Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,837

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.

Read more

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#183722 Mar 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again... Trying to sound all scientific. And you always seem to fail.
When you look up the term "epi marker abnormalities" this is what you get on google "No results found for "epi marker abnormalities".
Please stick to what you know best. You have already proven multiple times that you're no scientist; that you don't know what you're talking about.
You so badly and unsuccessfully attempt to explain these THEORIES that you only end up repeatedly making a fool of yourself.
Normally, things that aren't normal, are abnormal. This is why scientists are trying to understand homosexuality. It is also why no culture in human history has fully accepted homosexuality as normal.

How are you going to understand scientific information if you can't understand something as simple as that???

Snicker.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#183723 Mar 18, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Normally, things that aren't normal, are abnormal. This is why scientists are trying to understand homosexuality. It is also why no culture in human history has fully accepted homosexuality as normal.
How are you going to understand scientific information if you can't understand something as simple as that???
Snicker.
I'm on a fake profile here because I'm pretty sure the real ricardo fire annoys everyone on this forum. I just got done reading your arguments w this other person and I gotta say I would usually never get involved in someone else's beef, but this person is owning u so bad its pretty funny. You're not on the same intelligence level so y r u trying to sound intelligent. U think that by writing smile or snicker at the end of ur post that somehow it makes it better? U sound like u have a very low self-esteem and ur trying ur hardest to prove that you're right, but deep down inside u know that you're totally being owned. You're beef isn't w this other person, its with yourself homie. What about u is so insignificant, that other peoples sexuality, and rights threaten who u r? U should probably think hard about what is the actual root of your insecurities, and figure out how you're going to change that.

Snicker (nah jk I'm not as insecure as u r....Smile haha)
Robsan5

United States

#183724 Mar 18, 2013
Remember POWs And MIAs wrote:
<quoted text>Nah,wrong again moron! You see I believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay,and I've been married to the same women for 35 years with 3 grown kids! I have many gay friends who to the person are kind,decent,loving human beings and that's why I support them wholeheartedly! You on the other hand sound mighty suspiciously guilty and your self hatred is evident! What's the matter,feeling so guilty and filled with such self hatred that you have to stay in that closet and keep remodeling it to make people think your not gay? It's OK little buddy,come on out,you'll be surprised at all the help that's there from the gay community!So again,are you gay also,I see many people accusing you of it so your post says the same about you! Are you gay? LOL
You've been in the closet that long? Sweet. But you really do need to come out. It'd be a big weight lifted off your heart. As for me, I'm not in the closet, stupid, I'm openly gay. Come on out and play. LOL.

Robert
TEEPARTY FOREVER TEAPARTY

Sonoma, CA

#183726 Mar 18, 2013
I Love my PARTY. The Teaparty will support gays and lesbains doing what they need to do as long as dress right and you join us and agree to stopping all the damn give-aways and recognize the nTEAPARTY as the savior of the HOME land. When we dump the giveaway buffet out and force all the old sick bums to do the work they are given instead of waiting for $$$ and Drs and pilss ans surgery and godless social security and evil education above your given station in life and stop taxing the top dogs as they are top dogs cause they are top dogs. Once we have the whyte house back and the vote is in the bag, then no more free stuff ever. That is gods will. We will pass nothing nothing nothing until 2017 when we are back forever. Arm everyone and then we are equal. We need to see the election results on this pope thing.
TWP

Iowa Park, TX

#183727 Mar 18, 2013
TEEPARTY FOREVER TEAPARTY wrote:
I Love my PARTY...
That is gods will...
Oh Bob...

This is SO pathetic...!

You just never get tired of pretending...

