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 7,500)

Showing posts 149,981 - 150,000 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171508
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Trust me, it will come up often...
This article validates everything I have been saying and you have been scoffing. Perhaps that is evidence you need a letter???
http://theconversation.edu.au/new-ideas-about...
New Ideas About the Evolution of Homosexuality
If it was an actual link to an article or website it should be up all the time dumbass. Websites aren't like Ernie's Grocery Store in backwoods Mississippi where they're open 9-5 on Mondays through Friday and 10 to 4 on weekends.

Good God you dumbass....who are you trying to bullshit? LOL!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171509
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly me, I thought it was a reference to a drink in a bar...oops, silly me :D
That Red X sounds like a good one I'll have a few of those.

Yeah I don't pay much attention to those silly judge-its either except I like to see lots of negative ones which I always get. When they use the fire one it means you hit the sweet spot!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171510
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
You have got to be kidding me.
'R. Hudson's' sad effort at an analogy of little kiddies downing a chocolate chip cookie before supper probably constitutes an example of his "empirical evidence" against gay marriage.

LOL!!!!
Clooed

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171511
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

It wit be what it will be.

Until them put a lid on it, yapper.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171512
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
'R. Hudson's' sad effort at an analogy of little kiddies downing a chocolate chip cookie before supper probably constitutes an example of his "empirical evidence" against gay marriage.
LOL!!!!
I wouldn't try and suck up to Mona he's a real grouch! Might bite you.

And besides he's opposed to marriage equality.

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Clooed

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171513
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

When all the jerks come out,but they are from different parts of the state AND OR WORLD.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171515
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was an actual link...
12 December 2012, 10.21am AEST
New ideas about the evolution of homosexuality

When I give talks about the relevance of evolution to modern life, I can count on one regular question interrupting an orderly transition from lecture theatre to bar. Sometimes it comes with a “bet-you-didn’t-think-of-that- one” sneer. Far more often it is asked earnestly and with palpable empathy. The Question?

How do you explain homosexuality?

The very real fact that a large proportion of people across the world are sexually attracted to members of the same biological sex provides a giant obstacle to a Darwinian view of life.

And I am always happy to field this question because it allows me to explore, with the audience, some of the layered complexity of evolution. But a simple, definitive answer remains, for now, beyond reach. That may start to change, however, with a paper published today in The Quarterly Review of Biology.
Born this way

Evolutionary biology can be a bit of a blunt instrument. Especially when it seeks to explain big, categorical differences – like sex differences. Focusing at a broad scale means a lot of nuance and individuality gets ignored or trampled. Which is why so many authors – quite unfairly – write off all biology as determinism.

Fortunately, biological ideas about homosexuality tend to be more welcome than biological ideas about, say, gender. That may be because so many gay people strongly feel they were “born this way”. And because ideas about homosexuality being a choice or a curable condition proliferate in all but the most enlightened places.

But being “born this way” isn’t necessarily the same thing as the traits involved being genetically determined. Genetic claims require genetic evidence. In support of a genetic basis, sexual orientation has a moderate to high heritability. Heritability being the statistic that describes how much of the variation in a trait is due to genetic differences among individuals.

But despite the statistical vapour-trail indicating a substantial genetic basis, the search for major genes involved in homosexuality has been far less fruitful. And then there remains the problem so beloved of seminar questioners. How could any such genes have persisted through millenia of selection if they lead to sexual preferences that do not produce offspring?

The idea that “gay people don’t have children” is simplistic and, historically, wrong. Being gay does not necessarily mean not having a family, and throughout history many – perhaps most – homosexuals spent time in heterosexual unions, having children. And yet even if a small proportion did not, this could have exerted strong evolutionary selection against any genes involved.

But perhaps those genes provided some other kind of evolutionary advantage that outweighed the direct cost of having fewer kids. Here, theories lie thick upon the ground. First, there is the idea that homosexual relatives provide exceptional help to their heterosexual relatives who are raising families. Any genes that raise the chances of homosexuality, then, are passed on through relatives. And the extra help means more nieces and nephews carrying those genes.

The second group of ideas hinges on the idea is that genes that make reproductively successful females can impose costs when they find themselves expressed in males. And the opposite can happen for genes that enhance male fitness. Some support for this idea exists as well, including evidence that families in which females tend to be highly fertile also have a higher proportion of gay men than one might expect by chance.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171516
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

And Brendan Zietsch has written here about his own work showing that psychologically feminine men and psychologically masculine women who are heterosexual also tend to be more sexually attractive. He argues that genes that raise the chances of an individual being same-sex attracted also massively raise the mating success of heterosexual bearers being reproductively successful.

