Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201851 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.

Bruno

Westminster, CA

#196940 Jun 20, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, in our "conversation" I'm the ONLY one supplying facts and reasoning. You are supplying ridiculous talking points that don't support your argument.
<quoted text>
Who said I don't believe that my tax dollars pay (note the grammatical correction) for teachers? I sure didn't. You really should look into lessons on comprehension.
What I stated was that your taxes are EXACTLY THE SAME regardless of what curriculums are in place. In other words Penguin Boy, your taxes are EXACTLY THE SAME whether history of the gay rights movement is included or not included. Thus you are UNAFFECTED in any way. You have failed to demonstrate how you are "affected" if gays marry, which was your original claim. The fact that you are too dense to comprehend this isn't my problem.
<quoted text>
Homosexuality can't be taught you moron, so there is never going to be "gay education". Education doesn't have a sexual orientation you utter moron. But gays will be included in historical context when it comes to education in the tax payer funded school system. Their my taxes too Penguin Boy. Not a damn thing you can do about it, other than bitch.
As for your so called "gay agenda", here's a copy. You might consider reading it.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con...
<quoted text>
Hardly. The topic was how you are affected by gays getting married. You've not established one way you are personally affected. Your taxes aren't changed in anyway. But if you wish to quit the topic defeated by your own stupidity, have at it Penguin Boy.
<quoted text>
You are Brunhilda. It goes back to that time where you tried to argue that penguins are capable of flight. Basically demonstrating your utter stupidity yet again.
<quoted text>
Um, I'm not the one making claims I can't support. That would be you dumb ass Penguin Boy.
Let me guess : you are the Bitch in the relationship right????
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#196941 Jun 20, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Brunhilda, no one takes you seriously hon. Not since you made the comment that penguins were able to get to Noah's ark by flying to the middle east.
Anyone with an education over 1st grade is well aware of how ridiculously stupid you are. What makes it fun is watching you repeatedly demonstrating how proud you are of your stupidity.
JoAnah, I dont know what you are bablying about and I'm not your hon got it? save it for your freaky husband/dyke.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196943 Jun 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I donít happen to be gay, none of my children happen to be gay, that does not stop me or them from supporting our fellow Americans who do happen to be gay, in their fight for freedom against tynary.
Yeah, that could never be the case for anyone, could it.

Just pointing out another distinction between ss couples and marriage.

I'm supporting marriage and family from the tyranny of a imposter relationship imposing themselves on society.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196944 Jun 20, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My goodness. I'm not sure which is worse, your nosiness (which your bible refers to as "busybody"), or your desire to intentionally agitate (what your little bible refers to as "sowing discord"). Seems odd you would continue to exhibit behavior your sky Santa has stated he hates.
Typical Christian hypocrite fundamentalist.
Carry on plebe.
Speaking the truth is 'sowing discord', and it hurts your feelings?

But the classic is, confronting denial on a debate site is 'nosiness'.

I don't want to hurt your feelings, but you really are an idiot troll.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196945 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have freedom already.
However, ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile,
pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? Is there a point to your statement? Have there been people denied the opportunity to marry because they are mutually sterile? Please provide some examples.
Waiting....
Waiting....
waiting....
I was referring specifically to your partner and you. You say you are married, but it's clearly not the same, is it?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196946 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, take it apart, and show us where you are confused.
At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
<quoted text>
Not sure anyone can help you VV, if that is what you have racked your brain over... Especially considering you are a 'professional' social worker.
Here is a brief but thorough explanation;
http://voices.yahoo.com/
analyzing-human-mating-behavio r-1020545.html
This paragraph on long term mating (marriage) explains the
strategy;
"The nature of human reproduction is such that paternal parental investment is not essential to offspring survival. Consequently, short term mating strategies are more favorable to males; Buss and Schmitt (1993) assert that by inseminating as many females as possible while providing as little parental investment as possible, males increase the odds of forwarding their genes. In contrast, the large amount of parental investment required by females makes long term mating strategies much more favorable for them. By attaining the commitment of their male counterparts, females can capitalize on the consequent non-genetic resources provided by the male (food, protection)."
But in all honesty VV, you understand exactly what I said. You play dumb because you have no counter for it.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So marriage IS a constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
In other words, it's not natural.
The survival of the species, it would seem, would be more likely if there were no marriage contract to tie these men to one woman. The man--especially the successful, most powerful man, would be able to spread his genetic traits to more women; leading to greater numbers of smarter, faster, stronger, genetically superior offspring.
Your notion that pairing a man with a woman for life in order to make sure that she is capable of being cared for--that their offspring will be better cared for--assumes that women can't provide for their own offspring sufficiently.
In the animal kingdom, there are many species in which the female raises her offspring to maturity on her own.
Using your own definition of marriage, maybe mankind needs to establish a situation where men are able to impregnate as many women and offspring as he can support. Once the offspring have been raised to maturity, the husband should divorce his wife and start anew.
But that's neither here nor there. The bottom line is that you have found a single article written by a "Yahoo contributor" on which you base your definition of marriage.
Oh, and by the way, the author of the article that you steal from (you steal from her by not identifying her as the source for your findings), also wrote an interesting piece about how she supports that LGBT movement.
Emmy Diers says, "The fact that issues such as abortion and gay marriage are even open for discussion is a testament to the fact that progress is still being made. These discussions were not openly taking place even thirty years ago. Eventually it will happen; until then we must continue to advocate and to educate the public. We must also continue to be optimistic and above all else, we must remain patient."
So all this playing dumb, now you understand AND AGREE!

