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
166,841 - 166,860 of 200,586 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago
Hallelujah

Harrisonburg, VA

#191056 May 5, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Rational has been delivered, again.
I personally could careless if homosexuals marry or not but I refuse to allow the cult to be granted 100's of special rights and privileges based on orientation.
Hallelujah

Harrisonburg, VA

#191057 May 5, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, if your race could conduct itself with all due propriety, we wouldn't have to have this conversation. Why don't you guys behave like civilized people? Why must the negroes commit more crimes than others, and have their race omitted from the news? It leaves us at the mercy of the undesirables. Why must we pretend to not know?
Homosexuals are not a race.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191058 May 6, 2013
Hallelujah wrote:
<quoted text>
Native on the gay cult Christian forum stated NoHo is a minister. It is funny and if you get a chance you need to read some of the ludicrous posts Native has made concern NoHo husband's who fathered her children. I have laughed about it.
Can you put up a link to it? I need a laugh..
Hallelujah

Harrisonburg, VA

#191059 May 6, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you put up a link to it? I need a laugh..
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian

It is on the above forum and some of the posts are on Nettie's Pit Stop and the some posts are on Stealing the Keys to Heaven.
Hallelujah

Harrisonburg, VA

#191060 May 6, 2013
Hallelujah wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuals are not a race.
Because if homosexuals were a race the case for marriage would be a simple one.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191061 May 6, 2013
Hallelujah wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian
It is on the above forum and some of the posts are on Nettie's Pit Stop and the some posts are on Stealing the Keys to Heaven.
Thanks.
:-D
Hallelujah

Harrisonburg, VA

#191062 May 6, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
:-D
You are welcome and you may find this post very interesting because Native posted a lie about it trying to dismiss the factual information as if it came from a bias source when it is an actually interview with a past APA President who has several gay relatives in his immediate family.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-presi...

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#191063 May 6, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
It takes more than you, to dismiss valid differentiations. Sorry, Chongo. Rational has, again, been delivered.
You are the non sequitur. You do not follow. Not your fault that you cannot digest logic.
IOW, you can't come up with a rational argument against gay marriage, so you just lie and claim you have one I won't except.(Why not just post the actual argument? Oh, yeah, you don't have one!)
And then you called me names.
Then you had to look up the term "non sequitur" because you didn't know what it means. And it's clear you still don't.
Must suck to high heaven to be you!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#191064 May 6, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, if your race
Post reported, expect to have it removed.
(Didn't bother to read the whole thing, you don't have to eat the whole egg to know it's rotten.)

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#191065 May 6, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
NoHo is no minister, sir, it is an atheist and a hater.
I hate racists and homophobes like you. You should be hated.
And I'm smart enough to realize there is no god.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#191066 May 6, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you put up a link to it? I need a laugh..
Look in the mirror!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#191067 May 6, 2013
Hallelujah wrote:
<quoted text>
I personally could careless if homosexuals marry or not but I refuse to allow the cult to be granted 100's of special rights and privileges based on orientation.
Name one special right.
Ooops, looks like you are going to have to STFU!

