Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Winston Smith]

ftabmember wrote:

<quoted text>
-----
The point? Are you saying that because some straights are as depraved as homosexuals, all this evil is good?
-----

Which hand are you, the one that searches the porn sites for Gary or the one lingering in his pants?

Gays and straights practice oral sex quite frequently I'd surmise. Anal intercourse appears to be gaining popularity amongst heterosexuals. That stuff is pretty mild compared to fisting, analingus, sadomasochism, etc. Just because they don't float your boat or mine doesn't make them depraved. There is no evidence that any of these rather extreme practices are rampant amongst either group. Personally, I prefer not to bother myself with the bedroom antics of others. Live and let live, eh?

Some of you folks remind me of my sister. She walked into the room while a commercial was on that had Melissa Etheridge speaking. My sister expressing her disgust said something to the effect of "just thinking about what they do to each other grosses me out." It wasn't as if she was having sex on TV, she was just talking about some charitable cause. FFS, grow up people.

[Prof Dingleberry]

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Seriously, dude, you're taking all this way too personally.

I don't take anything you say personally Gary. None of your hyperbole has the remotest thing to do with me. Just like it has nothing to do with reality.

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Step back from it for a moment.

Says the imbicile who jerks off to the Little Black Book everyday. Oh Gary, you are a hoot!

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Consider the issues as a rationale man would instead of a fanatical sex cultist.

Well, when you present some rationale issues let me know.

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Take a deep breath, exhale and repeat after me:
"I'm not on a mission from God ... I'm not on a mission from God ... I not ....

Sorry Gary, only a moron would repeat after you.

[Prof Marvel]

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
People who are into fisting, rimming, golden showers or scat.......which by the way are known as FETISHES.......can be straight, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Asian, Black, White or any other race......it's NOT confine to just Gays YOU FLIPPING MORON!!!
Why aren't you upset about websites like this one:
http://www.scarleteen.com/about_scarleteen or maybe this one:
http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/ or maybe one like this:
http://www.pamf.org/teen/sex/virginity/
And if you type in just teen sex on Google......you even get flipping porn sites.....how disgusting is that?
The first time ANYONE ever mentioned fisting to me, I was 18, in the Navy and had some guy who worked for the FBI mentioned that would be something he would like to try on me.......scared the crap outta of me......so, yes....obviously STRAIGHTS do it TOO!!!

Thanks for proving my point -- which was how the gay community uses extreme behavior in the straight community to justify "normal" behavior in the homosexual community.

Once again, thanks.

[I Love Her]

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
STFU doc!!!

???!

I love RnL2008 with all my heart. I will always love her. Always.

:-)

[Mona Lott]

Prof Marvel wrote:

Still waiting for one of you Straight Morons Who Support Same Sex Marriage to come forth and admit you do the things described in the youth homosexual sex guide "The Little Black Book."
I don't know anybody who engages in pee play, rimming, fisting, etc. and would have nothing to do with anybody who does.
Meanwhile, gays tell us all straights do -- so why haven't one of you straight morons who support same sex marriage stepped forward and 'fessed up?
What's the problem here?
Are you forgetting all the sick shit in the Little Black Book is normal?

The "problem here" is we're tired of providing your masturbatory fantasies.

[Mona Lott]

ftabmember wrote:

<quoted text>
-----
The point? Are you saying that because some straights are as depraved as homosexuals, all this evil is good?
-----

No. We're saying that because you are deprived, you're merely an envious prude.

[Prof Dingleberry]

Prof Marvel wrote:

Dingleberry wants us to believe the homosexual sex practices found in The Little Black Book are not exclively homosexual because "Straight do them too."

LOL! Gary wants us to believe that there are sex practices that have a sexual orientation! What a dolt!

Prof Marvel wrote:

I know I don't.

But you do, by your admission, get head from drag queens. Does that mean getting heads from drag queesn is a heteroseuxal sex practice Gary? Based on the way you establish "logic" it would be! Must suck to be so ignorant Gary!

Quite frankly, given your ugly mug, your Housewives of Atlanta dye job, and your stupidity, most would question whether you've had any type of sex whatsoever. But I'm sure you've been able to use the $28 a year you get from your book sales to at least get a little happy ending from at least one skank that has hands small enough to work with your little member.

Most of us laugh Gary, that you think that only the sex you have is what most others are having!!! Hate to break it to you bub, but the majority of citizens on this planet aren't into settling for the occasional frottage on the subway that you are resigned to accepting as satisfying sex.

