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 (Page 8,579)

Showing posts 171,561 - 171,580 of200,202
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Town Crier

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196935
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

“Homosexuals = Blight on Society”

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196936
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't expect this conversation to go on too much longer with you because you are a closed minded individual when it comes down to facts and reasoning.
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.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't believe that your tax dollars pays for teachers in the public school system well then I guess this conversation is over.
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.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Your cult is in its plans and agenda to force gay education it is a fact and you know it so don't ask me to prove it.
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...
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Consider this topic refuted.
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.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is penguin boy?
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.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
u dumb ass homo!!
Um, I'm not the one making claims I can't support. That would be you dumb ass Penguin Boy.
laughing man

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196939
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

get outta my neighborhood wrote:
“Homosexuals = Blight on Society”
“Non registered users = cowards”

Well, Little Precious changed its incendiary slogan, and for no logical and rational reason. God, those people are so damned stupid. How can they even find their way to the shitchute?

*snicker*
Bruno

Wilmington, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196940
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

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

Wilmington, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196941
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196943
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t 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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196944
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196945
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196946
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196947
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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 isn’t true for everyone. And it isn’t 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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196948
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196949
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196950
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196951
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196952
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196956
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196966
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196974
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

This is were stupid stuff lands or falls into.

“STOP THE SPREAD OF LIES”

Since: Jun 13

JEWS ARE GOD'S CHOSEN ONES

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196975
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196977
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 171,561 - 171,580 of200,202
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Oroville Discussions

Search the Oroville Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 2 hr Helpful Hank 4,838
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 2 hr Bruno24 15,910
6,300 sign petition of support for Mendocino Co... Jul 5 Here Is One 1
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Jul 2 skeets give more 7,806
City appoints new fire chief (Aug '09) Jun 24 Larry Lawrence 32
Marysville Mobile Home Parks Worried About Pote... Jun 18 Ernestina Gama spc 28 1
Normal St. Bar slaying verdict reached (Sep '08) Jun 15 peace off 13
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••