that before?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#194173 Jun 2, 2013
Ghaleon wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer to that question is that most Polygamist societies either are two class societies or they become two class societies eventually.
Generally speaking in a society there is roughly the same amount of women as their are men. So a society could maintain itself well enough, through monogamy. One wife one husband. It works out mathematically and everyone is happy.
The only thing is most societies did not do that. Most societies in history allowed more than one wife, though often there may have been a lot of rules about it.
Let us say that one third of the men marry all of the women. Then what do all the other men do?
You have two thirds of the men who are milling about. And then a war starts. Suppose that this war is against strict monogamists (a foreign nation). Who is going to fight harder, the monogamists or the polygamists?
Remember the two third men who are milling about? Do they look to you to be all motivated, to fight for the one third with the wives to you?
Once the fighting begins the monogamist are organized and are a band of the brothers and for most part everyone loves each other, where as the polygamists hate each, at least the two third hate the one third.
So the monogamists win in battle, they institute their laws and there language, and monogamy becomes the law for everyone, because eventually the monogamist take over everyone. The entire world becomes monogamist eventually.
This actually happened. First the monogamist Greeks, then the monogamist Romans, took over the world of Mesopotamia. Whenever the other countries fought against them the Greeks and then later the Romans, were far superior in actual combat. Band of brothers verses people that were jealous and envious and hated each other.
It really is as simple as that. Call it societal Darwinism. The Greco-Roman society is where our laws about marriage primarily come from. All the countries of Europe continued the Greco-Roman tradition of monogamy.
Europe in turn became the preeminent power in the world, thanks in no small part to the policy of monogamy, while at the same time as this was happening, the rest of the world was mostly polygamist.
Monogamy-ism helps social cohesion leading to greater cooperation among the soldier class, and also greater economic prosperity as well (the economic class is likewise more cooperative with each other).
In a nutshell that is why our laws and traditions are the way that they are.
Yes but those are archaic reasons which won't happen because of the tiny percentage of the population engaging in polygamy.

If legalized, the percentage of the population entering into a poly marriage will be so small, chances are most people will never be offended by the sight of a happy poly family.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#194174 Jun 2, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I have given adequate responses to your questions about incestuous marriage and polygamy. I've talked about them from a personal perspective as well as medical and psychological perspectives.
You backed yourself into a corner when you claimed that you were going to provide several scientific sources that support incestuous marriage. You still haven't done this. For that matter, I'd like to see some scientific evidence that supports polygamy.
The ball is in your court.
The laughable thing is, I have provided irrefutable scientific basis for heterosexual marriage and the failure of ss couples to qualify.

However, if the new dumbed down definition of marriage is 'two unrelated people in a committed relationship', these problems immediately arise;

1. The number is discriminatory. There is NO reason to prohibit more than two. The prohibition against polygamy was based on procreation, no longer an allowed consideration.

2. The prohibition against incest is also discriminatory. Again, the prohibition was based on procreation. Between the legal options of abortion or birth control, even the risks are eliminated.

These issues must be addressed if there is a responsible change in what is termed marriage.

Additionally, the original unique relationship of marriage and family now encompasses almost every relationship in existence. There is no longer a distinct definition. New words will be needed to distinguish the difference from other relationships when needed.
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

#194175 Jun 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You got your 8 now. I suggest a judge-it competition, see who can get the most negative judge-its from these clowns, you or I.
You are a formidable contender, but so am I!
Oh yeah, you're doing just fine. Rosie, however, is getting old and tired. Used to be "she" could wallow in her own stool and give any and all at LEAST 13 or more smilie mashes.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#194176 Jun 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The laughable thing is, I have provided irrefutable scientific basis for heterosexual marriage and the failure of ss couples to qualify.
However, if the new dumbed down definition of marriage is 'two unrelated people in a committed relationship', these problems immediately arise;
1. The number is discriminatory. There is NO reason to prohibit more than two. The prohibition against polygamy was based on procreation, no longer an allowed consideration.
2. The prohibition against incest is also discriminatory. Again, the prohibition was based on procreation. Between the legal options of abortion or birth control, even the risks are eliminated.
These issues must be addressed if there is a responsible change in what is termed marriage.
Additionally, the original unique relationship of marriage and family now encompasses almost every relationship in existence. There is no longer a distinct definition. New words will be needed to distinguish the difference from other relationships when needed.
So the preacher supports now supports polygamy and incest. Fascinating...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#194177 Jun 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The laughable thing is, I have provided irrefutable scientific basis for heterosexual marriage and the failure of ss couples to qualify.
However, if the new dumbed down definition of marriage is 'two unrelated people in a committed relationship', these problems immediately arise;
1. The number is discriminatory. There is NO reason to prohibit more than two. The prohibition against polygamy was based on procreation, no longer an allowed consideration.
2. The prohibition against incest is also discriminatory. Again, the prohibition was based on procreation. Between the legal options of abortion or birth control, even the risks are eliminated.
These issues must be addressed if there is a responsible change in what is termed marriage.
Additionally, the original unique relationship of marriage and family now encompasses almost every relationship in existence. There is no longer a distinct definition. New words will be needed to distinguish the difference from other relationships when needed.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So the preacher supports now supports polygamy and incest. Fascinating...
It is perfectly clear that my post is simply noting the result of YOUR position. I have been consistently clear about mine.

