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 9,327)

Showing posts 186,521 - 186,540 of200,244
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215358
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>LOL....most people use an architect for the drawings, then hire a contractor. You are an idiot.
It's an imaginary contractor.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215359
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>On the internet we can all be former NFL and hockey players and UCF fighters at that weight also with 15 inch wieners living in a mansion in Minnesota with a trophy wife and 4 perfect kids....LOL blah blah blah.
Big D's mansion is in Modesto, California. Not Minnesota.

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Magic mile

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215360
Sep 9, 2013
 
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215362
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a simple fact you keep twirl trolling around:
At its most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
Here is another one:
Anal sex is inherently harmful unhealthy and demeaning.
Can you respond in an intelligent, polite way?
Smile.
'
Not a fact, just your opinion.

You donít seem to be able to distinguish facts from opinion, many have noticed this

If you want a fact, here is on, Legal same sex marriage is recognized on the federal level in all 50 states
Sunk Himself

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215363
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

That "47 percent" quote that helped sink Mitt Romney's presidential hopes? Better make that 43 percent now.

Keep pinheads like him away from the White House in Washington D.C..

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215364
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.
Provide proof.
Already have, numerous times.

You run and hide on a hole, and then crawl out later.

Besides, a middle school student already knows this stuff.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215365
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
'
Not a fact, just your opinion.
You donít seem to be able to distinguish facts from opinion, many have noticed this
If you want a fact, here is on, Legal same sex marriage is recognized on the federal level in all 50 states
"...many have noticed this" The all knowing Mighty D knows what the many have noticed.

Whatever Big D thinks, he projects to the "many" or "everybody".

"I don't have to prove it, everybody here knows it, at least 22 people." -Big D

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215366
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a simple fact you keep twirl trolling around:
At its most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
...
Nope, at its most basic essence it is a basic human right.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...
SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
...
Perhaps you are thinking about reproduction? Firstly, the ability to reproduce has zero to do with being married (and marriage is not about reproducing). Second, I know several gays who have reproduced just fine. The only 'filaure' is that it gay sex doesn't turn you on.. so guess what? That means you are not gay - no more or less meaning is there.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...Here is another one:
Anal sex is inherently harmful unhealthy and demeaning.
...
Replace the word 'inherently' with the words 'can be' and you have a true statement. Infact, also replacing the words 'Anal sex' with simply the word 'sex' and you have a true statement. You are being narrow-minded or naive.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...Can you respond in an intelligent, polite way?
Smile.
Funny, the intelligent and polite way was asking you for some proof to back up your so called simple truth and you judged that response 'nuts'. Pretty lame.
trash network

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215367
Sep 9, 2013
 
Is this the real "trash network" ?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215370
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, at its most basic essence it is a basic human right.
<quoted text>
Perhaps you are thinking about reproduction? Firstly, the ability to reproduce has zero to do with being married (and marriage is not about reproducing). Second, I know several gays who have reproduced just fine. The only 'filaure' is that it gay sex doesn't turn you on.. so guiess what? That means you are not gay - no more or less meaning is there.
<quoted text>
Replace the word 'inherently' with the words 'can be' and you have a true statement. Infact, also replacing the words 'Anal sex' with simply the word 'sex' and you have a true statement. You are being narrow-minded or naive.
<quoted text>
Funny, the intelligent and polite way was asking you for some proof to back up your so called simple truth and you judged that response 'nuts'. Pretty lame.
1. Marriage is a constraint on mating behavior. That means mating behavior is a deeper level. Moreover, marriage is a relational distinction directly related to mating behavior. Social scientists assert that if procreation did not result, marriage would not exist.

2. Of course homosexuals can reproduce. IF they revert to a default heterosexual solution. As a couple, they are absolutely barren. In fact, where marriage needs protection NOT to reproduce, gays need protection just to abusively imitate intercourse.

3. Which brings us to anal sex, a violation of design. You attempt to equate inherent harm with risk. Very different.

Look up mating behavior.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215371
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

trash network wrote:
Is this the real "trash network" ?
Wherever you go is a real trash network. Ever notice that? I do.
commonpeeps

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215373
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Shots of whiskey too. And my girlfriend to keep me even warmer. Ah good times!
Sounds like a new country song Frankie hoverin' down da bayou, all ya hear is whoop whoop, boom boom, bang bang,sip, chug, kissy kissy, hug hug, yeehaw,good times, repeat
commonpeeps

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215374
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

What's with that horse shoe lake lookin' puddle.