Then you pontificate on the 'glories' of ignoring marriage.

And conclude with the personal opinion of an author that ABORTION AND SS COUPLES ARE PROGRESS? A defective failure of mating behavior being equated to mating behavior?

Here is the bottom line;

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Clearly distinct.

Here is an interesting site I came across;

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardi...
paper-82-evolution-marriage

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196947 Jun 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I know elderly couples unable to even have sex that have recently married.
Let me guess... Elderly man and woman stand before a marriage officiating agent of the state. Each is asked if s/he takes the other to be his/her respective wife/husband. They each say yes. The agent then prounces them "husband and wife".
Sex may be all that marriage is about to you, but that isnít true for everyone. And it isnít your place to define it for everyone else.
Hmmmmmm.....Big D...in a way it is.... It's of, for, and about, the sexes..... What they do...have sex....and what that sex produces....little Dees.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196948 Jun 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me guess... Elderly man and woman stand before a marriage officiating agent of the state. Each is asked if s/he takes the other to be his/her respective wife/husband. They each say yes. The agent then prounces them "husband and wife".
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm.....Big D...in a way it is.... It's of, for, and about, the sexes..... What they do...have sex....and what that sex produces....little Dees.
The fact that they play games with this only exposes the weakness of their position.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196949 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, take it apart, and show us where you are confused.
At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
<quoted text>
Not sure anyone can help you VV, if that is what you have racked your brain over... Especially considering you are a 'professional' social worker.
Here is a brief but thorough explanation;
http://voices.yahoo.com/
analyzing-human-mating-behavio r-1020545.html
This paragraph on long term mating (marriage) explains the
strategy;
"The nature of human reproduction is such that paternal parental investment is not essential to offspring survival. Consequently, short term mating strategies are more favorable to males; Buss and Schmitt (1993) assert that by inseminating as many females as possible while providing as little parental investment as possible, males increase the odds of forwarding their genes. In contrast, the large amount of parental investment required by females makes long term mating strategies much more favorable for them. By attaining the commitment of their male counterparts, females can capitalize on the consequent non-genetic resources provided by the male (food, protection)."
But in all honesty VV, you understand exactly what I said. You play dumb because you have no counter for it.
<quoted text>
So all this playing dumb, now you understand AND AGREE!
Then you pontificate on the 'glories' of ignoring marriage.
And conclude with the personal opinion of an author that ABORTION AND SS COUPLES ARE PROGRESS? A defective failure of mating behavior being equated to mating behavior?
Here is the bottom line;
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Clearly distinct.
Here is an interesting site I came across;
http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardi...
paper-82-evolution-marriage
Marriage obviously isn't a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior--at least not to those women who choose to not have children, nor those women who cannot have children.

To those people, marriage is (according to your definition) isn't necessary.

Why should the husband of a infertile woman be "constrained" by the laws of marriage if there aren't going to be any offspring who require his ability to provide for them? Same with a woman who chooses not to have children.

In the traditional wedding vows there is no mention of a husband's obligation to his family or his children. There's no mention of it in the application for a marriage license.

That FACT, in and of itself, obliterates your definition.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196950 Jun 20, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage obviously isn't a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior--at least not to those women who choose to not have children, nor those women who cannot have children.
To those people, marriage is (according to your definition) isn't necessary.
Why should the husband of a infertile woman be "constrained" by the laws of marriage if there aren't going to be any offspring who require his ability to provide for them? Same with a woman who chooses not to have children.
In the traditional wedding vows there is no mention of a husband's obligation to his family or his children. There's no mention of it in the application for a marriage license.
That FACT, in and of itself, obliterates your definition.
Rare exceptions don't invalidate the vast majority.

Marriage does in fact legally establish responsibilities for parents.

Are you asserting that religion doesn't expect parental responsibility???

The fact remains that the primary purpose of marriage is to promote and support family.

My 'definition' is simply a concise scientific statement as the article explains and you admitted.

The only thing obliterated is your character.
Munchers

Monrovia, CA

#196951 Jun 20, 2013
Gay Cure Organization Shuts Down for good and Apologizes.

Must have been a front run by a bunch of Republican's and or tea party baggers?

President admits own same-sex attractions and says, we've hurt people, we meaning his female wife?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196952 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Rare exceptions don't invalidate the vast majority.
Marriage does in fact legally establish responsibilities for parents.
Are you asserting that religion doesn't expect parental responsibility???
The fact remains that the primary purpose of marriage is to promote and support family.
My 'definition' is simply a concise scientific statement as the article explains and you admitted.
The only thing obliterated is your character.
You don't get it. I don't agree that men must be roped into marriage in order to make them take care of their children. Can you show me in scripture where this discussed?

