Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201862 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.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217714 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not subjective at all.
The whole purpose of mating behavior is reproduction. A drive that is at least equated to our desire for air or water.
A duplicate gendered couple is absolutely incapable of fulfilling mating behavior. Pointless.
Here is a question for you;
Why does a butch lesbian dress and act like a man to attract another lesbian?
I agree that the purpose of mating behavior is reproduction. You are over simplifying the concept of marriage. There are other economic and societal factors involved which cannot be explained by your over-simplification. We do not live in primitive times anymore where survival instincts dominate our way of living.

Animals also exhibit homosexual behavior for survival reasons: to limit overgrowth in population. This behavior increases the longevity of the herd as more resources will not be required for the herd. Some birds have 2 male and 1 female to raise their offspring as this ensures their survival. Again, these acts serve a purpose. It may not be to reproduce, but, evolutionarily, to ensure the survival of their offspring. Not pointless.

Why a butch lesbian looks like a man...I never really thought about it. Why?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#217715 Sep 22, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't those your general comments on here? And why should you be allowed polygamy? You didn't fight for it, you've made NO persuasive arguments for it and yet you stomp your little feet and say 'they get theirs what can't I have mine too'? Trying to ride on the backs of people who when out, worked hard and made a difference. Your a sick greedy baby who's also an a$$hole.
Speaking of greed, most polygamists support same sex marriage. And most homosexuals do not support polygamy. So much for solidarity. Gimme mine, screw yours.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217716 Sep 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True, but it is the reason by which marriage is recognized in the first place. If human reproduction wasn't sexual, would there be a need for marriage?
<quoted text>
True, there are scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions. Virtually non existent in Western civilization until its invention in the late 20th century.
Let me use similar logic to ask you a question: if human reproduction is purely sexual, why do we need marriage? It is not a necessary aspect for reproduction; sex alone can reproduce. We have marriage because society is complex. Marriage has legal, financial, and other benefits, not just reproduction.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#217717 Sep 22, 2013
Mikey is all gimme gimme. Gimme gay marriage. Gimme Obama plan. Gimme HIV cure. Gimme Obama care. Gimme free stuff. Gimme Gimme!
Flounders

La Puente, CA

#217718 Sep 22, 2013
And the flounders come marching in.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217720 Sep 22, 2013
Flounders wrote:
And the flounders come marching in.
Fish out of water. You're it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#217721 Sep 22, 2013
douchebaggery wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the purpose of mating behavior is reproduction. You are over simplifying the concept of marriage. There are other economic and societal factors involved which cannot be explained by your over-simplification. We do not live in primitive times anymore where survival instincts dominate our way of living.
Animals also exhibit homosexual behavior for survival reasons: to limit overgrowth in population. This behavior increases the longevity of the herd as more resources will not be required for the herd. Some birds have 2 male and 1 female to raise their offspring as this ensures their survival. Again, these acts serve a purpose. It may not be to reproduce, but, evolutionarily, to ensure the survival of their offspring. Not pointless.
Why a butch lesbian looks like a man...I never really thought about it. Why?
Not oversimplifying at all. Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist were it not for children. Other factors have been attached, of course, but they are not nearly sufficient to maintain the monogamy marriage entails. In fact, even when those factors exist, they usually are in a polygamous setting of rare wealthy or political situations.

Animals exhibit Same Sex Sexual Behavior (SSSB), for a variety of reasons. Rarely is it a true homosexual situation. I know of no cases where it is used to regulate the population of a species. Can you give an example? And it certainly does not increase the population. Additionally, the young in species are at a much greater risk when the male is unrelated. Among humans, it is know as the Cinderella affect, step children are 100 more times at risk.

A almost male lesbian is mating with a nearly wants a man lesbian. It exposes a spectrum of broken mating behavior. A transgendered person recognizes that the wrong body was placed on the sexual identity because the defect is so severe. GLB's are just lessor examples of that.

You seem to know enough to be dangerous. I'd suggest you do some research apart from gay sites...

