Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
188,301 - 188,320 of 200,587 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#217751 Sep 22, 2013
douchebaggery wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I am understanding. Your concern is on the kids that come from homosexual parents, correct? I feel that concern is valid. I was raised by a single mother. I mean, I turned out successful, but I had to make a lot of mistakes to get here. Knowing that, I cannot condone women who want to have kids without a father, as I understand the hardships that the child will go through. Putting this back into context, a child of homosexual parents will be confused and most likely bullied in school. Statistics show that fatherless children are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. I don't know if there are any statistics for homosexual parents, but I feel that there will be all sorts of risks for that child. I may be wrong, but I feel that children are already being adopted by homosexual parents despite the marriage status. What would banning ss marriage achieve in this respect?
So, you called it a disorder--what are you suggesting is the reason for this? Psychological? Nurture? Genetics?
I have never really thought this far into this subject. This is getting better!
My wife and I have fostered over ten children. Our desire has always been to restore them to their mother and father if possible. Or the very closest alternative. But that would be just one of many implications. Marriage rights and benefits were originally established to support a stay at home mother and children. Two men do not need or deserve those benefits. In the case of military housing and benefits, limited resources are now extended to those who have no potential or need for family resources. The list goes on.

Most professionals believe it is a combination of nature and nurture. I give a high priority to nature. The idea of epi-genetic epi-marker mistakes is a very logical possibility that has yet to be proved.

http://www.the-scientist.com/...
articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epig enetics-Explain-Homosexuality- /

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#217752 Sep 22, 2013
douchebaggery wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I am understanding. Your concern is on the kids that come from homosexual parents, correct? I feel that concern is valid. I was raised by a single mother. I mean, I turned out successful, but I had to make a lot of mistakes to get here. Knowing that, I cannot condone women who want to have kids without a father, as I understand the hardships that the child will go through. Putting this back into context, a child of homosexual parents will be confused and most likely bullied in school. Statistics show that fatherless children are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. I don't know if there are any statistics for homosexual parents, but I feel that there will be all sorts of risks for that child. I may be wrong, but I feel that children are already being adopted by homosexual parents despite the marriage status. What would banning ss marriage achieve in this respect?
So, you called it a disorder--what are you suggesting is the reason for this? Psychological? Nurture? Genetics?
I have never really thought this far into this subject. This is getting better!
Why do I get the feeling that this person is actually Kimare talking to himself?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#217754 Sep 22, 2013
Here is some more of Kimare's bat-shittery...

Sunday, September 22, 2013
I remember when the Church rose up against divorce. Most couples worked through the ups and downs of marriage because of God, and maybe more so, because of the children. But then psychologists claimed divorce had no affect on children.

And the government intervened with no fault divorce. And the Church decided it was more important to welcome divorced people than to protect the life-long devastation it imparts on children.

I remember when the Church rallied against legalizing abortion. The shame of immorality reined in promiscuity. But doctors said the cost of back alley abortions was too great.

And the government intervened once again. And the Church decided not being harsh was more important than 40 million children being murdered.

Now the Church is being challenged to call ss couples the same as marriage. The courts say mutually sterile, duplicated gendered halves are equal to marriage.

And the government is once again poised to intervene. And the Pope is recommending that once again the Church step back.

Can't help but wonder what on earth that means for children.

All that is left is, "...and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21

Isn't that the logical response when we have brutalized the bonds of marriage and family at the expense of children?

----------

So, Kim is hoping that children will rise up against their same-sex parents and put them to death. He calls it the "logical response".

And FYI, Kimare TOTALLY takes Matthew 10:21 out of context. These are Christ's words to the disciples as He sends them off to spread the gospel. It has nothing to do with encouraging or hoping that children will see the "evil ways" of their parents and have them put to death. Rather, it is a discussion about what the disciples will encounter. They will see disobedient and disrespectful children rise up and cause the death of their parents; the people who brought them into the world and raised them to maturity.