Like everything else you've written here, your definition is based on a THEORY. It hasn't been proven.

I LOVE that you base your definition of marriage on an opinion piece written by a "Yahoo contributor" who doesn't have expertise in marriage and family, anthropology, psychology, or any other science.

Way to dig for the truth.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196956 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Rare exceptions don't invalidate the vast majority.
Marriage does in fact legally establish responsibilities for parents.
Are you asserting that religion doesn't expect parental responsibility???
The fact remains that the primary purpose of marriage is to promote and support family.
My 'definition' is simply a concise scientific statement as the article explains and you admitted.
The only thing obliterated is your character.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get it. I don't agree that men must be roped into marriage in order to make them take care of their children. Can you show me in scripture where this discussed?
Like everything else you've written here, your definition is based on a THEORY. It hasn't been proven.
I LOVE that you base your definition of marriage on an opinion piece written by a "Yahoo contributor" who doesn't have expertise in marriage and family, anthropology, psychology, or any other science.
Way to dig for the truth.
Another shift to avoid facing the facts.

It was hardly an 'opinion piece'. Every position was referenced by exactly the qualifications you stated. I simply used her article as a concise explanation. You are welcome to check her references for validation.

However, notice how far we've gone from your claim that the essence of marriage was nonsensical?

Smile.
laughing man

UK

#196966 Jun 20, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have seen the meltdown I elicited a couple of weeks ago, from VV, mate, it was hilarious. I'll bet if VV could have reached through the screen, I would have received such a pinch.
She seems almost violent today. Estrogen crazed, even. You should play nice.:)
StpidStuff

Monrovia, CA

#196974 Jun 20, 2013
This is were stupid stuff lands or falls into.

“STOP THE SPREAD OF LIES”

Since: Jun 13

JEWS ARE GOD'S CHOSEN ONES

#196975 Jun 20, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Today has been something else. It's like the Stupid Bus just rolled in.
GLAAD must have promised them some free AIDS tests?
How would that work?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196977 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Rare exceptions don't invalidate the vast majority.
Marriage does in fact legally establish responsibilities for parents.
Are you asserting that religion doesn't expect parental responsibility???
The fact remains that the primary purpose of marriage is to promote and support family.
My 'definition' is simply a concise scientific statement as the article explains and you admitted.
The only thing obliterated is your character.
<quoted text>
Another shift to avoid facing the facts.
It was hardly an 'opinion piece'. Every position was referenced by exactly the qualifications you stated. I simply used her article as a concise explanation. You are welcome to check her references for validation.
However, notice how far we've gone from your claim that the essence of marriage was nonsensical?
Smile.
She pieced together information taken from articles to come up with an opinion piece. It's the same as every high school student who has been assigned to write a term paper. Their work isn't "science". It's an argument (at best).

And once again, I am completely puzzled as to what the last paragraph you wrote means. "...notice how far we've gone from your claim that the essence of marriage was nonsensical."

What does that mean? Did I claim that marriage is nonsensical? Why am I here day after day arguing in favor of same-sex marriage if I think it's nonsensical?

YOU'RE the one who believes that the basic essence of marriage is to ensnare a man by a defenseless woman so that she can have a better chance to have her offspring cared for.

In your definition, men are a bunch of irresponsible, horny, jerks who MUST be tied to a woman via a legal contract so that he doesn't run off and impregnate half the state; leaving his families to fend for themselves.

Is that how you see your marriage?

To me, marriage is about love and commitment--monogamy--promisin g to be with one another for life regardless of what is thrown your way. It's about mutual respect. It's about attraction--physical and emotional.

That's my own personal definition of marriage.

But I'm realistic enough to understand that people get married for a variety of reasons.

You go right ahead and cling to your definition of marriage. My condolences to your wife...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196979 Jun 20, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds a lot like "premeditation" to a crime, to me...
Yawn...(flips through the latest issue of "Vogue")

“STOP THE SPREAD OF LIES”

Since: Jun 13

JEWS ARE GOD'S CHOSEN ONES

#196980 Jun 20, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Then, MORON, we mustn't change the laws for anyone! D-uhh..You should try eating some brain food...
Zoro, would need to eat brain food to acquire a brain.

“STOP THE SPREAD OF LIES”

Since: Jun 13

JEWS ARE GOD'S CHOSEN ONES

#196982 Jun 20, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Where did I judge you? Did I judge you when I told you that it wasn't your place to be a judge of others?
Yup, that would be you judging him as judging.

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.

Oroville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News News of our Past: Lake Brown was possible name ... 51 min GRANDPA NICOLAI 6
News Mosquito fogging planned Tuesday night on south... Mon Here Is One 1
Media lies Jul 24 Usa 5
News City wants Oroville Inn in receivership (Dec '10) Jul 21 Girlabouttown 14
News Oroville man pleads guilty to molesting girl (Apr '10) Jul 13 kjk822 8
News Egbert convicted of second-degree murder (Oct '08) Jul 13 Tammi 6
Anyone know abbi mendoza, 40 years old Jul 4 Melissa95988 3
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Oroville Mortgages