Prof Marvel wrote:

How about you other straights out there?

Your obsession with other people's sex is sick Gary. If you are so interested in other people's sex, why don't you ask your pastor what type of sex he has? Why do you need people on the internet to tell you? Oh, that's right, because they can't see what you need the information for. Your need to use Topix as a masturbatory tool is creepy.

Prof Marvel wrote:

Below I've listed some of the despicable practices listed in the booklet.:
1. Pee Play

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urolagnia

Prof Marvel wrote:

2. Fisting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisting

Prof Marvel wrote:

3. Rimming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anilingus

Prof Marvel wrote:

4. Cocksucking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallatio

Prof Marvel wrote:

5. Walk down the street half-nude being led by your "top" on a dog leash.

Where was this "listed in the booklet" Gary? Was it anywhere near where the GLSEN is credited?!!!! LOL!!! What a pitiful liar you are Gary!!

Oh, and since I don't know the clinical term for the practice, I can't provide a link without breaking the terms of Topix since entering "women submissive leash" only brings up porn demonstrating the many straight people that engage in this activity.

Based on the links provided, you've just been proven yet again Gary, to being a pathetic liar. Not one of these acts that you personally find "despicable" is "homosexual". Not one.

Hey Gary, did you know that people that find certain behaviors "despicalbe" yet talk and obsess about them constently, are really people who want to engage in them but are too chicken shit to do so??!! LOL!!! Seems you're not just a chicken shit liar, but your a chicken shit in general!

Prof Marvel wrote:

Please tell us if you do these things

So gross. Begging other people to tell you what they do sexually. You really need some help fella.

[RiccardoFire]

Hey Rittardo wrote:

<quoted text>
You have no idea how you just confirmed my statement....HY-larious!
Good lord! You make Bruno look like a Rhodes Scholar!
Carry on, Rittardo....keep digging your hole....

Sounds like you think you piss farther. Grow up, like I said, you add nothing, your job here is to mock and insult, try to get a good laugh...it adds nothing.

[Prof Dingleberry]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Did I forget to put quotes on that?
I'm so sorry! It was written by a Stanford evolution scientist.
smirk.

Really? Seems odd given that placing any of your text into google only brings up your profile and Topix.

Please do share with us the name of this Stanford evolution scientist. And for that matter, the peer reviewed publications of his work! Based on the portions you presented, your Stanford evoltuion scientist sounds like an idiot. I bet he studied under Paul Cameron!!

Hurry back with your respone KiMare! Can't wait. I want to find out which Stanford evolution scientist stated that "animals are permeated with thoughts of heterosexuality" and that "men will generally be disgusted by facial hair on a woman because of evolution"!!!! LOL!!!

Tell me, is the source of your gobbledy gook credited as a Stanford Evolutionary Scientist in Gary Lloyd's beloved Little Black Book? Maybe Gary could provide the page number!! I'm sure it's listed right along side of where the GSLEN is credited and where walking your bottom on a leash is mentioned!!!!!

Hurry back now! smirk.

[Ronald]

As regular readers of this thread know, I love my Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and yes, even the "Blacks". Even so, I do not approve of actors in pornographic films altering their syphilis-positive test results so they can continue performing in adult films.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/dyzjeau

Ronald

[Take that with you]

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm saying that what ever 2 consenting adults choose to do is NO ONE'S business but theirs!!!
You might call those fetishes evil, and my recommendation to you is to not participate in such activities......but not EVERYONE believes as you do.......and therefore it's not your place to tell others what to do or how to believe!!!
By the way.......Gays and Lesbians for the most part are NOT depraved individuals!!!

Then how is it your place to tell others to believe that Gays and Lesbians for the most part are not depraved?

[Prof Marvel]

