Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201846 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#215364 Sep 9, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.
Provide proof.
Already have, numerous times.

You run and hide on a hole, and then crawl out later.

Besides, a middle school student already knows this stuff.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#215365 Sep 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
'
Not a fact, just your opinion.
You donít seem to be able to distinguish facts from opinion, many have noticed this
If you want a fact, here is on, Legal same sex marriage is recognized on the federal level in all 50 states
"...many have noticed this" The all knowing Mighty D knows what the many have noticed.

Whatever Big D thinks, he projects to the "many" or "everybody".

"I don't have to prove it, everybody here knows it, at least 22 people." -Big D

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#215366 Sep 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a simple fact you keep twirl trolling around:
At its most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
...
Nope, at its most basic essence it is a basic human right.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...
SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
...
Perhaps you are thinking about reproduction? Firstly, the ability to reproduce has zero to do with being married (and marriage is not about reproducing). Second, I know several gays who have reproduced just fine. The only 'filaure' is that it gay sex doesn't turn you on.. so guess what? That means you are not gay - no more or less meaning is there.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...Here is another one:
Anal sex is inherently harmful unhealthy and demeaning.
...
Replace the word 'inherently' with the words 'can be' and you have a true statement. Infact, also replacing the words 'Anal sex' with simply the word 'sex' and you have a true statement. You are being narrow-minded or naive.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...Can you respond in an intelligent, polite way?
Smile.
Funny, the intelligent and polite way was asking you for some proof to back up your so called simple truth and you judged that response 'nuts'. Pretty lame.
trash network

Monrovia, CA

#215367 Sep 9, 2013
Is this the real "trash network" ?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#215370 Sep 9, 2013
chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, at its most basic essence it is a basic human right.
<quoted text>
Perhaps you are thinking about reproduction? Firstly, the ability to reproduce has zero to do with being married (and marriage is not about reproducing). Second, I know several gays who have reproduced just fine. The only 'filaure' is that it gay sex doesn't turn you on.. so guiess what? That means you are not gay - no more or less meaning is there.
<quoted text>
Replace the word 'inherently' with the words 'can be' and you have a true statement. Infact, also replacing the words 'Anal sex' with simply the word 'sex' and you have a true statement. You are being narrow-minded or naive.
<quoted text>
Funny, the intelligent and polite way was asking you for some proof to back up your so called simple truth and you judged that response 'nuts'. Pretty lame.
1. Marriage is a constraint on mating behavior. That means mating behavior is a deeper level. Moreover, marriage is a relational distinction directly related to mating behavior. Social scientists assert that if procreation did not result, marriage would not exist.

2. Of course homosexuals can reproduce. IF they revert to a default heterosexual solution. As a couple, they are absolutely barren. In fact, where marriage needs protection NOT to reproduce, gays need protection just to abusively imitate intercourse.

3. Which brings us to anal sex, a violation of design. You attempt to equate inherent harm with risk. Very different.

Look up mating behavior.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#215371 Sep 9, 2013
trash network wrote:
Is this the real "trash network" ?
Wherever you go is a real trash network. Ever notice that? I do.
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

#215373 Sep 9, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Shots of whiskey too. And my girlfriend to keep me even warmer. Ah good times!
Sounds like a new country song Frankie hoverin' down da bayou, all ya hear is whoop whoop, boom boom, bang bang,sip, chug, kissy kissy, hug hug, yeehaw,good times, repeat
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

#215374 Sep 9, 2013
What's with that horse shoe lake lookin' puddle.