This is another example where Kimare takes scripture and twists it to serve his own selfish needs.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217755 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Default family situations (adoptive, foster, step and single parent) all have negative impact on children. Ss couples would at the least equal those negative affects. At the worst, the inherent negative self-identity of sexual disorders would only increase the negative affect. Add to that the missing parental gender with ss couples.
Now you may want to think about how that relates to studies that claim otherwise...
Wouldn't you say that is generalizing a bit? Playing devils advocate here, but there isn't much studies based on this.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#217756 Sep 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
Here is some more of Kimare's bat-shittery...
Sunday, September 22, 2013
I remember when the Church rose up against divorce. Most couples worked through the ups and downs of marriage because of God, and maybe more so, because of the children. But then psychologists claimed divorce had no affect on children.
And the government intervened with no fault divorce. And the Church decided it was more important to welcome divorced people than to protect the life-long devastation it imparts on children.
I remember when the Church rallied against legalizing abortion. The shame of immorality reined in promiscuity. But doctors said the cost of back alley abortions was too great.
And the government intervened once again. And the Church decided not being harsh was more important than 40 million children being murdered.
Now the Church is being challenged to call ss couples the same as marriage. The courts say mutually sterile, duplicated gendered halves are equal to marriage.
And the government is once again poised to intervene. And the Pope is recommending that once again the Church step back.
Can't help but wonder what on earth that means for children.
All that is left is, "...and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21
Isn't that the logical response when we have brutalized the bonds of marriage and family at the expense of children?
----------
So, Kim is hoping that children will rise up against their same-sex parents and put them to death. He calls it the "logical response".
And FYI, Kimare TOTALLY takes Matthew 10:21 out of context. These are Christ's words to the disciples as He sends them off to spread the gospel. It has nothing to do with encouraging or hoping that children will see the "evil ways" of their parents and have them put to death. Rather, it is a discussion about what the disciples will encounter. They will see disobedient and disrespectful children rise up and cause the death of their parents; the people who brought them into the world and raised them to maturity.
This is another example where Kimare takes scripture and twists it to serve his own selfish needs.
I 'hoped' nothing. I quoted a prophecy about the end times, and accurately noted a human response to being abused in the most intimate relationship possible.

You are an example of what a faithless, depraved person does with truth.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#217757 Sep 22, 2013
douchebaggery wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't you say that is generalizing a bit? Playing devils advocate here, but there isn't much studies based on this.
Not sure what you are questioning.

The impact of broken homes? Or ss couples with children.

There are numerous long term studies comparing natural parents with default families.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217758 Sep 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me bring you up to speed on Kimare... He has been on these and other forums in TOPIX for going on three years. He has made THOUSANDS of comments against homosexuals, gay marriage, etc. He has learned to temper his comments over time since he knows that being as outrageous as he once was made him sound like a kook.
He stirs anti-homosexual sentiment every chance he gets. In his ideal world, there would be no homosexuals. It's a notion he shares with the likes of Hitler.
Oh, he'll deny that he wants gays to be gassed or cooked in ovens. But he wants us gone nonetheless.
He tells blatant lies about science. He claims that the "theory" of epigenetics will one day lead to a cure for homosexuality. But in his discussions about epigenetics, he will not admit that it is a theory. Rather, he claims that it is a fact.
Young gay people already have a tough enough time coming to terms with embracing the way God made them. Society is very harsh on gays. But I'm sure you know that.
Kimare's words only serve to make like more difficult for young and closeted gay people. His words fuel self-hatred. They fuel other's hatred of gays.
But in three years, he hasn't let up. He has shown himself to be narcissistic and grandiose. He believes that the world would be a better place if only everyone followed his beliefs. He has no tolerance for anyone else's lifestyles or values.
That is why he is so despised here. That's why you see so many people speaking harshly to him. He has never shown any of us an ounce of respect--even when there are those of us who have attempted to respect him.
To address a point you raised in your discussion with him re: homosexuality in the animal kingdom. He will talk about those animals that express bisexual contact. But he won't acknowledge the many other animals that have been observed in lifelong same-gender associations. He refuses to admit that homosexuality is as natural as any other orientation witnessed in the animal kingdom--of which, I might add, humans are members of.
You can make up your own mind about Kimare. I'm just trying to give you some history on him.
Thanks, veryvermilion. I have seen his track record and noticed he is on homosexual topics frequently.

Although I do not agree with him on many aspects, its more efficacious to discuss points with someone rather than to flame them. I just want to understand why he feels so strongly about this, because I did notice he is on a lot of these threads.

I personally do believe that homosexuality is natural as seen in the animal kingdom. I agree with you on your views of homosexuality for the most part.