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#191068 May 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Many relationships are 'equal' in love. That does not make them marriage.
I agree that gays have every right and opportunity to purse legitimate rights and an identity for their relationship. That is their responsibility. It is not legitimate to impose an imposter relationship on marriage.
As to children, two distinctions.
1. Children in the natural home of their biological parents are at a significant advantage over ANY default setting. That setting, or as close as possible should always be the primary pursuit of society.
2. A ss couple ALWAYS deprives a child of one parental role. To do so deliberately should be criminal. It is narcissistically diabolical.
There used to be a thing (at least in UK law) called 'common law' marriage where a couple weren't 'married' but were regarded as such because of the nature of their relationship. One thing this meant was they could use it to back up, say, any claim on a Will.
A great many families are either single parent families or those where both partners are not living at the family home. The amount of abuse by (hetero) step parents is very common, as is murder of children by them. From people (Ok, not stats) sharing their experience many site divorce and living with a (hetero) couple who are at odds with one another as deeply disturbing and something which must have effected them strongly enough for them to still be talking about long into adulthood. This is the nature of relationships. It has been said by some sociologists that the family unit although theoretically is the ideal (according to most psychologists) is in fact inherently damaging and dysfunctional to many - ie. it cuts both ways. I might suggest One reason children from SSM are less well adjusted is because of the bigotry their parents face; and beneath the surface is the thought that their family is not to be considered normal. Do you have the same issue with, say a mother and daughter raising that daughter's child, or where the father is in the mother role of housekeeper and primary caregiver because the wife is the one that has a career. Studies (no, I can't reference them, it's been a while since college) I recall conclude that it doesn't directly matter who (or how many) the bond parent or primary care giver is as long as the child does bond and is able to then feel secure enough to become (attach then detach) an independent individual within the family or whatever social setting they are being brought up in.
I would say most couples having children has some basis in narcissism.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191069 May 6, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
From your source...
"We are left with an undeniable evolutionary puzzle: What maintains the underlying genetic propensity for homosexuality, whatever its specific manifestations? Unlike most mystery stories, in which the case is typically solved at the finish, this one has no ending: We simply do not know."
--------
The author goes on to describe various POSSIBLE reasons for homosexuality. I am satisfied with one of his conclusions...
"Another question (also yet unanswered) is why should we bother to find out."
-------
We exist. We have always existed. There is no reason to believe that we will someday not exist. And since our presence has no negative impact on society--other than to frighten certain religious zealots--the question of "how" or "why" we exist is ridiculous.
As I've said multiple times, asking "why are there gays" is about as important as asking "why are there blondes".
You keep trying to find an answer to a question that doesn't need to be asked.
So your source has no answers and says nothing about homosexuality being maladaptive.
Better luck next time...
And the article goes on to note the profundity of not finding validity for homosexuality by now. A discrete way of acknowledging THERE IS NO VALID PURPOSE FOR IT.

You note you are satisfied with an attempted explanation that is rejected by scientists. I'm shocked.

You conclude by exposing once again your bigotry. Homosexuality has been recognized as a defective aberration by every culture, apart from any religion.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191070 May 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Many relationships are 'equal' in love. That does not make them marriage.
I agree that gays have every right and opportunity to purse legitimate rights and an identity for their relationship. That is their responsibility. It is not legitimate to impose an imposter relationship on marriage.
As to children, two distinctions.
1. Children in the natural home of their biological parents are at a significant advantage over ANY default setting. That setting, or as close as possible should always be the primary pursuit of society.
2. A ss couple ALWAYS deprives a child of one parental role. To do so deliberately should be criminal. It is narcissistically diabolical.
Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
There used to be a thing (at least in UK law) called 'common law' marriage where a couple weren't 'married' but were regarded as such because of the nature of their relationship. One thing this meant was they could use it to back up, say, any claim on a Will.
A great many families are either single parent families or those where both partners are not living at the family home. The amount of abuse by (hetero) step parents is very common, as is murder of children by them. From people (Ok, not stats) sharing their experience many site divorce and living with a (hetero) couple who are at odds with one another as deeply disturbing and something which must have effected them strongly enough for them to still be talking about long into adulthood. This is the nature of relationships. It has been said by some sociologists that the family unit although theoretically is the ideal (according to most psychologists) is in fact inherently damaging and dysfunctional to many - ie. it cuts both ways. I might suggest One reason children from SSM are less well adjusted is because of the bigotry their parents face; and beneath the surface is the thought that their family is not to be considered normal. Do you have the same issue with, say a mother and daughter raising that daughter's child, or where the father is in the mother role of housekeeper and primary caregiver because the wife is the one that has a career. Studies (no, I can't reference them, it's been a while since college) I recall conclude that it doesn't directly matter who (or how many) the bond parent or primary care giver is as long as the child does bond and is able to then feel secure enough to become (attach then detach) an independent individual within the family or whatever social setting they are being brought up in.
I would say most couples having children has some basis in narcissism.
I'm not sure how what you said is a response to what I said.