Do you Bob...?

http://www.merrystandish.com/dolanloses.html
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183728 Mar 18, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Normally, things that aren't normal, are abnormal. This is why scientists are trying to understand homosexuality. It is also why no culture in human history has fully accepted homosexuality as normal.
How are you going to understand scientific information if you can't understand something as simple as that???
Snicker.
So now you're a world culture expert, eh? Fat chance.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183729 Mar 18, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>So now you're a world culture expert, eh? Fat chance.
It all boils down to hate

They want to deny rights to anyone they hate

but they sure dont want me to have tha same right to deny rights to people I hate.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183730 Mar 18, 2013
RicardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm on a fake profile here because I'm pretty sure the real ricardo fire annoys everyone on this forum. I just got done reading your arguments w this other person and I gotta say I would usually never get involved in someone else's beef, but this person is owning u so bad its pretty funny. You're not on the same intelligence level so y r u trying to sound intelligent. U think that by writing smile or snicker at the end of ur post that somehow it makes it better? U sound like u have a very low self-esteem and ur trying ur hardest to prove that you're right, but deep down inside u know that you're totally being owned. You're beef isn't w this other person, its with yourself homie. What about u is so insignificant, that other peoples sexuality, and rights threaten who u r? U should probably think hard about what is the actual root of your insecurities, and figure out how you're going to change that.
Snicker (nah jk I'm not as insecure as u r....Smile haha)
It's not about "other people's sexuality", but rather what is in the best interest of society as a whole. Legally redefining marriage undermines that. If SSM was an integral part of human societal organization and structure it would have appeared long before now, and would have deep sustained historical roots. It does not. It does demonstrate the extent to which marriage has declined both in the U.S., and in the West.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#183731 Mar 18, 2013
RicardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm on a fake profile here because I'm pretty sure the real ricardo fire annoys everyone on this forum. I just got done reading your arguments w this other person and I gotta say I would usually never get involved in someone else's beef, but this person is owning u so bad its pretty funny. You're not on the same intelligence level so y r u trying to sound intelligent. U think that by writing smile or snicker at the end of ur post that somehow it makes it better? U sound like u have a very low self-esteem and ur trying ur hardest to prove that you're right, but deep down inside u know that you're totally being owned. You're beef isn't w this other person, its with yourself homie. What about u is so insignificant, that other peoples sexuality, and rights threaten who u r? U should probably think hard about what is the actual root of your insecurities, and figure out how you're going to change that.
Snicker (nah jk I'm not as insecure as u r....Smile haha)
lol..that's why I am registered so you trolls will be exposed. Did I hurt your feelings that much? lol

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183732 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Fk the majority of society. The Constitution promises all equal rights. Do you understand that so far? And you morons keep saying it's just about "the benefits and insurance benefits". Well, if that were the case, gay people would just marry a friend of the opposite sex.
No it doesn't. If it did, both native born, and naturalized, citizens would be eligible to run for president. That is one example.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183733 Mar 18, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>You didn't answer my question. Do you think reproduction is the ONE and ONLY State interest in marriage?
I think it is the only reason marriage is recognized in the first place. Any other reason is secondary to that. Now before you start ranting about the infertile, elderly, and other possible non procreative pairings being married, as somehow proof that marriage isn't about procreation, or the state still allows them to marry.....remember it doesn't change the fact that human reproduction is sexual .
Horse hills

La Puente, CA

#183734 Mar 18, 2013
Did I mention thatSteve Herfert of West Covina, California city councilman who used offensive RACISTS language live during a Feburary 05, 2013 city council meeting is a life long hardcore GOP, Republican an Tea Party Member.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183735 Mar 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is the only reason marriage is recognized in the first place. Any other reason is secondary to that. Now before you start ranting about the infertile, elderly, and other possible non procreative pairings being married, as somehow proof that marriage isn't about procreation, or the state still allows them to marry.....remember it doesn't change the fact that human reproduction is sexual .
We have a already been over this, you already lost

Procreation is not any kind of requirement for a marriage, not in intent or ability.

There is not a single law that disallows a couple to marry based on whether they have the ability or intention to have children.

You want me to run you thought the ringer on this one again?
Deficiets

La Puente, CA

#183736 Mar 18, 2013
Sad but true, the GOP, Republican and Tea Party brats are sulking in a dark corner, because the voters nation wide have rejected there racists form of government.

The vast majority of Republican lawmakers have signed a national no-new-taxes pledge and aren't carrying major revenue-raising measures.

