Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201480 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.

slappy

Anderson, CA

#232931 Oct 11, 2014
TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Though I agree breast milk is the best option for a baby, 1. There are a ton of heterosexual mothers who don't breastfeed. 2nd I know one lesbian couple who breast fed their baby. Also my cousin and his husband just had a baby with the help of an egg donor and surrogate. They are paying the surrogate to provide them with breast milk for the baby who is at the moment drinking that exclusively, if you have the money to pay for an egg donor and health care costs, compensation, ect for a surrogate, you have the money to pay for breast milk. 3rd, in the case of adoption, adoptive parents heterosexual or homosexual are going to face the same challenge and have the same options open to them as far as choices on what to feed their baby. This is not a reason to prevent homosexual couples from getting married or raising children.
LOL. TURDSURFER.
phase loop

La Puente, CA

#232932 Oct 11, 2014
Oh s t f u you lizard lipped serpent in a apple tree.
slappy

Anderson, CA

#232933 Oct 11, 2014
phase loop wrote:
Oh s t f u you lizard lipped serpent in a apple tree.
How many hours a day do you have to spend slapping yourself in the head with a rubber dick to get that stupid?
get a long

La Puente, CA

#232935 Oct 11, 2014
Oh s t f u you lizard lipped serpent in a apple tree.

Get a long.

Since: May 12

Woodland Hills, CA

#232936 Oct 11, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't make any definition, I simply noted factual distinctions between marriage and ss couples;
1. The complexity of a diverse gender married couple vs the redumbancy of a duplicate gender couple.
"redumbancy" Did you misspell this, are you just making up words, or do you just think this is cute?
Are you married? Marriage is a partnership between 2 people who are attracted to each other. Just because you personally can only be attracted to someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean a relationship can't work between two people of the same sex. You have to be attracted to the person you are with. As a bisexual who has experienced both, I can honestly say relationships between same sex couples and opposite sex couples are no different from each other. If there's no attraction then there's really nothing to build on.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>2. The complimentary sexual union of a married couple vs the inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning sodomy of a gay couple.
"unhealthy and demeaning sodomy" This is simply your opinion.
If by unhealthy you mean anal sex, 1st off there are plenty of heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex, 2nd not all gay men engage in anal sex, there are other ways for them to pleasure each other, 3rd lesbians don't engage in anal sex. If by "unhealthy" you mean the spread of STDs, 1. heterosexuals are just capable of spreading them, 2. not allowing same sex couples to marry won't stop homosexuals from having sex with each other, 3. marriage in general tends to promote monogamy and monogamous couples don't spread disease. Now not all married couples are monogamous, some cheat on each other, others consensually agree to invite others into the bedroom, but in general marriage means monogamy.
I'm not sure what you mean by "demeaning". Same sex partners who marry each other don't feel that they're demeaning each other. Straight people who support same sex marriage don't feel that they are being demeaned by same sex marriage. I think that's just you, and other bigots like you, who feels demeaned somehow. Maybe you're not very attractive and have a hard time getting people to have sex with you and therefore are jealous of homosexuals who can do that, when you, a heterosexual male can't get it yourself? Just a guess. But at any rate, it seems weird that you would feel demeaned by something someone else does in their own private bedroom that has nothing to do you with you at all.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>3. The combination of a married couple literally united in the birth of their child vs the absolute mutual barrenness of a ss couple.
Not to mention the fact that at its most basic essence marriage is a pan-cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
Being told the truth doesn't ruin lives, living a lie and demanding others accept it does.
Clearly denying God has left you in darkness and deception...
First off, lots of heterosexual couples have children and never get married at all. Second, not all heterosexual couples choose to have children, yet no one is arguing against their right to get married even though they choose not to have / raise children. Third, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who cannot have children and turn to the same options same sex couples turn to in order to have children. Adoption, in vitro fertilization, egg donors, and surrogates. Fourth, there are plenty of single parents out there raising children without a partner. Fifth, there are some unmarried, unattached people out there who adopt / have children together and co-parent said children in that manner. Sixth, some single parents choose to have children with no partner at all (in vitro, hired surrogate, adoption, ect). All of these scenarios are perfectly legal, the argument against same sex couples raising children has no ground at all.
two tabs

