Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#217705 Sep 22, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said I hated women, moron...just more bigoted twirl from you..
You denigrate others who practice plural marriage, or introduce it into the discussion of "marriage equality", as "greedy and sexist", while elevating SSM to the level of a secular sacred cow. Hypocritical.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#217706 Sep 22, 2013
douchebaggery wrote:
<quoted text>
How does it not equate to marriage? Perhaps you are using an outdated definition of the word marriage; the ability of procreation is not a criteria to be considered married.
True, but it is the reason by which marriage is recognized in the first place. If human reproduction wasn't sexual, would there be a need for marriage?
Same sex marriages were tolerated in a lot of civilizations and cultures. Biblical attitudes condemn it, but not all people in this world follow Western ideology.
True, there are scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions. Virtually non existent in Western civilization until its invention in the late 20th century.
Mikey

Glendale, CA

#217707 Sep 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You denigrate others who practice plural marriage, or introduce it into the discussion of "marriage equality", as "greedy and sexist", while elevating SSM to the level of a secular sacred cow. Hypocritical.
Not Hypocritical...3 does not equal 2! To label polygamy as 'marriage equality' is an oxymoron. I can't think of anything more UN-equal. You want polygamy? then fight for it on your own or go to the middle east (Please), don't try and tag it along with gay marriage, they are not even remotely the same. POS
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#217708 Sep 22, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Not Hypocritical...3 does not equal 2! To label polygamy as 'marriage equality' is an oxymoron. I can't think of anything more UN-equal. You want polygamy? then fight for it on your own or go to the middle east (Please), don't try and tag it along with gay marriage, they are not even remotely the same. POS
Spoken like a true person of tolerance and diversity! Gimme mine screw yours.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#217709 Sep 22, 2013
Of all the moronic arguments against marriage equality, the arithmetic one is probably the dumbest.

You can't get married because two does not equal three. Priceless.
Stolen lands

Azusa, CA

#217710 Sep 22, 2013
The way I heard it, them Moron's shot killed and raped the rightful owner's in the first place, so kick their worthless as s off land they stole in the first place,

The face-off is the second time Bundy has challenged federal officials. In 1998, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against the white-haired rancher, ordering his cattle off the land.

Representing himself, Bundy lost his appeal to San Francisco's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A simple man in a plaid shirt and denims, he's handled his legal battle from his Nevada ranch house, arguing in mailed-off court filings that his Mormon ancestors worked the land long before the BLM was even formed, giving him rights that predate federal involvement.
Mikey

Glendale, CA

#217711 Sep 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like a true person of tolerance and diversity! Gimme mine screw yours.
Aren't those your general comments on here? And why should you be allowed polygamy? You didn't fight for it, you've made NO persuasive arguments for it and yet you stomp your little feet and say 'they get theirs what can't I have mine too'? Trying to ride on the backs of people who when out, worked hard and made a difference. Your a sick greedy baby who's also an a$$hole.
Mikey

Glendale, CA

#217712 Sep 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Of all the moronic arguments against marriage equality, the arithmetic one is probably the dumbest.
You can't get married because two does not equal three. Priceless.
Maybe, but it is the most logical, 3 doesn't equal 2 AND it ISN'T 'marriage equality'. There's NOTHING equal about it.
BuzzWalled

Azusa, CA

#217713 Sep 22, 2013
Buzz-walled hasn't figured it out yet.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217714 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not subjective at all.
The whole purpose of mating behavior is reproduction. A drive that is at least equated to our desire for air or water.
A duplicate gendered couple is absolutely incapable of fulfilling mating behavior. Pointless.
Here is a question for you;
Why does a butch lesbian dress and act like a man to attract another lesbian?
I agree that the purpose of mating behavior is reproduction. You are over simplifying the concept of marriage. There are other economic and societal factors involved which cannot be explained by your over-simplification. We do not live in primitive times anymore where survival instincts dominate our way of living.

Animals also exhibit homosexual behavior for survival reasons: to limit overgrowth in population. This behavior increases the longevity of the herd as more resources will not be required for the herd. Some birds have 2 male and 1 female to raise their offspring as this ensures their survival. Again, these acts serve a purpose. It may not be to reproduce, but, evolutionarily, to ensure the survival of their offspring. Not pointless.