Prof Dingleberry wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL! Gary wants us to believe that there are sex practices that have a sexual orientation! What a dolt!
<quoted text>
But you do, by your admission, get head from drag queens. Does that mean getting heads from drag queesn is a heteroseuxal sex practice Gary? Based on the way you establish "logic" it would be! Must suck to be so ignorant Gary!
Quite frankly, given your ugly mug, your Housewives of Atlanta dye job, and your stupidity, most would question whether you've had any type of sex whatsoever. But I'm sure you've been able to use the $28 a year you get from your book sales to at least get a little happy ending from at least one skank that has hands small enough to work with your little member.
Most of us laugh Gary, that you think that only the sex you have is what most others are having!!! Hate to break it to you bub, but the majority of citizens on this planet aren't into settling for the occasional frottage on the subway that you are resigned to accepting as satisfying sex.
<quoted text>
Your obsession with other people's sex is sick Gary. If you are so interested in other people's sex, why don't you ask your pastor what type of sex he has? Why do you need people on the internet to tell you? Oh, that's right, because they can't see what you need the information for. Your need to use Topix as a masturbatory tool is creepy.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urolagnia
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisting
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anilingus
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallatio
<quoted text>
Where was this "listed in the booklet" Gary? Was it anywhere near where the GLSEN is credited?!!!! LOL!!! What a pitiful liar you are Gary!!
Oh, and since I don't know the clinical term for the practice, I can't provide a link without breaking the terms of Topix since entering "women submissive leash" only brings up porn demonstrating the many straight people that engage in this activity.
Based on the links provided, you've just been proven yet again Gary, to being a pathetic liar. Not one of these acts that you personally find "despicable" is "homosexual". Not one.
Hey Gary, did you know that people that find certain behaviors "despicalbe" yet talk and obsess about them constently, are really people who want to engage in them but are too chicken shit to do so??!! LOL!!! Seems you're not just a chicken shit liar, but your a chicken shit in general!
<quoted text>
So gross. Begging other people to tell you what they do sexually. You really need some help fella.

Thanks for proving my point -- which was how the gay community uses extreme behavior in the straight community to justify "normal" behavior in the homosexual community.

Once again, thanks.

[Prof Dingleberry]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
96% of marriages procreate children in the world.

LOL!!! Did your Stanford Evolution scientist provide you with this stat?!!!! LOL!!!

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Gay unions procreate 0%.

Are they required to? LOL!!!

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Kind of makes someone saying children don't factor into marriage look pretty stupid.

Who said children don't factor into marriage?!! No one I know. What was said was that procreation isn't a requirement of marriage.
Children does not equal procreation.
Factor does not equal requirement.
Your deceitfulness is hilarious KiMare!! I bet you think you are really smart!! I bet you brag to all the other fundies at your church socials about how smart you are by presenting the stupidity you launch on these Topix boards and they all congradulate you!!! Stupid fundies!!!

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course reproduction in not 'required' for marriage. It is not 'required' that you be in a wheelchair either to qualify for handicap rights.

I see. People can obtain handicap rights for many reasons, not just being in a wheelchair. Got it. So its just like how people can obtain marriage rights for many reasons, not just because they are going to procreate.

(Um, do you see what an idiot you are?!!! Everyone else does!!!)

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
But it can be one factor that identifies many as handicapped, and many of handicapped rights and privileges address that single potential.

I love it when you delve into flowery speak! It's like your fingers are just a going and you think you have this incredible "point" to validate yourself and all you are doing is just typing nonsense!!

Let me rephrase what you just said. Being in a wheelchair can be one factor that identifies many as handicapped, and many of handicapped rights and privileges address that single potential. That's exactly the same as saying, "procreating can be one factor that identifes many as married, and many of marriage rights and privileges address that single potential."

But, as YOUR words indicate, being in a wheelchair "CAN" be one factor. Just as procreating "CAN" be one factor. Neither are the sole and only factor.

But please, let's continue disecting your nonsense! Carry on!

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
The same is true for children in marriage. The potential in marriage is so overwhelming, that it is assumed children will be a factor, even though a small portion will not or cannot exercise that potential.

Children in marriage is not the same thing as procreating fool. Please decide what it is that you are talking about and stick with one thing.

Oh, and by the way, the potential that marriages produce children is NOT "overwhelming". Do you have any idea how many people marry AFTER the age of potential childbearing?!! LOL!! Damn you are stupid!!!

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
That is solely why first cousins are not allowed to marry, and blood tests are a part of marriage licenses many times.

OMG!!! What a dolt! Did you think that adding "solely" would make you seem smart?!! Um, first off, first cousins can, and do marry, so claiming that they are not allowed to because they can potentially procreate makes you an outright liar and idiot. 25 states allow first cousins to marry you moron!!

And only 8 states still require a blood test. And blood tests were and are solely about potential disease. Period. They have nothing to do with the bullshit you are trying to peddle.

[RnL2008]

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for proving my point -- which was how the gay community uses extreme behavior in the straight community to justify "normal" behavior in the homosexual community.
Once again, thanks.

YOU have no point and all you have been told is basic truth and facts........now, if it is perverted in your opinion because Gays do it.....then you must agree that it is perverted if straights do it, right?

