Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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.

Full Story

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#169682 Dec 2, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with the jackass on that too.
It's about the only thing I agree with him on. And I noticed it wasn't very popular with the Liberals that love the big unions.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169683 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
5.‘Gay Marriage’ makes its opponents racists.
Based on #4, those who oppose gay marriage will be seen as bigots.‘Gay marriage’ validates as normal and good the problematic, complex condition of same-sex attraction; all who choose to view that attraction as a problem not a birthright will inevitably be accorded the same social shame and even legal consequences that racists incur.
Incorrect and baseless.

Racism deals which preferential treatment and opinion based solely on race.

Claiming gay marriage makes it's opponents racist is a little like claiming those who don't like watching NASCAR will be targeted by the Girl Scouts for elimination.

It's a completely ignorant statement in that there is no causation factor nor can you identify one.

The term 'bigots' envelopes a large grouping of people including racists, those who don't like cross eyed women and those who would make efforts to deny a group of individuals freedoms based on the fact they are gay. Racists are but a segment of what could be determined a bigot.

If the term makes you shift in your seat because it's that uncomfortable do one of two things. Live in denial or embrace it if you truly think gays are second class citizens.

I have my own set of bigotry I have to stare at but I don't play mental games on myself like you have to use as a format of denial. I don't like certain aspects of the gay culture myself friend but I've come to recognize it's my problem if I choose to live a a country which gives freedoms to all of it's citizens and not just those I prefer.

It's a choice. Live in this great country and back what it is or move to fucking China or North Korea where they also think only a select few should hold a few set of liberties and freedoms based on a narrow mindset.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169684 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
6.‘Gay Marriage’ encourages and increases homosexual behavior.
Over the last 50 years, homosexual behavior has increased due to media advocacy, our culture of divorce, porn, and promiscuity, and the greater economic and emotional independence of women from men. Validating ‘gay marriage’ will further encourage men and women to explore homosexual unions.
Social shame used to inhibit homosexual experimentation; ‘gay marriage’ casts off the last restraint, and increases homosexual behavior in our society. Between 1995 and 2005, lesbian unions in the USA increased 7 times, while male unions doubled.
Gay marriage may increase homosexual SEX amongst homosexuals no different than heterosexual marriage given you now have a sexual partner sitting next to you while you watch Jeopardy and don't have to drive for miles on a rainy night to get a slice of love but if you're to infer it increases the numbers of homosexuals that's a baseless lie.

Disagree?

Again...provide proof.

As far as experimenting during sex all I can say is don't do the Lone Ranger bit.

I did. Rode the range on my stick horse naked sans a pair of boots, Stetson and toy gunbelt into my bedroom where a topless Pocahontas was waiting for me only to have my handy six shooter shift leaving a bruised notch on my love stick.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169685 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
7.‘Gay Marriage’ opens the door to other types of ‘marriage.’
In changing the meaning of marriage to include infidelity and gender sameness,‘gay marriage’ sets a precedent for other types of units, like incest and polygamy. Legal cases involving polygamy now invoke the same legal precedents of gay rights advocates. What seemed unthinkable 10 years ago is now ‘gay marriage’ law. We flinch until we become sensitized, then we flinch no more.
.
No it doesn't any more than allowing differing races to marry opened the door to allow Farmer Brown to marry his favorite milking cow Bessie you moron.

And if polygamists want to make the fight to legalize their particular aspect of marriage it's within their right but polygamy is a completely separate entity which stands on it's own merits.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169686 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
8.‘Gay Marriage’ unleashes a global legal nightmare.
‘Gay marriage’ will clog the courts with myriad issues. Already, married gay couples are demanding marriage rights wherever they settle, regardless of the current laws of that state or nation. Not to mention the hundreds of cases in the USA alone concerning a host of bewildering issues, like gay divorce and ownership of artificially inseminated offspring.
In terms of global focus I would think economics and war overshasow your concern Harfry marries Ted little man.

Each country is it's own entity with their own sets of statutes and laws. We're focused on our country when it comes to gays marrying dumbass.

As far as the aspect of "bewildering issues" those already exist within the legal system and I can see no substantial increase due to gays marrying despite your fears.

Gays marrying pose more benefit than harm in any case given they can provide orphans and foster childrewn with healthy families to grow up in, incresae businesses associated with their being and will strengthen us as a free nation which is cased on the Constitution to name but a few aspects.

In your frame of thought we should squash liberties to other persons based on disdain to avoid possible court cases. Don't allow boat enthusiasts to own boats....many end up in court. Don't allow fat people to marry...they have a higher risk of death from sex let alone their kids may carry the gene that made them overweight.

We could draw out ALL freedoms and ban them on the few negative aspects freedoms inherently have you complete dipshit.

