Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201865 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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#146920 Jun 22, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>You concede the prohibition against sibling marriage doesn't conflict with the Constitution yet argue the prohibition against same-sex marriage does.

You're not even trying to be logical, are you, fella?

And gays have the same right to marry as I do -- you want a special dispensation: you want them to have a right I don't -- to marry same sex.

Your premise is gays no more choose to be gays than I chose to be black. I say this, because were you asked does the Constitution give heteros the right to marry same-sex you'd say no.

Therefore, unless your argument is everyone should have the right to marry same-sex, you must support your underlying premise by showing homosexuality is nature not nurture --

Can you ...?
I concede that there is a legitimate state interest served by not letting siblings marry. You have not even been capable of indicating a rational basis to prohibit same sex marriage.

You have no business accusing anyone else of being illogical.

Arguing that homosexuals may marry someone of the opposite sex (do you really think that is logical) is inept, since you haven't been able to illustrate any legitimate state interest served by such a restriction.

I never made such a racial argument, however it is worthy of note that segregation also ended because black people are entitled to equal protection of the laws, not because they are biologically black. So you see, your nature bs nurture argument also doesn't fly.

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

#146922 Jun 22, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Your stupidity can't be helped, Mona -- as Lady Gaga says, "You were born that way."
Your gross language and scatological imagery is something else again.
Clean up your act on go back to the Bronx forum.
That said, a question: were you a member of the San Francisco health board 30 years ago and required to vote on issuing a business licence to a gay wanting to open a local bathhouse, how would you have voted?
You are kinda hung up on anal sex. What gives, you feel the need for a stiff one up the pooper?

Since: Jun 12

Arroyo Grande, CA

#146923 Jun 22, 2012
why are these forums the most popular? this almost makes me want to fall asleep

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

#146924 Jun 22, 2012
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. One of the 3. Now he is back on to bathhouses AGAIN! Damn!
its called rewind.#1 Gay pride parade,#2 CDC and anal sex,#3 bath houses.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Indianapolis, IN

#146925 Jun 22, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I concede that there is a legitimate state interest served by not letting siblings marry. You have not even been capable of indicating a rational basis to prohibit same sex marriage.
You have no business accusing anyone else of being illogical.
Arguing that homosexuals may marry someone of the opposite sex (do you really think that is logical) is inept, since you haven't been able to illustrate any legitimate state interest served by such a restriction.
I never made such a racial argument, however it is worthy of note that segregation also ended because black people are entitled to equal protection of the laws, not because they are biologically black. So you see, your nature bs nurture argument also doesn't fly.
Look, if you want to turn this into a purely legal debate, I assure you things won't work out quite how you expect ...

For example,

You're arguing a group -- gays -- are being denied a right everyone else has, yet when asked to identify gays you can't do it.

In law, that doesn't work. In law, the party claiming discrimination must be specific -- blacks, Catholics, women, etc.

You cannot bring an action for little green men from Mars unless you are able to define and produce a little green man from mars.

Producing a little man won't do. Producing a little green man won't do either.

Your specimen must show characteristics the judge's scientific experts agree can only be those of someone late of the planet Mars.

You have not defined and produced a homosexual.

The specificity kicks in when you claim a homosexual is anyone who says he's a homosexual. A Jew isn't anyone who says he's a Jew -- he must authenticate his Judaism, circumcision, Temple of Worship, rabbi.

What are your proofs homosexuality even exists?

The Court needs to know not just any Joe Blow can lay claim to being a homosexual -- how do you let the Court know this?

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

#146926 Jun 22, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, if you want to turn this into a purely legal debate, I assure you things won't work out quite how you expect ...
For example,
You're arguing a group -- gays -- are being denied a right everyone else has, yet when asked to identify gays you can't do it.
In law, that doesn't work. In law, the party claiming discrimination must be specific -- blacks, Catholics, women, etc.
You cannot bring an action for little green men from Mars unless you are able to define and produce a little green man from mars.
Producing a little man won't do. Producing a little green man won't do either.
Your specimen must show characteristics the judge's scientific experts agree can only be those of someone late of the planet Mars.
You have not defined and produced a homosexual.
The specificity kicks in when you claim a homosexual is anyone who says he's a homosexual. A Jew isn't anyone who says he's a Jew -- he must authenticate his Judaism, circumcision, Temple of Worship, rabbi.
What are your proofs homosexuality even exists?
The Court needs to know not just any Joe Blow can lay claim to being a homosexual -- how do you let the Court know this?
You just topped every stupid post that you have ever made. Congratulations.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#146927 Jun 22, 2012