And as usual you totally ignore the sites that give teenagers information about sex that involves straight teens, but make a huge issue out of a book supposedly handed out to gay youths.......what a hypocrite you are!!!

[RnL2008]

Take that with you wrote:

<quoted text>
Then how is it your place to tell others to believe that Gays and Lesbians for the most part are not depraved?

Did you not read my response to you? You are entitled to your opinion.....but that doesn't make it truth or fact and if what you consider is depraved.....do you not consider straights who do the same thing....depraved?

[akpilot]

LLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexuality is not a choice. Polygamists, brothers and sisters, cousins: those are choices.

Now that's rich..

[akpilot]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Equally with HETEROSEXUAL married couples, silly one.
And right now heterosexuals aren't clamoring to marry relatives. Only the anti-gay bigot crowd is touting incest.
You know, people like you.

Does it matter? If just one person is denied their right to marry someone of their choice, isn't that a violation of the 14th Amendment under your interpretation? I didn't know you needed to form a majority to gain a "right".

[akpilot]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
You can keep saying it, but it's simply not true.

You can keep denying it, but it still is.

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Were they really equal under the law? Why did the court rule that they were not?

One court. Not THE court. Next question.

Check out Hernandez v Robels. Stop acting like every court agrees with you because he 9th Circuit does.

[Hey Rittardo]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Sounds like you think you piss farther. Grow up, like I said, you add nothing, your job here is to mock and insult, try to get a good laugh...it adds nothing.

My "job" here?!

I didn't know I had a "job" here....but if I did, I suppose it would be to point out fools when fools appear.

BTW, your Eminence, you have no clothes.

[Prof Dingleberry]

The continued dissection of KiMare's stupidity continues!!!

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
It is why the attempt to separate this identity in marriage is so offensive and ridiculous.

Um, your supposed "identity" in marriage is totally made up. Marriage does not, and never will have a "procreation" identity.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Especially when voiced by another relationship that has zero potential to co-procreate any children.

Wow, that's a load of horseshit. So, according to you, any couple that has zero potential to procreate also have no voice in what constitutes a marriage! Way to go KiMare! You've just insulted all infertile people, all women that have had hysterectomies, and all straight people past the age of child bearing!! Must be nice to insult so many people in one full swoop and still call yourself a "messenger of god"!!!

And let's not even mention that gays can and do procreate, thus their "voice" is EQUAL to yours and the other bigots you represent!!! Damn, you are such a complete moronic tool!!!! Sadly, I bet you still think you've presented an "intelligent" argument!!

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Are there people not in wheelchairs who are given handicapped status? Answer; Yes.

Woo hoo!!! The idiot finally said something that was accurate!!!

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
By your rationalization,

By your own diatribe, you have proven that you aren't intellectually capable of comprehending my rationalizations. But please, don't let that stop you from pretending otherwise!!!

Carry on....

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
then any person not in a wheel chair should have handicapped status.

Huh? What?? LOL!!!! OK, I'm going to try my damnest to keep within the confines of the two multi-conflictual metaphors that you are trying so desperately to use!!!

Um, no KiMare. Nowhere did I state that every person should have a married status, whether or not they are going to, are capable of, or want to have children.

"By [my] own rationalization"!!!!! You stupid fucktard!! My rationalization doesn't require imaginary wheelchairs and handicapped statuses!! My rationalization requires only one statement. And it is this: "Procreation is not now, nor has it ever been, a requirement of marriage. That is a FACTUAL statement. It is not, nor will it ever be, altered in any remote way by the fact that many (and certainly not 96%) married couples do have children. Nor will that FACT ever be altered by who qualifies for handicapped status.

Do you need me to draw you picture with crayons?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Are their people without black skin given minority rights?

Yawn. Why yes KiMare, there are. Women would be one. What's your point?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Then by your rationalization,

LOL!! Let me inform you point blank KiMare, you haven proven that you are totally incapable of comprehending rationalization, be it mine, the Pope's or the pan handler on the street corner that you sped by today on your way home in order to avoid donating the three quarters on your dashboard.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
any person should be given minority status.

Thank you for proving my point. NOWHERE did I "rationalize" anything at all about a minority status. Also, nowhere at all did I "rationalize" anything at all about handicapped status. And NOWHERE at all does handicapped status or minority status have a f*cking thing to do with the institution of marriage.

But please, do not let these facts get in the way of your diatribe!! Watching you display what a complete moron you are is fascinating!!!