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#215375 Sep 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Marriage is a constraint on mating behavior. That means mating behavior is a deeper level. Moreover, marriage is a relational distinction directly related to mating behavior. Social scientists assert that if procreation did not result, marriage would not exist.
...
No it is not. If it were there then every species on world other than human would be extinct. In fact marriage is purely a human invention. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly lists the right to marriage as a basic human right. As far no procreation leading to no marriage... well everyone would be dead so of course that is true. What I think you wish were also true would be the claim that without marriage there would be no procreation. Clearly that is false as unwed mothers have always and will always exist.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...2. Of course homosexuals can reproduce. IF they revert to a default heterosexual solution. As a couple, they are absolutely barren. In fact, where marriage needs protection NOT to reproduce, gays need protection just to abusively imitate intercourse.
...
We all know how it works. What does the phrase 'abusively imitate intercourse' mean exactly? It sounds like you feel personally threatened when you think about gay people having sex. Why in the world would that be?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...3. Which brings us to anal sex, a violation of design. You attempt to equate inherent harm with risk. Very different.
...
I equated nothing first of all. Second what does violation of design mean anyhow? You think the anus can only be useful for one thing? Why it is so limited and the rest of your body is not? How many countless things can you do with your hands? Your mouth? Your feet? Your brain? I guess medicinal suppositories and rectal thermometers are forbiden design violators too? You sound like you fear anus or thinking of it. Why would that be exactly?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...Look up mating behavior.
Maybe you should!
Here is what I found and note is says NOTHING about marriage:
> the act of seeking and pairing a male and female for reproductive purposes
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#215376 Sep 9, 2013
commonpeeps wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds like a new country song Frankie hoverin' down da bayou, all ya hear is whoop whoop, boom boom, bang bang,sip, chug, kissy kissy, hug hug, yeehaw,good times, repeat
That's the way Frankie rolls! Ah good times!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#215378 Sep 9, 2013
chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is not. If it were there then every species on world other than human would be extinct. In fact marriage is purely a human invention. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly lists the right to marriage as a basic human right. As far no procreation leading to no marriage... well everyone would be dead so of course that is true. What I think you wish were also true would be the claim that without marriage there would be no procreation. Clearly that is false as unwed mothers have always and will always exist.
<quoted text>
We all know how it works. What does the phrase 'abusively imitate intercourse' mean exactly? It sounds like you feel personally threatened when you think about gay people having sex. Why in the world would that be?
<quoted text>
I equated nothing first of all. Second what does violation of design mean anyhow? You think the anus can only be useful for one thing? Why it is so limited and the rest of your body is not? How many countless things can you do with your hands? Your mouth? Your feet? Your brain? I guess medicinal suppositories and rectal thermometers are forbiden design violators too? You sound like you fear anus or thinking of it. Why would that be exactly?
<quoted text>
Maybe you should!
Here is what I found and note is says NOTHING about marriage:
> the act of seeking and pairing a male and female for reproductive purposes
1. LOL, you clearly don't know what you are saying. Mating behavior is the desire to mate. Animals do it without restraint. Humans would also, were it not for the restraint of marriage. Why? So the by-product of children are protected, and the bearer of children is provided for.

2/3. The anus is not designed for intercourse. Look up a medical description. As one doctor put it, too much lub and an anal condom is almost enough.

You need to read more than a definition of mating behavior and a gay defense of anal sex....
Big D

Modesto, CA

#215379 Sep 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Marriage is a constraint on mating behavior. That means mating behavior is a deeper level. Moreover, marriage is a relational distinction directly related to mating behavior. Social scientists assert that if procreation did not result, marriage would not exist.
2. Of course homosexuals can reproduce. IF they revert to a default heterosexual solution. As a couple, they are absolutely barren. In fact, where marriage needs protection NOT to reproduce, gays need protection just to abusively imitate intercourse.
3. Which brings us to anal sex, a violation of design. You attempt to equate inherent harm with risk. Very different.
Look up mating behavior.
1 wrong, people out of wedlock have children, people in wedlock have children with those not their spouses, some married couples with fertility have children with sperm donors or with surrogate mothers.

2 Wrong, as has already been demonstrated on their forums. Not barren, I know lesbian couples whose children are biologically connected to each one being the mother with artificial sperm donation from their spouses sibling.