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215375
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Marriage is a constraint on mating behavior. That means mating behavior is a deeper level. Moreover, marriage is a relational distinction directly related to mating behavior. Social scientists assert that if procreation did not result, marriage would not exist.
...
No it is not. If it were there then every species on world other than human would be extinct. In fact marriage is purely a human invention. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly lists the right to marriage as a basic human right. As far no procreation leading to no marriage... well everyone would be dead so of course that is true. What I think you wish were also true would be the claim that without marriage there would be no procreation. Clearly that is false as unwed mothers have always and will always exist.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...2. Of course homosexuals can reproduce. IF they revert to a default heterosexual solution. As a couple, they are absolutely barren. In fact, where marriage needs protection NOT to reproduce, gays need protection just to abusively imitate intercourse.
...
We all know how it works. What does the phrase 'abusively imitate intercourse' mean exactly? It sounds like you feel personally threatened when you think about gay people having sex. Why in the world would that be?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...3. Which brings us to anal sex, a violation of design. You attempt to equate inherent harm with risk. Very different.
...
I equated nothing first of all. Second what does violation of design mean anyhow? You think the anus can only be useful for one thing? Why it is so limited and the rest of your body is not? How many countless things can you do with your hands? Your mouth? Your feet? Your brain? I guess medicinal suppositories and rectal thermometers are forbiden design violators too? You sound like you fear anus or thinking of it. Why would that be exactly?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...Look up mating behavior.
Maybe you should!
Here is what I found and note is says NOTHING about marriage:
> the act of seeking and pairing a male and female for reproductive purposes
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215376
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

commonpeeps wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds like a new country song Frankie hoverin' down da bayou, all ya hear is whoop whoop, boom boom, bang bang,sip, chug, kissy kissy, hug hug, yeehaw,good times, repeat
That's the way Frankie rolls! Ah good times!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215378
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is not. If it were there then every species on world other than human would be extinct. In fact marriage is purely a human invention. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly lists the right to marriage as a basic human right. As far no procreation leading to no marriage... well everyone would be dead so of course that is true. What I think you wish were also true would be the claim that without marriage there would be no procreation. Clearly that is false as unwed mothers have always and will always exist.
<quoted text>
We all know how it works. What does the phrase 'abusively imitate intercourse' mean exactly? It sounds like you feel personally threatened when you think about gay people having sex. Why in the world would that be?
<quoted text>
I equated nothing first of all. Second what does violation of design mean anyhow? You think the anus can only be useful for one thing? Why it is so limited and the rest of your body is not? How many countless things can you do with your hands? Your mouth? Your feet? Your brain? I guess medicinal suppositories and rectal thermometers are forbiden design violators too? You sound like you fear anus or thinking of it. Why would that be exactly?
<quoted text>
Maybe you should!
Here is what I found and note is says NOTHING about marriage:
> the act of seeking and pairing a male and female for reproductive purposes
1. LOL, you clearly don't know what you are saying. Mating behavior is the desire to mate. Animals do it without restraint. Humans would also, were it not for the restraint of marriage. Why? So the by-product of children are protected, and the bearer of children is provided for.

2/3. The anus is not designed for intercourse. Look up a medical description. As one doctor put it, too much lub and an anal condom is almost enough.

You need to read more than a definition of mating behavior and a gay defense of anal sex....
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215379
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Marriage is a constraint on mating behavior. That means mating behavior is a deeper level. Moreover, marriage is a relational distinction directly related to mating behavior. Social scientists assert that if procreation did not result, marriage would not exist.
2. Of course homosexuals can reproduce. IF they revert to a default heterosexual solution. As a couple, they are absolutely barren. In fact, where marriage needs protection NOT to reproduce, gays need protection just to abusively imitate intercourse.
3. Which brings us to anal sex, a violation of design. You attempt to equate inherent harm with risk. Very different.
Look up mating behavior.
1 wrong, people out of wedlock have children, people in wedlock have children with those not their spouses, some married couples with fertility have children with sperm donors or with surrogate mothers.

2 Wrong, as has already been demonstrated on their forums. Not barren, I know lesbian couples whose children are biologically connected to each one being the mother with artificial sperm donation from their spouses sibling.

3 what people do in the bedroom between consenting adults is none of your business, that particular act is enjoyed by both heterosexual and homosexual couples and it is none of your business.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215380
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
1 wrong, people out of wedlock have children, people in wedlock have children with those not their spouses, some married couples with fertility have children with sperm donors or with surrogate mothers.
2 Wrong, as has already been demonstrated on their forums. Not barren, I know lesbian couples whose children are biologically connected to each one being the mother with artificial sperm donation from their spouses sibling.
3 what people do in the bedroom between consenting adults is none of your business, that particular act is enjoyed by both heterosexual and homosexual couples and it is none of your business.
4 Big D is a loudmouthed dummy.
5 YUK!YUK!YUK!
6 Too funny!
commonpeeps

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215381
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
From your comments you would have us believe that anal sex is a fairly recent phenomenon;
The statement you are responding to made no comment at all to that effect. You're just spinning some off topic b.s. now. As usual.
commonpeeps

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215382
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one for denying the right for people to marry, not I
So you're the one! Pietro, would you please stop denying people their rights, that's just not right. All right?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 186,521 - 186,540 of200,244
|
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 Palm Springs Discussions

Search the Palm Springs Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 12 hr PMS will get yeah 7,821
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 17 hr all doned in 4,864
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) Sat Big Juciey Pussie 630
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Sat The right is wrong 2,225
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Jul 11 This topics peaked 15,911
Touch Of Class Consignments, Cathedral City, ca. (Aug '13) Jul 6 Sandy 118
US: Afghan vote step forward on 'democratic path' Jul 4 Rho 9
•••
•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Palm Springs News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palm Springs
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••