You know that. But instead of an attempted logical retort (clearly impossible), or admitting the truth, you resort to a ad homoan gay twirl.

Come on Queen of DeNial, give a direct response to the post.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#194178 Jun 2, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah, you're doing just fine. Rosie, however, is getting old and tired. Used to be "she" could wallow in her own stool and give any and all at LEAST 13 or more smilie mashes.
Yeah the old war horse ain't what she used to be. I don't know what happened to her probably a medication adjustment or maybe partial lobotomy or stroke. She was always angry and stupid, but now it's even worse.
Have you ever gotten her to boycott you? She boycotts me, says it's because I'm stupid. Too funny!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#194179 Jun 2, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So the preacher supports now supports polygamy and incest. Fascinating...
Support it or not support it, it's a perfectly acceptable and obvious subject in any honest discussion of marriage equality.

Why do you fear it's very mention? Why do you attempt to censor free speech? Have you ever even opened up your tolerant and diverse mind to tolerant and diverse ideas?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#194180 Jun 2, 2013
Ghaleon wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer to that question is that most Polygamist societies either are two class societies or they become two class societies eventually.
Generally speaking in a society there is roughly the same amount of women as their are men. So a society could maintain itself well enough, through monogamy. One wife one husband. It works out mathematically and everyone is happy.
The only thing is most societies did not do that. Most societies in history allowed more than one wife, though often there may have been a lot of rules about it.
Let us say that one third of the men marry all of the women. Then what do all the other men do?
You have two thirds of the men who are milling about. And then a war starts. Suppose that this war is against strict monogamists (a foreign nation). Who is going to fight harder, the monogamists or the polygamists?
Remember the two third men who are milling about? Do they look to you to be all motivated, to fight for the one third with the wives to you?
Once the fighting begins the monogamist are organized and are a band of the brothers and for most part everyone loves each other, where as the polygamists hate each, at least the two third hate the one third.
So the monogamists win in battle, they institute their laws and there language, and monogamy becomes the law for everyone, because eventually the monogamist take over everyone. The entire world becomes monogamist eventually.
This actually happened. First the monogamist Greeks, then the monogamist Romans, took over the world of Mesopotamia. Whenever the other countries fought against them the Greeks and then later the Romans, were far superior in actual combat. Band of brothers verses people that were jealous and envious and hated each other.
It really is as simple as that. Call it societal Darwinism. The Greco-Roman society is where our laws about marriage primarily come from. All the countries of Europe continued the Greco-Roman tradition of monogamy.
Europe in turn became the preeminent power in the world, thanks in no small part to the policy of monogamy, while at the same time as this was happening, the rest of the world was mostly polygamist.
Monogamy-ism helps social cohesion leading to greater cooperation among the soldier class, and also greater economic prosperity as well (the economic class is likewise more cooperative with each other).
In a nutshell that is why our laws and traditions are the way that they are.
Sure. if everyone were a polygamist we might have some of those problems, and if everyone were gay we'd die out and there would be no more human race.

The beauty it is that we are not all polygamists and not all homosexuals, so why not allow them the same freedoms to marry we enjoy? It's the right thing to do and it won't hurt you.

If heterosexuality is no longer relevant to marriage, neither is monogamy.
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

#194181 Jun 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever gotten her to boycott you? She boycotts me, says it's because I'm stupid. Too funny!
She got intolerant and bigoted and prejudiced and phobic and non-inclusive against me a couple of years ago.

I think it has something to do with liberal imbeciles claiming to embrace other points of view until they actually encounter one.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#194182 Jun 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The laughable thing is, I have provided irrefutable scientific basis for heterosexual marriage and the failure of ss couples to qualify.
However, if the new dumbed down definition of marriage is 'two unrelated people in a committed relationship', these problems immediately arise;
1. The number is discriminatory. There is NO reason to prohibit more than two. The prohibition against polygamy was based on procreation, no longer an allowed consideration.
2. The prohibition against incest is also discriminatory. Again, the prohibition was based on procreation. Between the legal options of abortion or birth control, even the risks are eliminated.
These issues must be addressed if there is a responsible change in what is termed marriage.
Additionally, the original unique relationship of marriage and family now encompasses almost every relationship in existence. There is no longer a distinct definition. New words will be needed to distinguish the difference from other relationships when needed.
<quoted text>
It is perfectly clear that my post is simply noting the result of YOUR position. I have been consistently clear about mine.
You know that. But instead of an attempted logical retort (clearly impossible), or admitting the truth, you resort to a ad homoan gay twirl.
Come on Queen of DeNial, give a direct response to the post.
1.) I have a pretty good memory. And I don't recall you EVER posting an irrefutable source in support of anything.