Why a butch lesbian looks like a man...I never really thought about it. Why?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#217715 Sep 22, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't those your general comments on here? And why should you be allowed polygamy? You didn't fight for it, you've made NO persuasive arguments for it and yet you stomp your little feet and say 'they get theirs what can't I have mine too'? Trying to ride on the backs of people who when out, worked hard and made a difference. Your a sick greedy baby who's also an a$$hole.
Speaking of greed, most polygamists support same sex marriage. And most homosexuals do not support polygamy. So much for solidarity. Gimme mine, screw yours.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217716 Sep 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True, but it is the reason by which marriage is recognized in the first place. If human reproduction wasn't sexual, would there be a need for marriage?
<quoted text>
True, there are scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions. Virtually non existent in Western civilization until its invention in the late 20th century.
Let me use similar logic to ask you a question: if human reproduction is purely sexual, why do we need marriage? It is not a necessary aspect for reproduction; sex alone can reproduce. We have marriage because society is complex. Marriage has legal, financial, and other benefits, not just reproduction.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#217717 Sep 22, 2013
Mikey is all gimme gimme. Gimme gay marriage. Gimme Obama plan. Gimme HIV cure. Gimme Obama care. Gimme free stuff. Gimme Gimme!
Flounders

Azusa, CA

#217718 Sep 22, 2013
And the flounders come marching in.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217720 Sep 22, 2013
Flounders wrote:
And the flounders come marching in.
Fish out of water. You're it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#217721 Sep 22, 2013
douchebaggery wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the purpose of mating behavior is reproduction. You are over simplifying the concept of marriage. There are other economic and societal factors involved which cannot be explained by your over-simplification. We do not live in primitive times anymore where survival instincts dominate our way of living.
Animals also exhibit homosexual behavior for survival reasons: to limit overgrowth in population. This behavior increases the longevity of the herd as more resources will not be required for the herd. Some birds have 2 male and 1 female to raise their offspring as this ensures their survival. Again, these acts serve a purpose. It may not be to reproduce, but, evolutionarily, to ensure the survival of their offspring. Not pointless.
Why a butch lesbian looks like a man...I never really thought about it. Why?
Not oversimplifying at all. Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist were it not for children. Other factors have been attached, of course, but they are not nearly sufficient to maintain the monogamy marriage entails. In fact, even when those factors exist, they usually are in a polygamous setting of rare wealthy or political situations.

Animals exhibit Same Sex Sexual Behavior (SSSB), for a variety of reasons. Rarely is it a true homosexual situation. I know of no cases where it is used to regulate the population of a species. Can you give an example? And it certainly does not increase the population. Additionally, the young in species are at a much greater risk when the male is unrelated. Among humans, it is know as the Cinderella affect, step children are 100 more times at risk.

A almost male lesbian is mating with a nearly wants a man lesbian. It exposes a spectrum of broken mating behavior. A transgendered person recognizes that the wrong body was placed on the sexual identity because the defect is so severe. GLB's are just lessor examples of that.

You seem to know enough to be dangerous. I'd suggest you do some research apart from gay sites...

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217722 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not oversimplifying at all. Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist were it not for children. Other factors have been attached, of course, but they are not nearly sufficient to maintain the monogamy marriage entails. In fact, even when those factors exist, they usually are in a polygamous setting of rare wealthy or political situations.
Animals exhibit Same Sex Sexual Behavior (SSSB), for a variety of reasons. Rarely is it a true homosexual situation. I know of no cases where it is used to regulate the population of a species. Can you give an example? And it certainly does not increase the population. Additionally, the young in species are at a much greater risk when the male is unrelated. Among humans, it is know as the Cinderella affect, step children are 100 more times at risk.
A almost male lesbian is mating with a nearly wants a man lesbian. It exposes a spectrum of broken mating behavior. A transgendered person recognizes that the wrong body was placed on the sexual identity because the defect is so severe. GLB's are just lessor examples of that.
You seem to know enough to be dangerous. I'd suggest you do some research apart from gay sites...
I am not denying why marriage exists. Things have changed since primitive times; marriage is much more complicated than that now. Please revisit my earlier posts as I went over this with another.

Male dolphins share most of their lives with males. They meet with female dolphins to mate, but continue their lives with their male companion. That resembles a "true" homosexual relation doesn't it?

As for your request for an example, I cannot remember what type of deer or similar animal it is, but the females engage in homosexual behavior. The reason behind it may not have an axiom as of yet. I thought I could slip in that logical fallacy without detection. I was asserting my interpretation of their behavior.

I looked up Cinderella Effect and do not understand your link to this argument. It appears this is regarding abuse. Please elaborate.

I think you make a good point about the sexual identity in the wrong body. Although I don't completely agree with your views, I feel it is worthwhile to mention the aforementioned point. Up until recently, homosexuality was under the misnomer of psychological disorder.

"You seem to know enough to be dangerous. I'd suggest you do some research apart from gay sites"
I engage in debates, because I like to discuss and test beliefs and logic. I do not feel strongly about gay marriages either way. I thought my conversation would be the most interesting with you, but ad hominem attacks aren't going to achieve anything. Let's keep it on topic. I am enjoying our discussion this far.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#217723 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
My wife's not barren. In fact, we are going to try for a child today. I'm looking forward to it.
If you are referring to her age, that has never been a failure of mating behavior. Nor has a medical condition.
But more importantly, and this is clearly a shock to you, so sit down on your hemorrhoid pillow, these conditions have ALWAYS been accepted in marriage!!!
However, a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half has never been considered marriage in a single culture from start to finish. They simply don't come close to equating to marriage.
I hope you are okay with this shock. Call me if you want to talk.
Smile.
I've seen photos of you and your wife. I can pretty much guess her age. She is far past the age of safely having children--IF she's even capable of having a child. My guess is that she's postmenopausal.