What say you West Covian city counciman Steve Herfert and Mike Touhey along witht he SGVtribune.com and George Ogden of the sgvexamainer.com
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183737 Mar 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not about "other people's sexuality", but rather what is in the best interest of society as a whole. Legally redefining marriage undermines that. If SSM was an integral part of human societal organization and structure it would have appeared long before now, and would have deep sustained historical roots. It does not. It does demonstrate the extent to which marriage has declined both in the U.S., and in the West.
Will you PLEASE learn something about logic. You make statemnts WITHOUT any proof. "...it would have appeared long before now..." is meaningless. If women should have the right to vote, why didn't our country start out that way?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183738 Mar 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is the only reason marriage is recognized in the first place. Any other reason is secondary to that. Now before you start ranting about the infertile, elderly, and other possible non procreative pairings being married, as somehow proof that marriage isn't about procreation, or the state still allows them to marry.....remember it doesn't change the fact that human reproduction is sexual .
You think it is the only reason???? Well ain't it just too bad that YOU don't get to make that determination for the State? There are many other reasons: longer life, better health, reduced crime, and it promotes financial independence. And these SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN benefits occur whether or not there are children involved.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183740 Mar 18, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a already been over this, you already lost
Procreation is not any kind of requirement for a marriage, not in intent or ability.
The loss here Big D is your argument, that lack of a requirement to procreate, somehow means marriage isn't about procreation, or that procreation isn't the reason marriage is recognized in the first place.
There is not a single law that disallows a couple to marry based on whether they have the ability or intention to have children.
Please point out the law, case law, or presumption within marriage law, that specifically references the same sex sexual union, male or female?
You want me to run you thought the ringer on this one again?
Give your best shot there Big D.....as in Dee Ny Al
yeah yeah

AOL

#183741 Mar 18, 2013
ok now lets legalize cannabis. nationwide!

chéck one two thréé
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183742 Mar 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The loss here Big D is your argument, that lack of a requirement to procreate, somehow means marriage isn't about procreation, or that procreation isn't the reason marriage is recognized in the first place.
<quoted text>
Please point out the law, case law, or presumption within marriage law, that specifically references the same sex sexual union, male or female?
<quoted text>
Give your best shot there Big D.....as in Dee Ny Al
I already have kid

No one, in any state, or any country ( that I am aware of ) will deny a marriage license to a couple based on their intent or ability to have children.

dead argument

Procreation is not any kind of pre-requisite for marriage

point... set and match... that argument is dead

It already failed in court and appellate court and will undoubtedly not be used in the Supreme court as it is a dead ( and very lame ) argument, there is no precedent anywhere.

But.. if you do find some country somewhere that will deny a marriage license to a couple that wants to be married because of their intent or ability to have children, I suggest you move there.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183743 Mar 18, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I already have kid
Ya did? I must have blinked.
No one, in any state, or any country ( that I am aware of ) will deny a marriage license to a couple based on their intent or ability to have children.
dead argument
Silly Big D, you're confusing lack of a requirement with purpose. Its understandable, for you to admit it would undermine your whole argument. So you cling the this notion that as along as procreation is not required, it must not be about procreation.

If procreation is not an issue, why prohibit brother and sister from marrying? Oh I know, beacuse they might have sex, AND, create a child, who grows up, and posts on internet fourms under the moniker of "Big D". Now THAT makes sense.
Procreation is not any kind of pre-requisite for marriage
point... set and match... that argument is dead
It already failed in court and appellate court and will undoubtedly not be used in the Supreme court as it is a dead ( and very lame ) argument, there is no precedent anywhere.
But.. if you do find some country somewhere that will deny a marriage license to a couple that wants to be married because of their intent or ability to have children, I suggest you move there.
Thatta boy, you keep that going, I'm sure all those court cases specifically linking marriage and procreation, are just meaningless to the all great and powerful Big D. It must be lonely up on that mountain....I'm sure there's the occasionally sheep that happens along to keep you company.

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.

Patterson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who came up with the names of the Streets in Pa... Feb '15 Chanate 1
Looking to move to Diablo Grande Feb '15 Ricky1 1
Looking to move to Diablo Grande Feb '15 Ricky1 1
News Diablo Grande closes course, defaults on loan (Feb '08) Feb '15 Ricky1 25
Turlock Woman Critical after being Shot by Ex-H... Jan '15 Angelica Campos 2
do not move to the city of patterson!!!!!!!!!!!... (Apr '10) Nov '14 yo mama 7
News Mother 'Person Of Interest' In Kayla Reed Slaying (Nov '07) Nov '14 gg 78
Patterson Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Patterson People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]