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217722 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not oversimplifying at all. Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist were it not for children. Other factors have been attached, of course, but they are not nearly sufficient to maintain the monogamy marriage entails. In fact, even when those factors exist, they usually are in a polygamous setting of rare wealthy or political situations.
Animals exhibit Same Sex Sexual Behavior (SSSB), for a variety of reasons. Rarely is it a true homosexual situation. I know of no cases where it is used to regulate the population of a species. Can you give an example? And it certainly does not increase the population. Additionally, the young in species are at a much greater risk when the male is unrelated. Among humans, it is know as the Cinderella affect, step children are 100 more times at risk.
A almost male lesbian is mating with a nearly wants a man lesbian. It exposes a spectrum of broken mating behavior. A transgendered person recognizes that the wrong body was placed on the sexual identity because the defect is so severe. GLB's are just lessor examples of that.
You seem to know enough to be dangerous. I'd suggest you do some research apart from gay sites...
I am not denying why marriage exists. Things have changed since primitive times; marriage is much more complicated than that now. Please revisit my earlier posts as I went over this with another.

Male dolphins share most of their lives with males. They meet with female dolphins to mate, but continue their lives with their male companion. That resembles a "true" homosexual relation doesn't it?

As for your request for an example, I cannot remember what type of deer or similar animal it is, but the females engage in homosexual behavior. The reason behind it may not have an axiom as of yet. I thought I could slip in that logical fallacy without detection. I was asserting my interpretation of their behavior.

I looked up Cinderella Effect and do not understand your link to this argument. It appears this is regarding abuse. Please elaborate.

I think you make a good point about the sexual identity in the wrong body. Although I don't completely agree with your views, I feel it is worthwhile to mention the aforementioned point. Up until recently, homosexuality was under the misnomer of psychological disorder.

"You seem to know enough to be dangerous. I'd suggest you do some research apart from gay sites"
I engage in debates, because I like to discuss and test beliefs and logic. I do not feel strongly about gay marriages either way. I thought my conversation would be the most interesting with you, but ad hominem attacks aren't going to achieve anything. Let's keep it on topic. I am enjoying our discussion this far.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#217723 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
My wife's not barren. In fact, we are going to try for a child today. I'm looking forward to it.
If you are referring to her age, that has never been a failure of mating behavior. Nor has a medical condition.
But more importantly, and this is clearly a shock to you, so sit down on your hemorrhoid pillow, these conditions have ALWAYS been accepted in marriage!!!
However, a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half has never been considered marriage in a single culture from start to finish. They simply don't come close to equating to marriage.
I hope you are okay with this shock. Call me if you want to talk.
Smile.
I've seen photos of you and your wife. I can pretty much guess her age. She is far past the age of safely having children--IF she's even capable of having a child. My guess is that she's postmenopausal.

See, women are born with a finite ability to produce eggs. After being fertile for about 40 years, egg production begins to deteriorate and become irregular. Eventually it ceases altogether.

Your wife is barren because she is now infertile. The only way that she could become pregnant is if she were to have in vitro fertilization. And I KNOW you wouldn't want to go through that process, since it is "unnatural". And no society has ever supported in vitro fertilization from start to finish.

You cannot engage in MATING behavior because your actions would be futile. And MATING is defined as having intercourse for the sole purpose of having children.

She cannot get pregnant. All you would be doing is having sexual intercourse.

Your marriage is a "mutually sterile, pointlessly opposite gendered half of marriage".

I don't know why this is so hard for you to accept.

You should dump her and move on to a fertile woman--begin a new family.

That's what "marriage" is to you isn't it? Haven't you repeatedly insisted that it is a "cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior"? Haven't you clearly explained to us time and again that the purpose of marriage is to tie a man to a woman for the purposes of raising and providing for a family?

You've raised your children. You have no more responsibilities to provide for your children. Move on and get a new wife post haste!

I have to admit, I do enjoy using your definitions against you. It gives me great pleasure to make a fool of you--not that you haven't done an AMAZING job of that yourself.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#217724 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No, ss couples made extremely rare and short-lived appearances in history. Ss couples being called married never established itself and spread in a single culture in all of human history.
On the other hand, marriage has been present in every single culture in human history. What a profound difference! This was true across all cultures and religions.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
You and your wife are a defective failure of mating behavior.

You cannot mate with her. She is incapable of having children. And if she did, the likelihood of the child having genetic deformations is very great. Furthermore, it would place her own health at great risk.