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#146928 Jun 22, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, if you want to turn this into a purely legal debate, I assure you things won't work out quite how you expect ...
For example,
You're arguing a group -- gays -- are being denied a right everyone else has, yet when asked to identify gays you can't do it.
In law, that doesn't work. In law, the party claiming discrimination must be specific -- blacks, Catholics, women, etc.
You cannot bring an action for little green men from Mars unless you are able to define and produce a little green man from mars.
Producing a little man won't do. Producing a little green man won't do either.
Your specimen must show characteristics the judge's scientific experts agree can only be those of someone late of the planet Mars.
You have not defined and produced a homosexual.
The specificity kicks in when you claim a homosexual is anyone who says he's a homosexual. A Jew isn't anyone who says he's a Jew -- he must authenticate his Judaism, circumcision, Temple of Worship, rabbi.
What are your proofs homosexuality even exists?
The Court needs to know not just any Joe Blow can lay claim to being a homosexual -- how do you let the Court know this?
It is kind of difficult to get a court to agree that you are being discriminated against because you choose to smoke cigars.

So would it also be hard to convince a curt that you are discriminated against because you chose to wear red shoes.....

Great point.......
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#146930 Jun 22, 2012
Bill Of Rights wrote:
<quoted text>
So sorry Dr. Douche,I'm not a self-repressed hateful gay like you are! Just ask Rose Th,she will vouch for me but then when did you ever care about the truth! Take your hatred and lie's and shove them up your sick ass!
WTF????? LMAO ...Rose is just as big of liar and bigot as you are. You all stick together, so it won't mean much

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#146931 Jun 22, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF????? LMAO ...Rose is just as big of liar and bigot as you are. You all stick together, so it won't mean much
When the story broke about the two perverts that were exposing themselves to children on the cruise ship the rose ho said it was no big deal and if parents don't want their young children seeing two men have sex together in public then they parents should keep their children home.....

There were a few respectable people on this thread that stood up against other gays and said what they did was wrong......

But the majority did support the two perverts..........They stuck together like dogs in the street.....

And that is why we now have 31 states that have banned SSM.........

So thank the rose ho every day for helping preserve the meaning of the word marriage......
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#146932 Jun 22, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Mona: You are not taking into consideration that a true God would have a more superior knowledge then what he has created. If you consider what man has done with free will, then no doubt you understand why a Savior or a pathway is needed for redemption. Jesus was not forced to die by his father. He willingly laid down his life in the supreme act of sacrifice for mankind. But God also knew the outcome and Jesus lived and lives today. For all you bigots out there: This was a response and in no way is forcing you to read this or accept it, thank you, RiccardoFire
Sorry, sweetie. An all powerful god could choose to forgive. What would have been the downside for a god? None. Instead he chose to impregnate a young girl, and set up his child to be murdered. Nice guy. A real champ. Sounds very similar to other myths. Vengeful, sadistic gods torturing their creation. Giving them free will and the burning them when they exercise it. Sorry, I'm not buying into that crappola. You get into heaven if you believe his dead son died for you? What the hell kind of "get out of jail free card" is that? It makes NO SENSE whatsoever. The fundies freaks are just too scared to not believe. You are afraid you'll burn in hell, when there is NO PROOF OF ANY OF IT.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#146933 Jun 22, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
When the story broke about the two perverts that were exposing themselves to children on the cruise ship the rose ho said it was no big deal and if parents don't want their young children seeing two men have sex together in public then they parents should keep their children home.....
There were a few respectable people on this thread that stood up against other gays and said what they did was wrong......
But the majority did support the two perverts..........They stuck together like dogs in the street.....
And that is why we now have 31 states that have banned SSM.........
So thank the rose ho every day for helping preserve the meaning of the word marriage......
Dream on....

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Indianapolis, IN

#146935 Jun 22, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
It is kind of difficult to get a court to agree that you are being discriminated against because you choose to smoke cigars.
So would it also be hard to convince a curt that you are discriminated against because you chose to wear red shoes.....
Great point.......
Homosexuals operate from the premise that they are a de facto legal identity. Without this premise there is no inequality because homosexuals are either male or female -- that's their legal identity.

Little green men from Mars -- or people claiming to be little green men from mars -- would have no minority legal standing in court or legal action if the court refused to recognize them as little green men from Mars.

Likewise, people who claim to be homosexual should have no legal standing until they can support that claim with hard evidence.

We require this of every other minority, why not little Green Men from Mars and homosexuals?

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#146937 Jun 22, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Dream on....
Nothing to dream about..........LOL

The trampy tranny ho supported the perverts.......

His tramp tanny rants along with many of your have done more to convince people that were sitting on the fence about SSM to vote you back to the closet........

I know for a fact his post and yours have changed the minds of many.....

I have shown your bigoted post towards anyone that believes in God to many Christians and Catholics.........