However, several points to your comments.

-You are referring to the 'Cinderella Effect' regarding step parents. The same principle applies to any none blood related person, and always in a ss couple household. King Solomon noted that principle when dealing with the two prostitutes and a child.

-You are trying to avoid the fact that ANY default parenting situation is a vastly inferior option to biological parents.

-You make a humorous attempt to avoid the fact that deliberately birthing a child apart from one parent is horribly wrong. In my mind, not the place for humor, nor a valid response.

Smile.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#191071 May 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure how what you said is a response to what I said.
However, several points to your comments.
-You are referring to the 'Cinderella Effect' regarding step parents. The same principle applies to any none blood related person, and always in a ss couple household. King Solomon noted that principle when dealing with the two prostitutes and a child.
-You are trying to avoid the fact that ANY default parenting situation is a vastly inferior option to biological parents.
-You make a humorous attempt to avoid the fact that deliberately birthing a child apart from one parent is horribly wrong. In my mind, not the place for humor, nor a valid response.
Smile.
What humourous attempt?? I was making a serious comment, no humour intended.
Pietro Armando

Newton Center, MA

#191073 May 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Our rights should not depend on what's in our underwear.
So then the right to specific health care for what's in one's underwear should be denied based on that reasoning?
I'll take that to mean you can't come up with a rational argument against gay marriage.
I take it you are unable or unwilling to answer the questions.

If its the consensus of society that marriage is simply a union of two consenting adults, there's no need to prohibit any two person, consenting adult, union, including blood relatives. Why should it matter who marries who, or who can't marry who?

Pietro Armando

Newton Center, MA

#191074 May 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
IOW, you can't come up with a rational argument against gay marriage, so you just lie and claim you have one I won't except.(Why not just post the actual argument? Oh, yeah, you don't have one!)
And then you called me names.
Then you had to look up the term "non sequitur" because you didn't know what it means. And it's clear you still don't.
Must suck to high heaven to be you!
Is it not the joining of certain "body parts" and the natural result, that provides the biological foundation to marriage?

Appealing to biology is logical.

Perhaps you can answer the questions I posed.
If its the consensus of society that marriage is simply a union of two consenting adults, there's no need to prohibit any two person, consenting adult, union, including blood relatives. Why should it matter who marries who, or who can't marry who?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191075 May 6, 2013
Hallelujah wrote:
You have no idea the "special rights" the gay cult in this country is asking for but you will when your child, grandchild, or even yourself is terminated from a job to hire a homosexual. The gay cult is suing churches to force those of faith to marry them; the gay cult is suing privately owned business who refuse to perform gay marriage which is infringing on the rights of God loving heterosexuals.
Are liars like YOU considered "god loving?" No one is suing churches to force them to do ANYTHING. And no one is firing ANYONE so they can be replaced by a homosexual. Good grief. Do you really think LYING proves your point?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191076 May 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it not the joining of certain "body parts" and the natural result, that provides the biological foundation to marriage?
Appealing to biology is logical.
Perhaps you can answer the questions I posed.
If its the consensus of society that marriage is simply a union of two consenting adults, there's no need to prohibit any two person, consenting adult, union, including blood relatives. Why should it matter who marries who, or who can't marry who?
A biological foundation to marriage? HUH? It's a legal contract.... there's nothing biological about it.

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.

Oroville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 14 hr Macko mono 5,000
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 23 hr Tank ever 7,926
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Aug 26 matches lighters 15,961
Anyone see Marvin Markle lose his sh*t yesterday? (Feb '12) Aug 24 jram1970 88
Recent reports of bodies found/murders in Orovi... Aug 19 Justsaying 1
Review: VALLEY HOME CENTERS Aug 16 Scott Alexander 1
Review: Oroville Tacos Aug 9 Steve M 1
•••
•••
Oroville Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Oroville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Oroville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Oroville News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••