Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184263 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Of course it doesn't have to be. The law determined that faithfulness to a mate was unnecessary with no-fault divorce. Now we have horrendous consequences of domestic violence and child abuse. Not to mention a devastating drop in every area of the social health of children of divorce.
Now there is a silly and stupid attempt to dumb down marriage to a friendship of any gender, totally denying the part of children. Any sensible person would say the law will be two for two if that happens.
2. That would be like the law requiring sex or children or any ...quire' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smile.
<quoted text>
A perfect example of a gay troll attack.
Look, not ONE reasoned response to a single point of reality.
Pure ad homoan attacks of my person.
Do you really think this helps your cause?
Snicker.
<quoted text>
No-fault divorce is an example of how past legislating the terms of marriage had devastating effects. It relates directly to this debate. You have no defense so you want to censor it.
Well look at that, you are trying an analogy!!!
Here is an example of exposing an analogy as absurd, something you still have not been able to do;
First, your analogy ignores the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. That immediately disqualifies your analogy as incongruent.
Second, all farmers (marriage) produce something. Whether it is sheep or something else is irrelevant. Sometimes farmers get too old (they still are identified as farmers). Some have farms, but don't produce for the time being. Others are injured and can no longer produce. But someone who can never, under any conditions produce is NEVER called a farmer.
See how simple that is?
The simple truth is, you troll because you have no character or logic to defend your denial.
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
My dear, we're not fighting to call ourselves "parents". We're fighting to call ourselves "married". You're the only idiot who keeps insisting that in order for a couple to call themselves "married" they must be capable of being called "parent".
Again, I will challenge you to show me one marriage certificate or license that includes the word "parent" or "child". Name one jurisdiction in this country that mandates all married couples to produce offspring.
And yet hundreds of thousands of people marry one another who will not, for whatever reason, produce a child. They are no less married than those that do have children.
I can see why you want to change the subject. Character would admit you failed on the points being discussed. If people used you as an example of gay behavior, they would think that homosexuality has negative character side effects...

Please go back to your 'farmer' analogy;

A farmer who produces.
A farmer who doesn't produce because of age, disability or choice.
VV who never produces claiming to be a farmer.
VV who buys farm produce and claims to be a farmer.

And sillier still?

VV demands to be called a farmer too because the government doesn't demand that farmers farm.

Here are the the simple facts;

Our government and all other cultures have never bothered to distinguish between the small number of childless married people and those that do have children. Never been a problem. Still isn't.

That is a far cry from adding a duplicated half of marriage couple who are mutually desolate of procreation.

Additionally, your first sentence is a lie. Homosexuals clearly want to be equated with marriage and parenting in a futile effort to look normal.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184264 Mar 23, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
Im sorry brian, but the state doesnt actually require marriages to produce anything......
mabey you should leave your religious beliefes in the closet, where they belong.
same sex marraige is far from a "culture of death"....
i think you truly need to remove your head from your arse to have a discussion without sounding like a mideval asshole!!
Here is an analogy from Veryverbose that may help your confusion;

A farmer who produces.
A farmer who doesn't produce because of age, disability or choice.
VV who never produces claiming to be a farmer.
VV who buys farm produce and claims to be a farmer.

And sillier still?

VV demands to be called a farmer too because the government doesn't demand that farmers farm.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184265 Mar 23, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
im sure you took the time to look up the divorce rates among gay couples...they are well below the national average.
sort of like you....
Not true.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184267 Mar 23, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed, he/she is one confused freak. I wonder if it’s mother wishes she would have aborted it?
Viciously hateful, don't you think?

Smile.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184268 Mar 23, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You’re such a dummy. You really do have reading for comprehension issues don’t you? I do not believe it is discriminatory to exclude non-natural born citizens from running for POTUS. Which is what I said, and you somehow comprehended the opposite. Furthermore, I do believe this parallel to be a red herring argument. You’ll get no further responses from me on the subject. And yes you are a bigot.
Comprehension problem? You're the one who said "yes"

Perhaps you didn't comprehend the question?

But since you now want to contradict your prevoous post with this one. You are now claiming it IS okay to treat one citizen different than another?

