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
186,521 - 186,540 of 200,565 Comments Last updated 48 min ago
trash network

Monrovia, 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

Covina, 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

Covina, 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

Covina, 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

Covina, 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?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215383
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You contradict yourself and lie to cover it. Your very own example confirms it is harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
And no, I would never think of doing that. My sphincter locks up just hearing you say such a thing.
I seriously doubt that your sphincter locks up. You think about anal sex more than most gay men I know. You KNOW more about anal sex than most gay men I know. I feel pretty safe saying that you are not an ass virgin.

My example was of a man who used his wife's stoma as a "sexual portal"--not an example of anal sex. That's a huge difference.
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215384
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Hey junior. git yur ass 'oer here an spoink yur pocket mush into this here jug. We's a gonna make you a daddy, usin' yur ma as a hatchery. Spit toinggg. Sounds sensible to me????
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215385
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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 guess 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.
And all of that is srtictly your own personal opinion, you have no facts to back any of that up. Try again.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215386
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.
.....
then show us a law (local, state or federal) regulating mating behaivior that is regulated to allow only married people to give birth. this would then link procreation as a requirement to obtain a marriage license. unless you can prove that, then you might have a point. until then, nada.

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215387
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
...
Pretty certain humans are part of the animal kingdom! And what the heck is the by-product of children??? You make less sense with each post I am affraid.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...2/3. The anus is not designed for intercourse......
Yes, it is actually very well suited, apparently. Just like ones mouth and hands and vagina. Or do you magically deny those happen too?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...You need to read more than a definition of mating behavior and a gay defense of anal sex....
Did you forget that asked me to look it up? Just because i did and you don't like the answer doesn't mean I need anything. And since when does anal sex, gay or straight, need ANY defense whatsoever?*crazy*
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215388
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt that your sphincter locks up. You think about anal sex more than most gay men I know. You KNOW more about anal sex than most gay men I know. I feel pretty safe saying that you are not an ass virgin.
My example was of a man who used his wife's stoma as a "sexual portal"--not an example of anal sex. That's a huge difference.
Let me think this over then, maybe I don't know everything about anal sex either. I thought it was putting something up your ass that wasn't really meant to be there. Is there more? I had a colonoscopy once, would that make be gay? And that prostate check, oh damn, I must be a queer by now. Of course I didn't smile while it was happening so I guess I'm not gay.
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215389
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
then show us a law (local, state or federal) regulating mating behaivior that is regulated to allow only married people to give birth. this would then link procreation as a requirement to obtain a marriage license. unless you can prove that, then you might have a point. until then, nada.
Where did you get birth and procreation out of that??? Your mind wanders.
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215390
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty certain humans are part of the animal kingdom! And what the heck is the by-product of children??? You make less sense with each post I am affraid.
But humans are the animals that have the ability to 'reason', that's where you are lacking. But go ahead and compare yourself to the animals if that's where you feel safe. Then you really don't need a marriage license, you just need a 'dog' license. That would work.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Palm Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 23 hr Donny B 7,922
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Tue matches lighters 15,961
Review: Profix Jewerly And Watch Repair Mon Jonnie S 1
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) Mon sex 692
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Aug 24 Mono 4,996
City Manager Martin Magana hires Charles "Chuck... Aug 21 Commander Bunny 9
Touch Of Class Consignments, Cathedral City, ca. (Aug '13) Aug 19 Ned 123
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••