Each of these ideas has some empirical support, but not such strong support that the case can be closed. It remains likely that there is no single explanation and that several biological influences together shape sexual orientation.
The new idea

But today’s big story is an entirely new idea that hinges not on traditional genetics but instead on epigenetics. The fact that gene expression is modified by molecules that attach to particular genes, but can later be removed, is revolutionising almost every biological field, including evolution.

Genetics defies metaphors, but I’ll try to mangle one for folks who prefer J.K. Rowling over modern molecular genetics. If we think of a person’s DNA as a recipe book – say Advanced Potion Making by Libatius Borage – then the epigenetic marks (or epi-marks) are the annotations and corrections made in pencil by the owner. Epi-marks have many functions, many of them tailoring the DNA instructions to suit the circumstances in which an individual finds him- or herself.

Most epi-marks get erased before the recipe is copied and handed down to an individual’s offspring. But that isn’t always the case. Sometimes there are good adaptive reasons why offspring inherit epi-marks from a parent. And sometimes, like Harry Potter inheriting the Half-Blood Prince’s potions book, they receive annotated instructions that were not intended for them.

Bill Rice, Urban Friberg and Sergey Gavrilets recognised that epi-marks are an essential component of sex differentiation. Males and females share an entire genome and so development is fraught with instructions intended for embryos of one sex but not the other. One class of epi-marks protects female foetuses from the masculinizing effects of fetal testosterone. Another protects male foetuses from being feminized when oestrogen signals would otherwise trigger female development.

Different genes are involved in the development of genitals, reproductive organs, body shape, sexual orientation and every other trait where genes shape sexual differentiation. And so epi-marks to these different genes will have different influences on those traits.

Mostly, these kinds of epi-marks should not be passed from parent to offspring. But occasionally some are. And when the epi-marks on genes that effect sexual orientation get passed from father to daughter then some traits that would normally develop in female-specific ways end up more masculinized. Likewise mother-son transmission of epi-marks can result in the feminization of some traits that would normally develop in a more masculinized fashion.

I should stresss that the new paper is a mathematical model showing that this scenario can work. The authors marshal plenty of circumstantial evidence that it probably does work. But the idea needs to be directly tested.

Apart from the fact that this is one of those rare ideas that completely changes how we look at the evidence, I am most exited by the way this idea reframes how we look at sexual development. I suspect that this idea will, in time, also shake up the science of sex-differences and our understanding of how gender arises.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171517
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting read, didn't link and had to search for it...IF it is determined by 'epi-marks' that still makes 'born this way' valid. Unfortunately some will try to 'change' the fetus in the womb or abort altogether with information..sad, wrong and a very slippery slope. I don't understand how a person with your given condition, just even reading this information, could be so callus and bigoted. If you're as intelligent as you say you are, I would have thought you would show more sympathy and understanding.....Oh well.

Kimare'a wrote;
-I have never disputed the 'born this way' issue. However, as I have been trying to warn homosexuals, it will settle on a genetic defect. These were epi-marks that were mistakenly left on.

-I also warned that the result will be selective breeding. You are absolutely right it is a slippery slope, hence my aghast at deliberately birthing a child without a parent/gender. I also noted that the only people not choosing to define their child will probably be Christians.

-You and the article strike at the core of my position. The author of the article cynically noted questions about evolution and homosexuality.

What he and you fail to understand is that people resent being forced to accept things they sense are not accurate or true. The author goes on to say homosexuality IS a violation of evolution and indirectly noting the cause is a defect, "Most epi-marks get erased before the recipe is copied and handed down to an individual’s offspring. But that isn’t always the case. Sometimes there are good adaptive reasons why offspring inherit epi-marks from a parent. And sometimes, like Harry Potter inheriting the Half-Blood Prince’s potions book, they receive annotated instructions that were not intended for them."

The time is quickly coming when that truth will have to be undeniably faced. You denigrate me because I simply warn you about a coming backlash.

This article discretely confirms EVERYTHING I have been saying bluntly. So discretely, that I was notified of the article by a gay on this site! Even you still do not understand the full implications.

Because I am a monster mutation, I was 'forced' to face my denial. I am now a 'grateful mutant' in a 12 step metaphor. I found it radically changed responses by 'normal' people. The greatest resentment comes from those in denial such as you.

Frankly, you don't need sympathy and understanding for denial, you need it for the truth this article is touching on. That's exactly where my sympathy and understanding waits.

:-)

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171518
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
Really.
So letting a kid have a Famous Amos treat before dinner shows harm to gay marriage???
How does that even connect?
If you're trying to draw an analogy yours makes no sense as well.
You first have to specify a viable harm in gay marriage.
And then you might want to tell me why giving a kid an Oreo before he slops down his Raviolis is really that bad.
You're so messed up you can't even THINK about gays marrying without presenting some bizarre picture of your thoughts on the subject in here.
I mean...WTF???? Do you read the shit you write before posting it???
LOL!
"Really.
So letting a kid have a Famous Amos treat before dinner shows harm to gay marriage???"