See, women are born with a finite ability to produce eggs. After being fertile for about 40 years, egg production begins to deteriorate and become irregular. Eventually it ceases altogether.

Your wife is barren because she is now infertile. The only way that she could become pregnant is if she were to have in vitro fertilization. And I KNOW you wouldn't want to go through that process, since it is "unnatural". And no society has ever supported in vitro fertilization from start to finish.

You cannot engage in MATING behavior because your actions would be futile. And MATING is defined as having intercourse for the sole purpose of having children.

She cannot get pregnant. All you would be doing is having sexual intercourse.

Your marriage is a "mutually sterile, pointlessly opposite gendered half of marriage".

I don't know why this is so hard for you to accept.

You should dump her and move on to a fertile woman--begin a new family.

That's what "marriage" is to you isn't it? Haven't you repeatedly insisted that it is a "cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior"? Haven't you clearly explained to us time and again that the purpose of marriage is to tie a man to a woman for the purposes of raising and providing for a family?

You've raised your children. You have no more responsibilities to provide for your children. Move on and get a new wife post haste!

I have to admit, I do enjoy using your definitions against you. It gives me great pleasure to make a fool of you--not that you haven't done an AMAZING job of that yourself.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#217724 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No, ss couples made extremely rare and short-lived appearances in history. Ss couples being called married never established itself and spread in a single culture in all of human history.
On the other hand, marriage has been present in every single culture in human history. What a profound difference! This was true across all cultures and religions.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
You and your wife are a defective failure of mating behavior.

You cannot mate with her. She is incapable of having children. And if she did, the likelihood of the child having genetic deformations is very great. Furthermore, it would place her own health at great risk.

I can't think of any society or culture that has supported the idea from beginning to end of women having children beyond a certain age.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217725 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not oversimplifying at all. Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist were it not for children. Other factors have been attached, of course, but they are not nearly sufficient to maintain the monogamy marriage entails. In fact, even when those factors exist, they usually are in a polygamous setting of rare wealthy or political situations.
Animals exhibit Same Sex Sexual Behavior (SSSB), for a variety of reasons. Rarely is it a true homosexual situation. I know of no cases where it is used to regulate the population of a species. Can you give an example? And it certainly does not increase the population. Additionally, the young in species are at a much greater risk when the male is unrelated. Among humans, it is know as the Cinderella affect, step children are 100 more times at risk.
A almost male lesbian is mating with a nearly wants a man lesbian. It exposes a spectrum of broken mating behavior. A transgendered person recognizes that the wrong body was placed on the sexual identity because the defect is so severe. GLB's are just lessor examples of that.
You seem to know enough to be dangerous. I'd suggest you do some research apart from gay sites...
If I may digress for a second and explain to you my true opinion on homosexuals, I do not like them. Gay men do make me feel uncomfortable, but I do not use my personal feelings to limit their freedoms. If they want to marry, it does not affect my life in a significant way. What they do is their personal affair and I will not tell them otherwise, simply because I do not care enough what they do. Likewise, I won't tell a straight couple what to do as I don't care either.

Now that racism has become so taboo, people discriminate people on their sexual orientation and sex. Seems like society always has to have an inferior class like equality is unfathomable.

Now, I am being transparent, let's make this discussion more interesting. My question is--so what if they cannot reproduce, why not let them marry?

Many conservative minded people will fear that this affects the historical/holy nature of marriage. Then, why not let be "domestic partners" which will give them benefits of marriage without affecting the above?

Why does the prospect of homosexual unions irk people so much?

Why are the affairs of homosexuals so important to many despite the lack of direct effect on other people's live?

Looking forward to your response.

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
Anyone see Marvin Markle lose his sh*t yesterday? (Feb '12) Mon Barbara 100
marvin and beverly mcquarrie (Feb '14) May 22 Glenn Schoeneck 3
News SmartMeters being installed by PG&E in Butte Co... (May '10) May 21 Sigmund Freud 36
News Grand jury probed two Ridge officers (Mar '08) Apr 29 Concerned citizen 508
Review: Dennis Lucas Plumbing Repair (Oct '11) Apr 29 PB4YOU 2
News Rape suspect arrested by Oroville police (Jun '10) Apr '15 keepalowprofile 12
Review: Oroville Tacos (Aug '14) Mar '15 tamikajohnson1959 5
More from around the web

Oroville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]