I like to play devils advocate to facilitate good discussions as I like to study the art of persuasion and debate. There is something called the backfire effect in psychology/persuasion. Feeling so strongly about a subject will only reinforce kimare's beliefs. Knowing this, I am not trying to convince him. I just want to understand his reasoning for this.

But on the note of young gays in the closet, I think that is horrible. I feel that we should be more accepting to the prospect of homosexuality. It's ruining young lives.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217759 Sep 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do I get the feeling that this person is actually Kimare talking to himself?
Haha. Rest assured, he is not.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217760 Sep 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do I get the feeling that this person is actually Kimare talking to himself?
He mentioned his concerns of children raised by homosexuals, which I think can be a good discussion. If you take away those hostile word choices, he makes decent points worth discussion. I'm not defending him, but I think we should discuss child raising. Homosexuals are fine, but what happens when they raise children?
Melanie

Idyllwild, CA

#217761 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>LOL,

It is much better than that! Literally a lesbian trapped in a straight man. AND I have three nipples too!

Talk about a monster mutation...
Ha Ha,what a load of crap.If that is true,
Get your three nipples rings,some crotchless panties and join a Carnival!

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217762 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure what you are questioning.
The impact of broken homes? Or ss couples with children.
There are numerous long term studies comparing natural parents with default families.
I am fully cognizant of the impact of broken homes. I was questioning the ss couples with question. How about if they can provide a loving and nurturing environment for a child like a regular marriage? Where they are raised is probably big too. I mean, San Francisco may be more accepting than say Wichita Kansas.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#217765 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I 'hoped' nothing. I quoted a prophecy about the end times, and accurately noted a human response to being abused in the most intimate relationship possible.
You are an example of what a faithless, depraved person does with truth.
You called it a "logical response". I didn't make those words up, Kim. They're directly from your blog.

And the context of the scripture you use has nothing to do with "a human response to being abused in the most intimate relationship possible."

First off, being the child of a same-sex couple is not "being abused in the most intimate relationship possible." That's a bunch of horseshit and you know it.

Secondly, the text indicates the wickedness of children turning on their parents; brothers turning on brothers. It has nothing at all to do with abuse.

You use scripture--the very words that you claim we should all follow--in a deceitful manner. You twisted this verse to make a point that it was never intended to make.

If you had any decency, you would remove the blog. But I won't hold my breath. You've rarely shown decency.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217767 Sep 22, 2013

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217769 Sep 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You called it a "logical response". I didn't make those words up, Kim. They're directly from your blog.
And the context of the scripture you use has nothing to do with "a human response to being abused in the most intimate relationship possible."
First off, being the child of a same-sex couple is not "being abused in the most intimate relationship possible." That's a bunch of horseshit and you know it.
Secondly, the text indicates the wickedness of children turning on their parents; brothers turning on brothers. It has nothing at all to do with abuse.
You use scripture--the very words that you claim we should all follow--in a deceitful manner. You twisted this verse to make a point that it was never intended to make.
If you had any decency, you would remove the blog. But I won't hold my breath. You've rarely shown decency.
Curious to see this blog. Care to link?
Gustavo

Highland, CA

#217770 Sep 22, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!
My friends are in the Tea Party. We argue. They sometimes wonder why I back gay rights.
If you want to label me a liberal then by all means it's within your rights.
And WTF does the ACLU and these supposed criminals walking the streets supposedly looking to rape your FUGLY sister have anything to do with gays getting married FREAK??!
Just as I thought, You stupid dumb FK I knew you wouldn't get it right. STFU

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#217771 Sep 22, 2013
douchebaggery wrote:
<quoted text>
He mentioned his concerns of children raised by homosexuals, which I think can be a good discussion. If you take away those hostile word choices, he makes decent points worth discussion. I'm not defending him, but I think we should discuss child raising. Homosexuals are fine, but what happens when they raise children?
Well, let's look at it this way... Homosexuals are raising a lot of children. The figures range from 6 million to 14 million children being raised by gay people.

The vast majority of these children come from the foster care system or through other adoption programs. LGBT parents are put through a thorough screening--very likely a more thorough screening than heterosexual parent.

And as is the case with any adopted child, these children are truly wanted by the person or people adopting them.

So, I think that it's safe to assume that children who are raised by same-sex parents or a gay parent has about the same chance of having a good childhood and will be as successful in life as any other child.

