Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,192

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

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182781 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history. No fault divorce has fatally fractured the family. Abortion has 'protected the mother' at the expense of her child. Just two examples.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option. According to the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbian couples rate last, AFTER single parents!
Moreover, gay couples mutually procreate nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, and directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Finally, rights are protected by law, it has no power to create. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION. Calling gay couples married is an imposition of an imposter relationship, hardly just or consistent.
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation."
Wrong... there are 11 species of animals which mate for life... which is basically what marriage is about. Funny how you bring nature into this since there are over 1500 species of animals that have homosexuals in them... which, while not common, makes homosexuality a natural phenomenon.
Moreover, gay couples mutually procreate nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, and directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution."
Neither do post menopausal women, sterile people and people who have been "fixed"... yet they are allowed to marry....
Out of literally millions of animal species, you note eleven (11), yes, eleven species that mate for life.

What you fail to note is that for humans the constraint of marriage flies in the face of evolutionary mating behavior. A drive that is equated to the desire for food, water and air.

Now ask yourself, "Why do we constrain such a powerful drive with marriage?"

Second, scientists have no clear means of judging animal orientation. Moreover, they know that some same sex sexual behavior (SSSB, yes, that is the term scientists use) in numerous species, is clearly not homosexual, but motivated by other purposes.

Which brings us to your attempt to equate an absolute genetic defect with animals, human aging, birth defects and deliberate sterilization. Simply silly stupid.

Here is an analogy of the difference between the rare occasion of childless marriages (96% of marriages historically procreate) and the 100% desolate barrenness of mutual procreation in gay relationships;

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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182782 Mar 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct!
Alas that the court has become so political.
But I expect them to do the right thing regardless.
Don't u mean the left thing?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182783 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
They've always been allowed to marry. Why is it an issue now? Its been allowed since the advent of marriage.
You are the one making reproduction an issue. If it wasn't before, since the advent of marriage, then why are you making it an issue now?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182784 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't u mean the left thing?
lol

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182785 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option.
Moreover, gay couples produce nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Additionally, rights are distinguished in law. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION.
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey spacker, marriage isn't a natural thing. It is a construct of man. It also isn't the only building block of society.
What a mong.
I didn't say it was. I said 'at the fundamental level of natural design and primary function, ie marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a direct defective failure of the very primary goal of evolution, literally 'unmarriage'.

Second, I said 'marriage is the only NATURAL building block of society. As SCOTUS has noted many times, procreation within marriage is the best by far setting for the raising children. The very next default setting is quickly a drastic drop in the social health of children. And in the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbians came in last. AFTER single parents! Gay couples didn't even rate!!!

Next.

Snicker.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182786 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option.
Moreover, gay couples produce nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Additionally, rights are distinguished in law. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION.
<quoted text>
I didn't say it was. I said 'at the fundamental level of natural design and primary function, ie marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective failure of the very primary goal of evolution, literally 'unmarriage'.
Second, I said 'marriage is the only NATURAL building block of society. As SCOTUS has noted many times, procreation within marriage is the best by far setting for the raising children. The very next default setting is quickly a drastic drop in the social health of children. And in the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbians came in last. AFTER single parents! Gay couples didn't even rate!!!
Next.
Snicker.
What you said was:
"Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society."

I replied by saying it was a creation of man. Which ain't natural by most lines of thinking.

Dumdum. It is right up there in plain sight. I dunno why you'd try to deny what you said. Unless you're of the mind that once you turn the page your blatherings are lost in the ether.

The rest of your ramblings are pure idiocy. Verbose attempts to sound as if you're intelligent. Clearly you aren't.

Evolution is a series of accidents. Some survive, some don't. The environment of the time influences what survives. Sickle cell anemia is a clear example of this.

You may not insert your head into the usual location.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182787 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>lol
Does that mean Xbox found my response funny?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182788 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one making reproduction an issue. If it wasn't before, since the advent of marriage, then why are you making it an issue now?
It wasn't questioned before. Did anyone seriously doubt the link between procreation and marriage before the onset of SSM?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182789 Mar 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you belittling the scarcity of my goldfish that had a beautiful marriage ceremony last week?
( wait, they are both female… maybe they dont know about Prop 8 )
Let be guess....the bride and groom wore tails.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#182790 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history. No fault divorce has fatally fractured the family. Abortion has 'protected the mother' at the expense of her child. Just two examples.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option. According to the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbian couples rate last, AFTER single parents!
Moreover, gay couples mutually procreate nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, and directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Finally, rights are protected by law, it has no power to create. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION. Calling gay couples married is an imposition of an imposter relationship, hardly just or consistent.
<quoted text>
Out of literally millions of animal species, you note eleven (11), yes, eleven species that mate for life.
What you fail to note is that for humans the constraint of marriage flies in the face of evolutionary mating behavior. A drive that is equated to the desire for food, water and air.
Now ask yourself, "Why do we constrain such a powerful drive with marriage?"
Second, scientists have no clear means of judging animal orientation. Moreover, they know that some same sex sexual behavior (SSSB, yes, that is the term scientists use) in numerous species, is clearly not homosexual, but motivated by other purposes.
Which brings us to your attempt to equate an absolute genetic defect with animals, human aging, birth defects and deliberate sterilization. Simply silly stupid.
Here is an analogy of the difference between the rare occasion of childless marriages (96% of marriages historically procreate) and the 100% desolate barrenness of mutual procreation in gay relationships;
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.
Calling you a human is the imposition of an impostor thing hardly just or consistent.