You need to find a country which embraces your thoughts of the limitation of basic liberties amongst it's citizens because it's not this country Ace.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169687 Dec 2, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The aspect of allowing gays to marry involves itself with the expansion of basic liberties to a grouping of American citizens whom have been previously denied those freedoms...specifically of being allowed to marry the adult of their choice.
Your post above is a sad lie in that you want to infer I would support the government as an entity to control relationships that "they" determine harmful.
First off understand our government is formatted by the people for the purpose of allowing us as U.S. citizens to govern ourselves as free peoples. The fact that the government determined polygamy a problematic and harmful insitution was based on their past occurances with that said insitution in that they found harmful elements such as cultist aspects which led to underage marriages and unwarranted control of subjects within those cults.
I never made the statement you claim nor did I deliver anything which led to that direction...I merely advised facts.
So I can safely point ot you as not only being the dumbass here but as a liar.
Next.
You can dance all you like, but the fact that you feel compelled and quite comfortable in denying marriage rights to a select few because they have been found to cause "harm" by the government, shows how bigoted and blinded by your own personal crusade you are.

The only dumbass here is you Dan. You are just so much of a dumbass that you can't see it.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169688 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
At least I can offer rational., lucid arguments against gay marriage, although your hero, Chongo-no-hope- would deny this..
Since when were generalist unsupported baseless claims 'rational and lucid'?

LOL!!!

The only thing you brought to show and tell was your opinion dumbfuck.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169689 Dec 2, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You can dance all you like, but the fact that you feel compelled and quite comfortable in denying marriage rights to a select few because they have been found to cause "harm" by the government, shows how bigoted and blinded by your own personal crusade you are.
The only dumbass here is you Dan. You are just so much of a dumbass that you can't see it.
Here's your second lie of the night.

I never denied marriage to polygamists.

'Dumbass'...wear the sign.

LOL!!!

Next.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169690 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But the same rationale and reasoning exists for both issues, so the same results must be achieved, to avoid arbitrarily doling out justice. Can't have double standards...
The only double standard exists when heterosexuals want to ban homosexuals from marrying.

It's OK for heterosexuals to marry given it's a basic liberty all American adults should have but not homosexuals albeit they too are American citizens wishing to pursue a freedom which exhibits no harm.

You just got busted son.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169691 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But I'm not lonely, and, I'm not a loser...
Your opinion.

ROFL!!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169692 Dec 2, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your second lie of the night.
I never denied marriage to polygamists.
'Dumbass'...wear the sign.
LOL!!!
Next.
You can dance ad parse words, but the fact is, you don't have any problem brushing off any other form of marriage currently not allowed by the government as a non-issue or red herring- aside from same sex marriage. There in lies your inner bigot no matter how much you wish to deny it.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169693 Dec 2, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You can dance ad parse words, but the fact is, you don't have any problem brushing off any other form of marriage currently not allowed by the government as a non-issue or red herring- aside from same sex marriage. There in lies your inner bigot no matter how much you wish to deny it.
Have you read my posts dumbass?

Have you read my responses to your sad inclusion of polygamy?

Go back and read them shitforbrains. There is no mention of any bigotry from me you complete moron.

Like I repeatedly stated but you being a dumbfuck failed to read - I could give a shit less if the incredibly few poloygamists want to pursue their format of marriage as long as it did not include underage brides, coercion or hiding spouses from each other.

Get lost punk...you're such a lost soul it's pathetic.

By the way....this thread is about gay marriage...not men having sex with cars, necrophelia, beastiality or those who wonder who in the HELL your sad ass could possibly bed down with at night.

LOL!!!

Geeezus already.
WWBD

Oakland, CA

#169694 Dec 2, 2012
Testing

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169695 Dec 2, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read my posts dumbass?
Yes Dan, we have all suffered through your posts. You are very good at dancing, but not very good at reality.

You are like Rose, trying to speak in all kinds of cryptic terms, trying to leave yourselves a way out of all of your nonsense by attempting to never really commit to anything. The problem is, neither of you are intelligent enough to do so, and not one person is falling for your nonsense.

You cannot claim that you are for equal rights on one hand, and then deny those right's on the other. You cannot claim that it is OK to deny right's from one group because of- A,B,C- and then claim you cannot deny those same right's from another group because A,B,C does not apply to them.

You don't get a pass on being a bigot because you are in favor of same sex marriage anymore than a black person gets a pass on being a racist because of the color of their skin.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169696 Dec 2, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>

Like I repeatedly stated but you being a dumbfuck failed to read - I could give a shit less if the incredibly few poloygamists want to pursue their format of marriage as long as it did not include underage brides, coercion or hiding spouses from each other.
Stereotype much?

That inner-bigot really shines through when you get angry.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169698 Dec 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Dan, we have all suffered through your posts. You are very good at dancing, but not very good at reality.
You are like Rose, trying to speak in all kinds of cryptic terms, trying to leave yourselves a way out of all of your nonsense by attempting to never really commit to anything. The problem is, neither of you are intelligent enough to do so, and not one person is falling for your nonsense.
You cannot claim that you are for equal rights on one hand, and then deny those right's on the other. You cannot claim that it is OK to deny right's from one group because of- A,B,C- and then claim you cannot deny those same right's from another group because A,B,C does not apply to them.
You don't get a pass on being a bigot because you are in favor of same sex marriage anymore than a black person gets a pass on being a racist because of the color of their skin.
Very well said. I couldn't have said it better. Just let me add that Dan is a jackass! And a big dope.