I have showed them why your ilk needs to be stopped....

When you give freaks like you a inch you will take a mile.........
And you have no respect for anyone that you don't agree with...
You demean and disrespect any and all that believe in God....

Just like your post today........

You are making fun of what others believe and therefore nobody should respect your beliefs or choices in life.....

It is very easy to take some of your post along with the trampy tranny post and convince people that you two do not respect their beliefs..........
Both of you have posted that all churches should be striped of their non profit statuses but want more non profits as long as they are promoting gay agendas.....

You don't want God mentioned in school but want gay education in school.....

You demand people accept your perverted ways but refuse to accept anyone different than you.....

Please keep up your bigotry as you are doing more to stop SSM then I will ever be able to do.....

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#146939 Jun 22, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuals operate from the premise that they are a de facto legal identity. Without this premise there is no inequality because homosexuals are either male or female -- that's their legal identity.
Little green men from Mars -- or people claiming to be little green men from mars -- would have no minority legal standing in court or legal action if the court refused to recognize them as little green men from Mars.
Likewise, people who claim to be homosexual should have no legal standing until they can support that claim with hard evidence.
We require this of every other minority, why not little Green Men from Mars and homosexuals?
I agree........

Unless they can prove they have a medical defect then they should be required to live under the same rules as we do......

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Indianapolis, IN

#146945 Jun 22, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree........
Unless they can prove they have a medical defect then they should be required to live under the same rules as we do......
Either that or point to one -- from the hundreds of legal minorities -- who acquired legal status on their say-so alone as gays have.

I can't think of one -- and if there isn't one, why do we allow homosexuals to acquire minority status on their say-so alone?

Why isn't there a single requirement the law requires to bestow this status upon a person?

And you better believe it's a slippy slope.

No sooner did they get their first same-sex law did they began expanding their definition of homosexual. They began adding letters to their acronym. Suddenly, transgenders and bisexuals came under their umbrella too; then transgenders were granted the right to teach in schools and adopt children.

Now they're demanding gender neutral classroom education.

Anyone who thinks these social engineering demands stop with same-sex marriage is a fool. And it all begins when we let them interpret the Constitution to fit their agenda.

That's the first mistake.
ELH

Portland, OR

#146946 Jun 22, 2012
Prof Marvelous wrote:
And while we're on the topic of deviant sex, Boogle, I draw your attention to ...
We are not here to discuss "deviant sex". YOU'RE the captain to the TOPIX flaming perv team and "deviant sex" is YOUR THING.

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

#146947 Jun 22, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Either that or point to one -- from the hundreds of legal minorities -- who acquired legal status on their say-so alone as gays have.
I can't think of one -- and if there isn't one, why do we allow homosexuals to acquire minority status on their say-so alone?
Why isn't there a single requirement the law requires to bestow this status upon a person?
And you better believe it's a slippy slope.
No sooner did they get their first same-sex law did they began expanding their definition of homosexual. They began adding letters to their acronym. Suddenly, transgenders and bisexuals came under their umbrella too; then transgenders were granted the right to teach in schools and adopt children.
Now they're demanding gender neutral classroom education.
Anyone who thinks these social engineering demands stop with same-sex marriage is a fool. And it all begins when we let them interpret the Constitution to fit their agenda.
That's the first mistake.
Nonsense the first mistake was when your father had a failed attempt at coitus interruptus.

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

#146948 Jun 22, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree........
Unless they can prove they have a medical defect then they should be required to live under the same rules as we do......
Can you prove that heterosexuality is not a defect?
ELH

Portland, OR

#146949 Jun 22, 2012
Captian Marvelous wrote:
Sandusky is a flaming queer.
Yep... A MARRIED, CHURCH GOING, HETEROSEXUAL, PEDOPHILE in a position of power who molests little boys...

Molestation and rape are NOT about sex they are about control...something you as a 'man' who has PAID rent boys for most of his (HOMOSEXUAL) sexual encounters should have figured out from personal experience...

So what's YOUR deal? I know you are a "celibate" homosexual uses this thread as a form of aversion therapy. Are you trying to work out your sexual attraction to children here too?

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.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sex and booze at Stanford Wed Hard to Say 4
News Highlands Park Playground Community Workshop Jun 24 jen 1
james dobbs ex rialto police officer moves back... (Aug '10) Jun 15 Cltn 15
name of victim Jun 15 victim 1
News Defiant Sanders predicts Democratic convention ... Jun 13 No Hillary 8
News Deported Immigrants' Kids Face Dilemma (Apr '07) Jun 12 Chillsea Cliton 8
Re-Elect Judge Aaron Persky! Jun 11 Chillsea Cliton 7

Redwood City Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Redwood City Mortgages