I can't think of any society or culture that has supported the idea from beginning to end of women having children beyond a certain age.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217725 Sep 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not oversimplifying at all. Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist were it not for children. Other factors have been attached, of course, but they are not nearly sufficient to maintain the monogamy marriage entails. In fact, even when those factors exist, they usually are in a polygamous setting of rare wealthy or political situations.
Animals exhibit Same Sex Sexual Behavior (SSSB), for a variety of reasons. Rarely is it a true homosexual situation. I know of no cases where it is used to regulate the population of a species. Can you give an example? And it certainly does not increase the population. Additionally, the young in species are at a much greater risk when the male is unrelated. Among humans, it is know as the Cinderella affect, step children are 100 more times at risk.
A almost male lesbian is mating with a nearly wants a man lesbian. It exposes a spectrum of broken mating behavior. A transgendered person recognizes that the wrong body was placed on the sexual identity because the defect is so severe. GLB's are just lessor examples of that.
You seem to know enough to be dangerous. I'd suggest you do some research apart from gay sites...
If I may digress for a second and explain to you my true opinion on homosexuals, I do not like them. Gay men do make me feel uncomfortable, but I do not use my personal feelings to limit their freedoms. If they want to marry, it does not affect my life in a significant way. What they do is their personal affair and I will not tell them otherwise, simply because I do not care enough what they do. Likewise, I won't tell a straight couple what to do as I don't care either.

Now that racism has become so taboo, people discriminate people on their sexual orientation and sex. Seems like society always has to have an inferior class like equality is unfathomable.

Now, I am being transparent, let's make this discussion more interesting. My question is--so what if they cannot reproduce, why not let them marry?

Many conservative minded people will fear that this affects the historical/holy nature of marriage. Then, why not let be "domestic partners" which will give them benefits of marriage without affecting the above?

Why does the prospect of homosexual unions irk people so much?

Why are the affairs of homosexuals so important to many despite the lack of direct effect on other people's live?

Looking forward to your response.
Melanie

Los Angeles, CA

#217726 Sep 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing more obnoxious than a liberal who thinks he's a conservative like Huh is.
Ya there is......
How about an old rude creep to talks about women like pieces of meat and
couldn't get a woman if it was dressed like a man....
Melanie

Los Angeles, CA

#217727 Sep 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>I've seen photos of you and your wife. I can pretty much guess her age. She is far past the age of safely having children--IF she's even capable of having a child. My guess is that she's postmenopausal.

See, women are born with a finite ability to produce eggs. After being fertile for about 40 years, egg production begins to deteriorate and become irregular. Eventually it ceases altogether.

Your wife is barren because she is now infertile. The only way that she could become pregnant is if she were to have in vitro fertilization. And I KNOW you wouldn't want to go through that process, since it is "unnatural". And no society has ever supported in vitro fertilization from start to finish.

You cannot engage in MATING behavior because your actions would be futile. And MATING is defined as having intercourse for the sole purpose of having children.

She cannot get pregnant. All you would be doing is having sexual intercourse.

Your marriage is a "mutually sterile, pointlessly opposite gendered half of marriage".

I don't know why this is so hard for you to accept.

You should dump her and move on to a fertile woman--begin a new family.

That's what "marriage" is to you isn't it? Haven't you repeatedly insisted that it is a "cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior"? Haven't you clearly explained to us time and again that the purpose of marriage is to tie a man to a woman for the purposes of raising and providing for a family?

You've raised your children. You have no more responsibilities to provide for your children. Move on and get a new wife post haste!

I have to admit, I do enjoy using your definitions against you. It gives me great pleasure to make a fool of you--not that you haven't done an AMAZING job of that yourself.
Thank God Kimare's wife can't conceive

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217728 Sep 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You and your wife are a defective failure of mating behavior.
You cannot mate with her. She is incapable of having children. And if she did, the likelihood of the child having genetic deformations is very great. Furthermore, it would place her own health at great risk.
I can't think of any society or culture that has supported the idea from beginning to end of women having children beyond a certain age.
I believe what he means by defective failure is that they do not possess the innate ability of reproduction. His word choices may be aggressive, but his point is true.

That is a good point though. I think older women giving birth is a recent occurrence due to better medical practices.

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217729 Sep 22, 2013
Melanie wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank God Kimare's wife can't conceive
Haha, you guys are so cold!!

Since: Jul 13

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#217730 Sep 22, 2013
Don't get mad at gay people. Get mad at straight people making gay babies.
GOP frogs

La Puente, CA

#217731 Sep 22, 2013
If no bill is passed, many, but not all, government operations will come to a halt.
Melanie

Los Angeles, CA

#217732 Sep 22, 2013
douchebaggery wrote:
Don't get mad at gay people. Get mad at straight people making gay babies.
That's kinda cold as well....Clever but cold.......