I guess you lied before when you said we couldn't have it both ways?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184269 Mar 23, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also mind boggling. I think I need to find a 300mm-infinity zoom lens for my old Nikon 35mm SLR.
It certainly is.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184270 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Well VV, at least you shifted from your ad homoan attacks back to silly stupid logic.
You attempt to equate a direct, absolute desolate sterility to those rare heterosexual genetic or accidental exceptions.
Or even sillier, the consequence of age! I suppose you expect married couples to get divorced when they can no longer procreate too?
But the stupidest 'reasoning' is a couple who is fully capable of mutual procreation, choosing not to (for the time being, an option that usually changes) with a ss couple who is absolutely mutually desolate.
By your reasoning, any relationship qualifies for marriage. Moreover, marriage is so dumbed down, we might as well eliminate the term as meaningless.
The bottom line is that my analogy already exposed the silliness of your claim.
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smirk.
<quoted text>
The cross cultural constraint of evolutionary mating behavior is not my logic, it is simple fact. The 'cultural constraint' have already addressed the situations you list and more.
<quoted text>
I claimed no such thing, you lie. Again.
<quoted text>
Do you understand how stupid you look pretending to be stupid about something so simple. Most people would be embarrassed to be that silly.
The hilarious thing is, you opened the door with your very own analogy, so here, lets use that to 'help' your confusion;
A farmer who produces.
A farmer who doesn't produce because of age, disability or choice.
VV who never produces claiming to be a farmer.
VV who buys farm produce and claims to be a farmer.
And sillier still?
VV demands to be called a farmer too because the government doesn't demand that farmers farm.
I was beginning to wonder if you enjoyed getting your ass kicked, and then I realized, you do enjoy abuse there! Sick!
Smirk.
My GOD you make absolutely no sense...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184271 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Of course it doesn't have to be. The law determined that faithfulness to a mate was unnecessary with no-fault divorce. Now we have horrendous consequences of domestic violence and child abuse. Not to mention a devastating drop in every area of the social health of children of divorce.
Now there is a silly and stupid attempt to dumb down marriage to a friendship of any gender, totally denying the part of children. Any sensible person would say the law will be two for two if that happens.
2. That would be like the law requiring sex or children or any ...quire' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smile.
<quoted text>
A perfect example of a gay troll attack.
Look, not ONE reasoned response to a single point of reality.
Pure ad homoan attacks of my person.
Do you really think this helps your cause?
Snicker.
<quoted text>
No-fault divorce is an example of how past legislating the terms of marriage had devastating effects. It relates directly to this debate. You have no defense so you want to censor it.
Well look at that, you are trying an analogy!!!
Here is an example of exposing an analogy as absurd, something you still have not been able to do;
First, your analogy ignores the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. That immediately disqualifies your analogy as incongruent.
Second, all farmers (marriage) produce something. Whether it is sheep or something else is irrelevant. Sometimes farmers get too old (they still are identified as farmers). Some have farms, but don't produce for the time being. Others are injured and can no longer produce. But someone who can never, under any conditions produce is NEVER called a farmer.
See how simple that is?
The simple truth is, you troll because you have no character or logic to defend your denial.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I can see why you want to change the subject. Character would admit you failed on the points being discussed. If people used you as an example of gay behavior, they would think that homosexuality has negative character side effects...
Please go back to your 'farmer' analogy;
A farmer who produces.
A farmer who doesn't produce because of age, disability or choice.
VV who never produces claiming to be a farmer.
VV who buys farm produce and claims to be a farmer.
And sillier still?
VV demands to be called a farmer too because the government doesn't demand that farmers farm.
Here are the the simple facts;
Our government and all other cultures have never bothered to distinguish between the small number of childless married people and those that do have children. Never been a problem. Still isn't.
That is a far cry from adding a duplicated half of marriage couple who are mutually desolate of procreation.
Additionally, your first sentence is a lie. Homosexuals clearly want to be equated with marriage and parenting in a futile effort to look normal.
Smile.
Fights against Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act are about "marriage", not "parenting".

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184272 Mar 23, 2013
Funny.

You are almost speechless!

Snicker.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184273 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
My GOD you make absolutely no sense...
KM is making sense, its written in opposite sex-ese, that might be why you're having trouble understanding.:)

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184274 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true.
Smile.
Andy lies a lot, I'm sure it had something to do with why he was gone so long. On the pot topic he claims pot cures cancer and we should stop using chemo, but he doesn't have a link to back him up. what a surprise...lol

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184275 Mar 23, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
do you have anything positive to add??
those sort of bigoted comments have no place here.
are you a bigot against 3 people in love? Do u think it doesn't happen?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184276 Mar 23, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
still hung up on bengazi?? are you bummed it hasnt gone anywhere?
tragic situation, however.....
Ill bet you were jumping up and down in horror over shock and awe?
NO??
more like jumping up and down in jubilation....
Im glad to be among those who were on the RIGHT side of that history...
we opposed that huge mistake from the start!!
ps: we dont know the history that you were voting for, and luckily, we wont ever find out what Romney would have done..
two wars, crashed economy, bad rethugs, no whitehouse!!
Benghazi is not about Romney or bush. It's on Obama's watch. Yes Iraq was a mistake, but this is now. History doesn't divide people on what side you were on. It's not a game.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184279 Mar 23, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Yes there is. We've been over this before. Better health, longer life, financial stability.... these are ALL State interests, whether you think it is or not.
Ohhhhhhhh......I get it! So all the state has to do s declare a relationship marriage, and presto....better health, financial stability,......who wouldn't want that?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184280 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
My GOD you make absolutely no sense...
VV, it's YOUR analogy!

Now you are confusing yourself?

Snicker, smirk smile.
Scarfs

La Puente, CA

#184281 Mar 23, 2013
Wrap it tight and pull.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#184282 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Viciously hateful, don't you think?
Smile.
Yes it was. I apologize. I truly don’t wish harm on anyone even if I completely disagree with their viewpoint.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184283 Mar 23, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it was. I apologize. I truly don’t wish harm on anyone even if I completely disagree with their viewpoint.
Accepted.
Soaked

La Puente, CA

#184284 Mar 23, 2013
The nasty jerk squad has appeared again.
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

#184286 Mar 23, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Benghazi is not about Romney or bush. It's on Obama's watch. Yes Iraq was a mistake, but this is now. History doesn't divide people on what side you were on. It's not a game.
it is still good to hear you admit it was a mistake.

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.

Palmdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
AVC training people to work at Northrop... Thu Tony 1
beautiful pit is going to be put down needs hom... (Mar '12) Thu BidgeBrendanB 4
Stacy Barker and Brendon Borrelli (Jun '11) Thu BidgeBrendanB 5
News L.A., Glendale seek injunction against Toonervi... (Nov '08) Tue SSCV 131
News The children of illegal aliens (anchor babies) ... (Jan '10) Nov 25 Blue Bonnet 7,046
Deputies Investigate Homicide in Antelope Nov 24 Now_What- 2
661swag (May '16) Nov 22 Mary J Anderson 2

Palmdale Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palmdale Mortgages