3 what people do in the bedroom between consenting adults is none of your business, that particular act is enjoyed by both heterosexual and homosexual couples and it is none of your business.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#215380 Sep 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
1 wrong, people out of wedlock have children, people in wedlock have children with those not their spouses, some married couples with fertility have children with sperm donors or with surrogate mothers.
2 Wrong, as has already been demonstrated on their forums. Not barren, I know lesbian couples whose children are biologically connected to each one being the mother with artificial sperm donation from their spouses sibling.
3 what people do in the bedroom between consenting adults is none of your business, that particular act is enjoyed by both heterosexual and homosexual couples and it is none of your business.
4 Big D is a loudmouthed dummy.
5 YUK!YUK!YUK!
6 Too funny!
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

#215381 Sep 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
From your comments you would have us believe that anal sex is a fairly recent phenomenon;
The statement you are responding to made no comment at all to that effect. You're just spinning some off topic b.s. now. As usual.
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

#215382 Sep 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one for denying the right for people to marry, not I
So you're the one! Pietro, would you please stop denying people their rights, that's just not right. All right?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#215383 Sep 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You contradict yourself and lie to cover it. Your very own example confirms it is harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
And no, I would never think of doing that. My sphincter locks up just hearing you say such a thing.
I seriously doubt that your sphincter locks up. You think about anal sex more than most gay men I know. You KNOW more about anal sex than most gay men I know. I feel pretty safe saying that you are not an ass virgin.

My example was of a man who used his wife's stoma as a "sexual portal"--not an example of anal sex. That's a huge difference.
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

#215384 Sep 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
2 Wrong, as has already been demonstrated on their forums. Not barren, I know lesbian couples whose children are biologically connected to each one being the mother with artificial sperm donation from their spouses sibling.
Hey junior. git yur ass 'oer here an spoink yur pocket mush into this here jug. We's a gonna make you a daddy, usin' yur ma as a hatchery. Spit toinggg. Sounds sensible to me????
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

#215385 Sep 9, 2013
chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, at its most basic essence it is a basic human right.
<quoted text>
Perhaps you are thinking about reproduction? Firstly, the ability to reproduce has zero to do with being married (and marriage is not about reproducing). Second, I know several gays who have reproduced just fine. The only 'filaure' is that it gay sex doesn't turn you on.. so guess what? That means you are not gay - no more or less meaning is there.
<quoted text>
Replace the word 'inherently' with the words 'can be' and you have a true statement. Infact, also replacing the words 'Anal sex' with simply the word 'sex' and you have a true statement. You are being narrow-minded or naive.
<quoted text>
Funny, the intelligent and polite way was asking you for some proof to back up your so called simple truth and you judged that response 'nuts'. Pretty lame.
And all of that is srtictly your own personal opinion, you have no facts to back any of that up. Try again.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#215386 Sep 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Marriage is a constraint on mating behavior. That means mating behavior is a deeper level. Moreover, marriage is a relational distinction directly related to mating behavior. Social scientists assert that if procreation did not result, marriage would not exist.
.....
then show us a law (local, state or federal) regulating mating behaivior that is regulated to allow only married people to give birth. this would then link procreation as a requirement to obtain a marriage license. unless you can prove that, then you might have a point. until then, nada.

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#215387 Sep 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. LOL, you clearly don't know what you are saying. Mating behavior is the desire to mate. Animals do it without restraint. Humans would also, were it not for the restraint of marriage. Why? So the by-product of children are protected, and the bearer of children is provided for.
...
Pretty certain humans are part of the animal kingdom! And what the heck is the by-product of children??? You make less sense with each post I am affraid.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...2/3. The anus is not designed for intercourse......
Yes, it is actually very well suited, apparently. Just like ones mouth and hands and vagina. Or do you magically deny those happen too?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...You need to read more than a definition of mating behavior and a gay defense of anal sex....
Did you forget that asked me to look it up? Just because i did and you don't like the answer doesn't mean I need anything. And since when does anal sex, gay or straight, need ANY defense whatsoever?*crazy*

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.

Soquel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
FAT Pat made Mom go SPLAT 21 min Bob Mitchell 25
Get a job ya whackjob 1 hr Curious Cat 10
Take Back Santa Cruz Trolls who Spam are Smart (Jul '13) 19 hr CSaw 77
News Remaining Occupy protesters plead a no contesta... Fri Do Henry 12
How did FAT Pat get THAT FAT Fri Lemon Meringue 5
News Amy Christey withdraws from consideration for S... (Apr '09) Fri Bobby Butt 14
News Grand jury indicts 13 alleged members of San Jo... (May '08) Wed califnative 109
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Soquel Mortgages