La Puente, CA

#232937 Oct 11, 2014
Your a wing-nut and you have rattled lose again.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#232938 Oct 11, 2014
TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
"redumbancy" Did you misspell this, are you just making up words, or do you just think this is cute?
Are you married? Marriage is a partnership between 2 people who are attracted to each other. Just because you personally can only be attracted to someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean a relationship can't work between two people of the same sex. You have to be attracted to the person you are with. As a bisexual who has experienced both, I can honestly say relationships between same sex couples and opposite sex couples are no different from each other. If there's no attraction then there's really nothing to build on.
<quoted text>
"unhealthy and demeaning sodomy" This is simply your opinion.
If by unhealthy you mean anal sex, 1st off there are plenty of heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex, 2nd not all gay men engage in anal sex, there are other ways for them to pleasure each other, 3rd lesbians don't engage in anal sex. If by "unhealthy" you mean the spread of STDs, 1. heterosexuals are just capable of spreading them, 2. not allowing same sex couples to marry won't stop homosexuals from having sex with each other, 3. marriage in general tends to promote monogamy and monogamous couples don't spread disease. Now not all married couples are monogamous, some cheat on each other, others consensually agree to invite others into the bedroom, but in general marriage means monogamy.
I'm not sure what you mean by "demeaning". Same sex partners who marry each other don't feel that they're demeaning each other. Straight people who support same sex marriage don't feel that they are being demeaned by same sex marriage. I think that's just you, and other bigots like you, who feels demeaned somehow. Maybe you're not very attractive and have a hard time getting people to have sex with you and therefore are jealous of homosexuals who can do that, when you, a heterosexual male can't get it yourself? Just a guess. But at any rate, it seems weird that you would feel demeaned by something someone else does in their own private bedroom that has nothing to do you with you at all.
<quoted text>
First off, lots of heterosexual couples have children and never get married at all. Second, not all heterosexual couples choose to have children, yet no one is arguing against their right to get married even though they choose not to have / raise children. Third, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who cannot have children and turn to the same options same sex couples turn to in order to have children. Adoption, in vitro fertilization, egg donors, and surrogates. Fourth, there are plenty of single parents out there raising children without a partner. Fifth, there are some unmarried, unattached people out there who adopt / have children together and co-parent said children in that manner. Sixth, some single parents choose to have children with no partner at all (in vitro, hired surrogate, adoption, ect). All of these scenarios are perfectly legal, the argument against same sex couples raising children has no ground at all.
Do you know it is self-demeaning to play dumb like that.
shut now

La Puente, CA

#232942 Oct 11, 2014
Just can't keep your mouth shut now can you?
Dolly

Paradise, CA

#232944 Oct 11, 2014
Daryl Bem, a social psychologist at Cornell University, has theorized that the influence of biological factors on sexual orientation may be mediated by experiences in childhood. A child's temperament predisposes the child to prefer certain activities over others. Because of their temperament, which is influenced by biological variables such as genetic factors, some children will be attracted to activities that are commonly enjoyed by other children of the same gender. Others will prefer activities that are typical of another gender. This will make a gender-conforming child feel different from opposite-gender children, while gender-nonconforming children will feel different from children of their own gender. According to Bem, this feeling of difference will evoke psychological arousal when the child is near members of the gender which it considers as being 'different'. Bem theorizes that this psychological arousal will later be transformed into sexual arousal: children will become sexually attracted to the gender which they see as different ("exotic"). This theory is known as Exotic Becomes Erotic theory
Molly

La Puente, CA

#232945 Oct 11, 2014
Dolly you just can't keep your mouth shut now can you?
Grapevine

Paradise, CA

#232946 Oct 12, 2014
Once someone recovers from Ebola, they can no longer spread the virus. However, Ebola virus has been found in semen for up to 3 months. People who recover from Ebola are advised to abstain from sex or use condoms for 3 months.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#232947 Oct 12, 2014
shut now wrote:
Just can't keep your mouth shut now can you?
Um, Blondie, how about you stay off the debate sites...

SNicker smile.
hannables

La Puente, CA

#232948 Oct 12, 2014
Take your Utah/GOP sheet down the road.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#232949 Oct 12, 2014
hannables wrote:
Take your Utah/GOP sheet down the road.
I'm not from Utah or a Republican.

Man up honey and give a rational response.
bells216

United States

#232951 Oct 12, 2014
Of course overrule the vote of the people

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#232952 Oct 12, 2014
Cali Girl 2014 wrote:
<quoted text>
No you're just a Freak show!
I said a rational response, not a Blonde response Thunder Thighs...

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#232955 Oct 12, 2014
Grapevine wrote:
Once someone recovers from Ebola, they can no longer spread the virus. However, Ebola virus has been found in semen for up to 3 months. People who recover from Ebola are advised to abstain from sex or use condoms for 3 months.
How well will that work, since gay people were not able to abstain from sex or use condoms with the aids scare?
windy sheets

La Puente, CA

#232956 Oct 12, 2014
Same windy sheeter's posting and more..
Up in arms

La Puente, CA

#232959 Oct 12, 2014
Eat micro wave dried skittles you fools:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- A federal judge on Sunday struck down Alaska's first-in-the-nation ban on gay marriages, the latest court decision in a busy week for the issue.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/10/12/6778554/fede...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#232960 Oct 12, 2014
How's Prop 8 doing?

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.

Santa Cruz Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obama health reform turns spotlight on Canada (Aug '09) 23 hr Ismael Gerli 448
News 40-year GM tradition at Marina Motor Co. to end (Aug '08) Thu KAZ 48
News Vagos motorcycle club targeted in Southern Cali... (Mar '06) Jun 20 Rattrapper 4,850
San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino at 777 San Man... Jun 19 SAN MANUEL INDIAN... 32
Art is now--Double Symbolism-Spring 2018-Santa ... Jun 12 art is now 1
Drugs/Meth/H/oxy30etc Jun 7 Looko 1
Baseline Bowl at 27440 Baseline St. Highland, C... May 31 BASELINE BOWLING ... 80

Santa Cruz Jobs

Personal Finance

Santa Cruz Mortgages