Funny stuff!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169699 Dec 3, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The aspect of allowing gays to marry involves itself with the expansion of basic liberties to a grouping of American citizens whom have been previously denied those freedoms...specifically of being allowed to marry the adult of their choice.
Your post above is a sad lie in that you want to infer I would support the government as an entity to control relationships that "they" determine harmful.
First off understand our government is formatted by the people for the purpose of allowing us as U.S. citizens to govern ourselves as free peoples. The fact that the government determined polygamy a problematic and harmful insitution was based on their past occurances with that said insitution in that they found harmful elements such as cultist aspects which led to underage marriages and unwarranted control of subjects within those cults.
I never made the statement you claim nor did I deliver anything which led to that direction...I merely advised facts.
So I can safely point ot you as not only being the dumbass here but as a liar.
Next.
The "aspect of allowing gays to marry..." "..our government is formatted.." a "grouping of American citizens"

It's real funny when dopey Dan tries to sound intelligent! Love it.

What a dope!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169700 Dec 3, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really.
Marriage involves itself with the basic elements of mutual attraction, a shared love and a willingess to commit to a legal union amongst adults.
Gays can perform that circus trick as well as heterosexuals.
HJeterosexual marriages often times produce horribly abused children so your blanket claim inference that heterosexual marriages protect children more than gay families is incorrect.
There are studies 9several in fact) which displace this generalistic and unbased claim.
Here's one;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/t...
As far as identifying a gay marriage with proper wording I think the most accurate would be "marriage" itself since it encompasses the fact you can have 2 same sex members get hitched.
I'm here to help friend....all you have to do is ask.
When it's two adults you say "between" adults. If there are three or more you say "among" or "amongst" adults.

Since you used "amongst adults" and not "between adults" you must mean polygamists.

Glad you're on board Dan! Who are you, Mormon Manny all of a sudden? What about all those "inherent harms" the "formatted" government has determined? The "cultish aspects" etc?

You're a real dope, Dan.

Having fun now!

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#169701 Dec 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
.
You cannot claim that you are for equal rights on one hand, and then deny those right's on the other. You cannot claim that it is OK to deny right's from one group because of- A,B,C- and then claim you cannot deny those same right's from another group because A,B,C does not apply to them.
.......
Actually, yes you can. Straight people do it every day.

The key is the reasons you are denying those equal rights. Gay folks have already proven, categorically, that our marriages are good for our families, and good for society in general.

Gay folks want the SAME right to marry the adult single non-related person of their choice that straight folks ALREADY have. It's very simple.

And straight religious folks marrying many spouses at one time just doesn't enter into the marriage conversation for most Americans. Americans LOVE to marry multiples - just one at a time.

Do you demand that all of your straight friends, and every heterosexual married couple that you know, support marrying multiple spouses, simply because THEY can marry one at a time? Don't you think they would laugh at you for making such silly and illogical demands?

Of course you don't do that, do you, but you apply that leaky logic ONLY to gay folks.

Polygamy is a separate issue, with it's own arguments, detractors, and problems. If people wish to begin marrying many, then they will go through the appropriate channels, and prove that their marriages are good for their families, and for society, and the laws banning it will change.

If you support polygamy, then speak up. Demanding that other people who do not want to marry more than one spouse at a time support polygamy, simply because they want to marry just ONE person, is just plain silly.

But, I guess it really is all you have left, isn't it? You can't find a single logical or relevant reason to deny gay people the right to marry, so all you can do it to try to tie it to an unrelated divisive issue and hope for the best.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169702 Dec 3, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>It's about the only thing I agree with him on. And I noticed it wasn't very popular with the Liberals that love the big unions.
I'm waiting for Dan to start threatening to beat people up in the Home Depot parking lot again.

You know how he gets, he threatens to beat some tolerance and diversity into them!

He once threatened to beat me "into a greasy stain" because he felt I wasn't being tolerant and diverse enough. Meanwhile it's Dan who is the real bigot.

Priceless!

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
John Root to take over Jerry Deal's seat: Longt... Tue Fiona 1
La Victoria's Orange Sauce (Jan '06) Tue Kay 128
Beam me up Scottie Oct 20 guest 12
From Tower of Power - The Mic Gillette Band Oct 3 IGotSoul 1
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Sep '14 abusedmom 108
Catalytic Converter Theft. Toyota Truck/SUV own... (May '07) Sep '14 Jesie 950
Daly City Officer Charged With Excessive Force (Aug '06) Aug '14 parmar gangaram 372

Redwood City News Video

Redwood City Dating
Find my Match

Redwood City Jobs

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Redwood City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Redwood City

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]