Now, Kimare is going to throw a study in here that indicates lesbian parents are the worst parents a child can have. But what he will fail to mention is that the children of LGBT couples can have outcomes as adults that have nothing to do with the skills or gender makeup of their parents.

For example, if a child is taken from a broken home and spends years in a foster home before being adopted, this will have an impact on their behaviors. No matter how good a parent's skills, a child's background prior to adoption can and does have a lifelong impact.

But Kimare's study doesn't take this into account. And he also won't tell you that the study he likes to utilize against same-sex parents was funded by a conservative think-tank. And it was timed to be released before the Supreme Court heard arguments and made their decision on same-sex marriage.

The bottom line is that gay parents have the same skills to raise kids as straight parents. They do the best they can do to raise a child to independence and maturity.

If there were significant problems with kids raised by LGBT parents, then courts and social service agencies would have stopped the practice long ago. And we would see widespread problems that could be directly linked to same-sex parents. There would be multiple studies indicating that gay parents do not possess the skills needed to raise children. These studies do not exist.

Where there is no smoke, there is no fire.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#217775 Sep 22, 2013
douchebaggery wrote:
<quoted text>
Curious to see this blog. Care to link?
I won't provide a direct link since it would "out" Kimare. His blog clearly identifies him by name. Others have named him on TOPIX. I won't do that here.

However, you can highlight any portion of the words I quoted from it, put them into a Google search and you should be taken directly to his blog.

Also, he might provide the address of his blog himself. If he's got the hubris to put it on the internet, then he shouldn't have any problem providing you with the link.
Melanie

Idyllwild, CA

#217776 Sep 22, 2013
What happened to the Frankie Vaudeville
Show???
I want to here some more stories about
You and the broads you screwed, before
during and after The Nam..
Gustavo

Highland, CA

#217777 Sep 22, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
'Pietro' a man???????
Good luck with that.
He's probably 41 years old and still waiting for even one of his balls to drop.
you are always talking about mens balls and penis. You need to move on to a gay porn site you homo. I'm sure want to catch that ball dropping .

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217778 Sep 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let's look at it this way... Homosexuals are raising a lot of children. The figures range from 6 million to 14 million children being raised by gay people.
The vast majority of these children come from the foster care system or through other adoption programs. LGBT parents are put through a thorough screening--very likely a more thorough screening than heterosexual parent.
And as is the case with any adopted child, these children are truly wanted by the person or people adopting them.
So, I think that it's safe to assume that children who are raised by same-sex parents or a gay parent has about the same chance of having a good childhood and will be as successful in life as any other child.
Now, Kimare is going to throw a study in here that indicates lesbian parents are the worst parents a child can have. But what he will fail to mention is that the children of LGBT couples can have outcomes as adults that have nothing to do with the skills or gender makeup of their parents.
For example, if a child is taken from a broken home and spends years in a foster home before being adopted, this will have an impact on their behaviors. No matter how good a parent's skills, a child's background prior to adoption can and does have a lifelong impact.
But Kimare's study doesn't take this into account. And he also won't tell you that the study he likes to utilize against same-sex parents was funded by a conservative think-tank. And it was timed to be released before the Supreme Court heard arguments and made their decision on same-sex marriage.
The bottom line is that gay parents have the same skills to raise kids as straight parents. They do the best they can do to raise a child to independence and maturity.
If there were significant problems with kids raised by LGBT parents, then courts and social service agencies would have stopped the practice long ago. And we would see widespread problems that could be directly linked to same-sex parents. There would be multiple studies indicating that gay parents do not possess the skills needed to raise children. These studies do not exist.
Where there is no smoke, there is no fire.
Dan posted several links that showed gays are good parents. Considering that homosexuals have to adopt, they must really want and be ready for a child before doing so. Conversely, we have straight couples that accidentally get children. In such a case, homosexuals will probably raise the better child. QED. Good stuff, guys.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 2 hr dannytome 15,962
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 22 hr Macko mono 5,000
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Thu Tank ever 7,926
Judge John D. Freeland is wrong! (Dec '13) Thu Kes 8
Family Wed Baby Girl 1
I am a multi millionaire (Aug '13) Aug 27 KeS 11
Fraud claims coming to court (Jun '07) Aug 26 KeS 2
•••
•••
•••

Oakdale Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••