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#217733 Sep 22, 2013
douchebaggery wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not denying why marriage exists. Things have changed since primitive times; marriage is much more complicated than that now. Please revisit my earlier posts as I went over this with another.
Male dolphins share most of their lives with males. They meet with female dolphins to mate, but continue their lives with their male companion. That resembles a "true" homosexual relation doesn't it?
As for your request for an example, I cannot remember what type of deer or similar animal it is, but the females engage in homosexual behavior. The reason behind it may not have an axiom as of yet. I thought I could slip in that logical fallacy without detection. I was asserting my interpretation of their behavior.
I looked up Cinderella Effect and do not understand your link to this argument. It appears this is regarding abuse. Please elaborate.
I think you make a good point about the sexual identity in the wrong body. Although I don't completely agree with your views, I feel it is worthwhile to mention the aforementioned point. Up until recently, homosexuality was under the misnomer of psychological disorder.
"You seem to know enough to be dangerous. I'd suggest you do some research apart from gay sites"
I engage in debates, because I like to discuss and test beliefs and logic. I do not feel strongly about gay marriages either way. I thought my conversation would be the most interesting with you, but ad hominem attacks aren't going to achieve anything. Let's keep it on topic. I am enjoying our discussion this far.
I wasn't trying to be mean, you seem to have a partial amount of knowledge that you use to make conclusions. That is simply dangerous.

1. At the most, you are describing bi-sexual behavior, not homosexuality. However, brief contact with the opposite gender for mating is common among animals. Another example on the other gender would be Orca whales. The females stimulate each other before the male,'slam bam thank you maam' intercourse.

However, using animals to justify human behavior is risky. Often anal intercourse among animals is simply an expression of dominance. Humping dogs also eat sh/t and lick butts...

2. I brought up the Cinderella Effect because you mentioned two males raising the young.

"In evolutionary psychology, the Cinderella effect is the alleged higher incidence of different forms of child-abuse and mistreatment by stepparents than by biological parents. It takes its name from the fairy tale character Cinderella. Evolutionary psychologists describe the effect as a remnant of an adaptive reproductive strategy among primates where males frequently kill the offspring of other males in order to bring their mothers into estrus, and give the male a chance to fertilize her himself."

3. I have lived through the evolution of a number of theories about homosexuality. A domineering mother and absent father was before a psychological disorder. Genetics were more recent. A number of other ideas before that. You may want to look up the current idea,'homosexuality and epi-genetics'.

Again, I am sorry for sounding harsh, I am used to being assaulted for having divergent views.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#217734 Sep 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen photos of you and your wife. I can pretty much guess her age. She is far past the age of safely having children--IF she's even capable of having a child. My guess is that she's postmenopausal.
See, women are born with a finite ability to produce eggs. After being fertile for about 40 years, egg production begins to deteriorate and become irregular. Eventually it ceases altogether.
Your wife is barren because she is now infertile. The only way that she could become pregnant is if she were to have in vitro fertilization. And I KNOW you wouldn't want to go through that process, since it is "unnatural". And no society has ever supported in vitro fertilization from start to finish.
You cannot engage in MATING behavior because your actions would be futile. And MATING is defined as having intercourse for the sole purpose of having children.
She cannot get pregnant. All you would be doing is having sexual intercourse.
Your marriage is a "mutually sterile, pointlessly opposite gendered half of marriage".
I don't know why this is so hard for you to accept.
You should dump her and move on to a fertile woman--begin a new family.
That's what "marriage" is to you isn't it? Haven't you repeatedly insisted that it is a "cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior"? Haven't you clearly explained to us time and again that the purpose of marriage is to tie a man to a woman for the purposes of raising and providing for a family?
You've raised your children. You have no more responsibilities to provide for your children. Move on and get a new wife post haste!
I have to admit, I do enjoy using your definitions against you. It gives me great pleasure to make a fool of you--not that you haven't done an AMAZING job of that yourself.
Her sister was a mother at 47.

The rest of your post is a rehash of things I've already addressed.

In the end, ss couples are never ever more than a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage. Your assault on me is only a futile attempt to avoid the reality of that deficit.

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.

Richvale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
TWP is a WHITE SUPREMACIST 2 hr Grandpa luvs the KKK 9
OBUMMER and LIBERALISM GET SHELLACED WITH BREXIT 3 hr Grandpa is a Pirate 25
New National Monument 5 hr Smokey Bear 1
Obama Suffers Humiliating Defeat In Brexit Vote- 12 hr Jane twitchy-face... 2
Muslim Sex-Assault Suspects Back On Streets- 14 hr Grandpa Hates Women 4
Easter Cross Sun Grandpa HATES the... 55
GEORGE WILL leaves the GOP Sat GRANDPA NICOLAI 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richvale Mortgages