2.) In the courts, polygamy arguments have not been about "numbers". Rather the arguments have focused on "exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, and child custody." That is a direct quote from the Supreme Court hearings on DOMA.

3.) Likewise, arguments against incestuous marriages have focused on abuse and offspring issues.

4.) Same-sex marriage is not associated with exploitation abuse, patriarchy, or issues with inheritance and child custody as is found in polygamy. And since proponents of same-sex marriage have NEVER argued in favor of polygamy or incestuous relationships, there are no concerns with the problems associated with these types of relationships.

5.) We already have laws in place with regards to couples who procreate. Same-gender marriage will not impact these laws.

6.) Who cares if new terminology is needed to deal with same-gender marriage? You can't seriously argue that the rights of same-gender couples should be secondary to the possibility that you might have to learn a new word or two. And I'm curious... What kind of new words would need to be established? On applications for marriage, words would be "replaced". New applications might use the words "spouse 1 and spouse 2" or "person 1 and person 2" or "applicant 1 and applicant 2". Even a 5 year old could deal with these kinds of changes.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#194183 Jun 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have provided those links, you have ignored them and lied.
No, you haven't provided any links where scientists, researchers, or legal experts have argued in support of incestuous relationship. I've not even seen any in support of polygamy.

But I'm a patient person, so I'll wait.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#194184 Jun 2, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
She got intolerant and bigoted and prejudiced and phobic and non-inclusive against me a couple of years ago.
I think it has something to do with liberal imbeciles claiming to embrace other points of view until they actually encounter one.
The people of tolerance and diversity are neither.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#194185 Jun 2, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) I have a pretty good memory. And I don't recall you EVER posting an irrefutable source in support of anything.
2.) In the courts, polygamy arguments have not been about "numbers". Rather the arguments have focused on "exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, and child custody." That is a direct quote from the Supreme Court hearings on DOMA.
3.) Likewise, arguments against incestuous marriages have focused on abuse and offspring issues.
4.) Same-sex marriage is not associated with exploitation abuse, patriarchy, or issues with inheritance and child custody as is found in polygamy. And since proponents of same-sex marriage have NEVER argued in favor of polygamy or incestuous relationships, there are no concerns with the problems associated with these types of relationships.
5.) We already have laws in place with regards to couples who procreate. Same-gender marriage will not impact these laws.
6.) Who cares if new terminology is needed to deal with same-gender marriage? You can't seriously argue that the rights of same-gender couples should be secondary to the possibility that you might have to learn a new word or two. And I'm curious... What kind of new words would need to be established? On applications for marriage, words would be "replaced". New applications might use the words "spouse 1 and spouse 2" or "person 1 and person 2" or "applicant 1 and applicant 2". Even a 5 year old could deal with these kinds of changes.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
GettaGoes

San Dimas, CA

#194186 Jun 2, 2013
Ah go play with yourselves, the fockers are looking for you.

When will the fockers catch up with you?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#194187 Jun 2, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) I have a pretty good memory. And I don't recall you EVER posting an irrefutable source in support of anything.
2.) In the courts, polygamy arguments have not been about "numbers". Rather the arguments have focused on "exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, and child custody." That is a direct quote from the Supreme Court hearings on DOMA.
3.) Likewise, arguments against incestuous marriages have focused on abuse and offspring issues.
4.) Same-sex marriage is not associated with exploitation abuse, patriarchy, or issues with inheritance and child custody as is found in polygamy. And since proponents of same-sex marriage have NEVER argued in favor of polygamy or incestuous relationships, there are no concerns with the problems associated with these types of relationships.
5.) We already have laws in place with regards to couples who procreate. Same-gender marriage will not impact these laws.
6.) Who cares if new terminology is needed to deal with same-gender marriage? You can't seriously argue that the rights of same-gender couples should be secondary to the possibility that you might have to learn a new word or two. And I'm curious... What kind of new words would need to be established? On applications for marriage, words would be "replaced". New applications might use the words "spouse 1 and spouse 2" or "person 1 and person 2" or "applicant 1 and applicant 2". Even a 5 year old could deal with these kinds of changes.
There are perfectly good laws against all the crimes you hatefully and ignorantly assign to polygamists. If someone is abusing or exploiting a child, prosecute him for those crimes, not polygamy.

Also, spare us the "it's too complicated" we don't deny equal protection because it would be complicated. Sorry.

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
Kevin Perez Jun 18 Gross 1
News Investigation Discovery Announces Scott Peterso... Jun 8 kauna1958 7
Modesto police wont respond to violence or car ... Jun 8 Martinez 2
Wanted on 242 PC Charges (Aug '16) May '18 Your Service Prov... 19
karen partain Feb '18 Laura Yarbrough 2
Starvision Direct Cable is taking applications, (Jun '16) Aug '17 Hiring Manager 3
OAKDALE (NWO) FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP being bui... (Nov '08) Jul '17 Josie 135

Oakdale Jobs

Personal Finance

Oakdale Mortgages