BTW, you can't make a good analogy. The ability to produce apples is part of the definition of an apple tree. In fact, it pretty much is the definition, a tree that produces apples. But, the ability to produce offspring is not part of the definition of marriage.
Can you come up with a reason you should not have been aborted?

LOL!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182791 Mar 7, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
What you said was:
"Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society."
I replied by saying it was a creation of man. Which ain't natural by most lines of thinking.
Dumdum. It is right up there in plain sight. I dunno why you'd try to deny what you said. Unless you're of the mind that once you turn the page your blatherings are lost in the ether.
The rest of your ramblings are pure idiocy. Verbose attempts to sound as if you're intelligent. Clearly you aren't.
Evolution is a series of accidents. Some survive, some don't. The environment of the time influences what survives. Sickle cell anemia is a clear example of this.
You may not insert your head into the usual location.
And I said 'natural building block OF SOCIETY' which isn't nature natural either. However, marriage within society is 'natural'.

You know exactly what I'm saying and have no intelligent defense, so you revert to ad homoan denial followed by another childish gay twirl; Evolution thrives on mutation. Some mutations enable survival of the fittest, others are defective barren mutation mistakes.

My head won't fit there, you already mistook a septic system for a playground. No surprise by the stupidity you post.

Smirk.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182792 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And I said 'natural building block OF SOCIETY' which isn't nature natural either. However, marriage within society is 'natural'.
You know exactly what I'm saying and have no intelligent defense, so you revert to ad homoan denial followed by another childish gay twirl; Evolution thrives on mutation. Some mutations enable survival of the fittest, others are defective barren mutation mistakes.
My head won't fit there, you already mistook a septic system for a playground. No surprise by the stupidity you post.
Smirk.
You said marriage was the "only" natural building block of society. I simply disagreed. Because there are many building blocks of society. Marriage is but one, and it has changed numerous times over the years regarding ceremony and recognition by various entities including church and state.

Your head lives in your food exit. That much is obvious. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting half the idiotic BS you seem to thrive upon. It is the fundamental building block of your personality. Which is quite tedious.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182793 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let be guess....the bride and groom wore tails.
Quite colorful ones at that. It was quite festive.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182794 Mar 7, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
You said marriage was the "only" natural building block of society. I simply disagreed. Because there are many building blocks of society. Marriage is but one, and it has changed numerous times over the years regarding ceremony and recognition by various entities including church and state.
Your head lives in your food exit. That much is obvious. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting half the idiotic BS you seem to thrive upon. It is the fundamental building block of your personality. Which is quite tedious.
So now you shift from 'natural' to 'only', which further proves you are naturally stupid and only full of BS.

You tried to insinuate that gay couples are a building block. Now you try again. Just a heads up, gay couples are never a building block within their relationship.

Procreation is limited to heterosexual couples. That core element of marriage has never changed. In every culture throughout human history, the constraint of marriage has been the natural and best setting for human fruit. All other options are considered default settings. Most often by the mother, father and children.

Funny you should troll attack with ass assertions. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. That's not my head up there...

Bazinga!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182795 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution thrives on mutation. Some mutations enable survival of the fittest, others are defective barren mutation mistakes.
I forgot to respond to this bit.
So now you're learning something, almost anyway. Mutations cover a broad spectrum. Some don't even make it out of the womb. Others are the fittest at one point in history and not fit at other points in history. Then there are the ones covering a broad spectrum of weaknesses and strengths. It all depends upon what is going on in this big petri dish we call a planet at the time they emerge. I gave an example by mentioning sickle cell anemia. Horrible disease if you've known someone who suffered through it. OTOH, it enhances survival in malaria ridden locations with fairly short life spans by today's standards. Hence the prevalence of the disorder in some family lines. Would you be insulting them due to their "defective" nature.

Barren doesn't mean incapable of contributing to society as a whole. Which is something you keep bringing up.