Yes. It makes the kid fat. Then no one will marry him/her.

"If you're trying to draw an analogy yours makes no sense as well.
You first have to specify a viable harm in gay marriage."

"Viable" is a word you don't quite understand. Using it like you did doesn't show you are smart, it shows you are dumb.

And then you might want to tell me why giving a kid an Oreo before he slops down his Raviolis is really that bad.

It cookie ruins his appetite for the slightly better nutritional choice, the ravioli.

LOL!

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Pochers

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171519
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Why are there so many out of town pochers posting here?
Bruno

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171520
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you lie and text in human English, monkey ?
Why did Wakanatabi post Rose HO's picture? lol
Bruno

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171521
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
wow lok ducrouchi and hudson spent there hole day onhere.... wow... what incredible losers
When is the big day??
Fudders

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171522
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

Is tat ther old fudder calling, bunno's or is tht brown nose?
Bruno

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171523
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>well while you spent all day playing with yourself and commenting on gay topix i spent the day shopping at bellevue square with money Jerry gave me.... aaawh to bad for you.... oh i bought two really sexy chemises i'm sure he will love
Hey .. how about spending a little of his money on me, what he doesn't won't hurt him !!
Clooed

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171525
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Clooed wrote:
It wit be what it will be.
Until them put a lid on it, yapper.

And Clooed means it.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171526
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
:-)
&#9632;“It’s part of Satan I think to say that this is “gay.” It’s anything but gay.”— Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.
&#9632;“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.”— Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

&#9632;“You have a teacher talking about his gayness.(The elementary school student) goes home then and says “Mom! What’s gayness? We had a teacher talking about this today.” The mother says “Well, that’s when a man likes other men, and they don’t like girls.” The boy’s eight. He’s thinking,“Hmm. I don’t like girls. I like boys. Maybe I’m gay.” And you think,“Oh, that’s, that’s way out there. The kid isn’t gonna think that.” Are you kidding? That happens all the time. You don’t think that this is intentional, the message that’s being given to these kids? That’s child abuse.”— Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.
&#9632;“Don’t misunderstand. I am not here bashing people who are homosexuals, who are lesbians, who are bisexual, who are transgender. We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.”— Senator Michele Bachmann, on homosexuality as a mental disorder, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.
&#9632;“It isn’t that some gay will get some rights. It’s that everyone else in our state will lose rights. For instance, parents will lose the right to protect and direct the upbringing of their children. Because our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.”– Senator Michele Bachmann, on what will happen if her same-sex marriage ban amendment fails to pass in 2004, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News,” hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004
&#9632;“This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.”— Senator Michele Bachmann, on the gay community and same-sex marriage, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.
&#9632;“The sex curriculum will be essentially by taught by the local gay community.”— Senator Michele Bachmann, if her same-sex marriage ban amendment does not pass in 2004, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171527
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

9

8

8

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Several things I don't agree with you on. Mostly, I'm not in denial about who I am nor do I believe that I or any other gay person, is a defect or aberration. I think you've admitted being a Christian on here, but I'm not sure, but I have seen you post somethings that were pro religion. Anyway, in my opinion, Religion (regardless of which one)promotes population growth, by being anti-birth control, anti- abortion, anti- gay...etc and wanting people to have more children there by increasing 'souls'. If you believe in God or nature, wouldn't you think that this was a 'natural' way of controlling population growth because there are limited resources on this planet? It happens in other species. AND That just 'Maybe' religion is wrong to this promote so much population growth, wrong to discriminate against a natural phenomenon and call it defective or an aberration?

Kimare'a wrote;
Your attempt to avoid the 'defect' label and to give purpose to homosexuality as population control both fail because of direct conflict with the principles of evolution. The article hinted at that fundamental problem.

-Mutations occur all the time. As the article noted, some are good, some are not. Homosexuality as a direct violation of the very basis of evolution, survival.

-There has never been a need OR time for evolution to develop a response to over population. Disease, starvation and war are far quicker. Evolution takes thousands of years to adjust.

I have not stated my belief system except to say I am a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian.

I find it interesting that people discount the Bible for things they think they understand, but ignore numerous profundities. I have barbarically pointed those out in an attempt to undermine denial.

:-)
Clooed

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171528
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Not enough postage, return to sender.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171529
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Hush, now, as WakanaDanbi uses all kinds of silly analogies, and mine makes more sense. You have to be able to understand analogies, for this to make sense.
I was making fun of your syntax, ya dipshit. Jesus H Christ.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 149,981 - 150,000 of199,087
|
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.

•••

Fire Weather Watch for Riverside County was issued at April 21 at 2:06AM PDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••