Society is quite complex and reproductive status isn't central to the contributions of every individual. If we were living in a very primitive society it might be a key issue for survival of a family or a village but we live in a much more complex era. A barren womb with a fertile mind might enhance the survival of large numbers of people whereas a fertile womb only contributes a few individuals.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182797 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you shift from 'natural' to 'only', which further proves you are naturally stupid and only full of BS.
You tried to insinuate that gay couples are a building block. Now you try again. Just a heads up, gay couples are never a building block within their relationship.
Procreation is limited to heterosexual couples. That core element of marriage has never changed. In every culture throughout human history, the constraint of marriage has been the natural and best setting for human fruit. All other options are considered default settings. Most often by the mother, father and children.
Funny you should troll attack with ass assertions. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. That's not my head up there...
Bazinga!
Hey dumdum, you're the one that brought "natural" and "only" as qualifiers. WTF is wrong with you? Short attention span?

Procreation isn't limited to heterosexual couples. Homosexuals have been producing offspring for eons.

Since you brought up demeaning again in reference to anal sex it has reminded me of a statement you made previously and were unable to buttress when I asked you about it. What is it that is demeaning about lesbian sex? For that matter, what is it about anal sex that is demeaning? The acts carried on by gay men and lesbian women aren't unique to them. Heterosexual couples engage in oral and anal sex with great frequency. Are they demeaning for them? Why? B

ack up your statements with a little evidence. I'll wait patiently for you to do so. Try to do so without any of your usual silly crap about gay twirl or ad homoan attacks. Those are quite childish remarks anyway. Oh, and they're insults as well as ad hominem attacks. You seem to suffer quit a bit of the ol' pot calling the kettle black routine.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182798 Mar 7, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey dumdum, you're the one that brought "natural" and "only" as qualifiers. WTF is wrong with you? Short attention span?
Procreation isn't limited to heterosexual couples. Homosexuals have been producing offspring for eons.
Since you brought up demeaning again in reference to anal sex it has reminded me of a statement you made previously and were unable to buttress when I asked you about it. What is it that is demeaning about lesbian sex? For that matter, what is it about anal sex that is demeaning? The acts carried on by gay men and lesbian women aren't unique to them. Heterosexual couples engage in oral and anal sex with great frequency. Are they demeaning for them? Why? B
ack up your statements with a little evidence. I'll wait patiently for you to do so. Try to do so without any of your usual silly crap about gay twirl or ad homoan attacks. Those are quite childish remarks anyway. Oh, and they're insults as well as ad hominem attacks. You seem to suffer quit a bit of the ol' pot calling the kettle black routine.
The flaw in these arguments is the use of modern sexual identity politics labels, "gay", "straight", "hetero", "homo", etc. The bottom line is sex between men and women makes babies. Marriage serves as the means by which the sexes are joined together, and do what cones naturally, have sex, and make babies. That's what virtually all human societies have organized themselves around. SSM is really a contradiction in terms. If it were such a compelling need for it among human societies why is there no deep seated cross cultural cross time historic ssm, male or female, structure? What is the urgent need for it now?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182799 Mar 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Before posting again, look up Democratic republic, and look the first example given.
You realize that a dictionary is REACTIVE not PROACTIVE don't you?

It simply uses the USA as a definition of Democratic Republic since idiots like you have gone around saying it long enough. It is historically INACCURATE to use the term Democracy when describing the U.S.A. The founders didn't use the term, and if you would care to educate yourself you would find that they despised it!

This nonsense about "pure" democracy is simply that, nonsense. The term DEMOCRACY is found NOWHERE in ANY of our founding documents, there is a reason for that.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182800 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
blah, blah, blah.
It's OK, we know how hard you worked to come up with this intelligent response.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182801 Mar 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
His arguments have already been made in court, and failed.
Actually no, my arguments were not made in the court regarding the Prop 8 ruling.

They were, however, used quite successfully in court to result in the tossing of DOMA.

You should probably understand my position before posting, it will help make you less of an ass.

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.

Riverside Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pardee: Selling Homes in Beaumont Without Infra... Thu james marple 3
Colton revising policy after investigation Wed ladeda 1
OAKDALE (NWO) FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP being bui... (Nov '08) Oct 20 Riverbank resident 105
Vote Tom Kincaid, Write In Candidate, Colton D... Oct 19 TKincaid 5
Yucaipa City Council candidates answer questions Oct 8 Qeolersan 1
Neo-Nazi's In Riverside California Confronted (Oct '09) Oct 6 blazed 64
Colton "Ski Land" (Aug '08) Oct 6 Marlene B 6

Riverside News Video

Riverside Dating
Find my Match

Riverside Jobs

Riverside People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Riverside News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Riverside

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]