Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,151

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

#183308 Mar 14, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't mean to imply that marriage is devoid of offspring.
However, given that many marriages do not involve procreation, offspring is not the center of all marriages. The number of childless adult women has been on the increase since the 1970s.(According to 2004 U.S. Census Bureau data, the proportion of childless women 15 to 44 years old was 44.6 percent, up from 35 percent in 1976.)
Even marriage is on the decline. In 1960, 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married; today that figure has fallen to 51%.
It's so simple that even a fool like you should be able to understand that.
As you very well know, procreation is so legally detached from marriage that it isn't even listed on a marriage certificate.
And if marriage were truly about procreation, then why hasn’t the “cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior” phenomenon that you keep regurgitating led to across the board divorces once children have been raised or once couples are beyond the age (or medical ability) to procreate?
Look, as has been REPEATEDLY been pointed out to you, people get married for a variety of reasons. Child rearing is just one reason. Other reasons include love, money, lust, family pressure, personal pressure, etc. And that’s just in our culture. In other cultures people get married as a part of arrangements to wed entire families or tribes.
In this country we’re free to marry for whatever reason we wish. The government may say WHO we can marry, but it cannot dictate WHY we marry.
And if same-gender couples wish to marry, there is no legitimate legal reason to keep us from doing so.
You were trying to imply that children are not an integral part of marriage. In that foolish attempt, your deceitful exaggeration was exposed.

It is again.

You make my case;

By your own stats, as child bearing declines, so does marriage. A clear and undeniable correlation that as you put it, even a fool should be able to see...

Then you make the silly assertion that child bearing 'should be included on the marriage license'. Ignoring the fact that some states still require blood tests because to the potential, why would they? If children need government permission, why not sex? What about eating together? Using the same bathroom??? Your gay twirl is sooooo silly...

Just a note, divorces do rise after children are adults. Moreover, the argument for no-fault divorce was that 'staying together for the children' was not a good reason. What happened? Divorce skyrocketed and social health of children plummeted. You should know this as a 'social worker'...

The government has to have a prevailing reason to determine who can marry. There is one for the fundamental building block of society; families. There is none for discriminatory support of some friendships between a arbitrary number of people.

Bazinga!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#183309 Mar 14, 2013
VV, maybe this analogy will help your foolishness;

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.

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 is simply silly.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples do not just fail in the primary essence of marriage, out of all relationships, they are the oxymoron of marriage.

Moreover, if you remove the element of procreation, you dumb down marriage to just a friendship. Hardly a cause for government interest, let alone selective discrimination.

You are welcome.

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183310 Mar 14, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't mean to imply that marriage is devoid of offspring.
However, given that many marriages do not involve procreation, offspring is not the center of all marriages. The number of childless adult women has been on the increase since the 1970s.(According to 2004 U.S. Census Bureau data, the proportion of childless women 15 to 44 years old was 44.6 percent, up from 35 percent in 1976.)
Even marriage is on the decline. In 1960, 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married; today that figure has fallen to 51%.
It's so simple that even a fool like you should be able to understand that.
As you very well know, procreation is so legally detached from marriage that it isn't even listed on a marriage certificate.
And if marriage were truly about procreation, then why hasn’t the “cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior” phenomenon that you keep regurgitating led to across the board divorces once children have been raised or once couples are beyond the age (or medical ability) to procreate?
Look, as has been REPEATEDLY been pointed out to you, people get married for a variety of reasons. Child rearing is just one reason. Other reasons include love, money, lust, family pressure, personal pressure, etc. And that’s just in our culture. In other cultures people get married as a part of arrangements to wed entire families or tribes.
In this country we’re free to marry for whatever reason we wish. The government may say WHO we can marry, but it cannot dictate WHY we marry.
And if same-gender couples wish to marry, there is no legitimate legal reason to keep us from doing so.
If procreation is removed from marriage, either as a motivation to marry, or as a government interest in marriage, what is left? Why does it need government recognition, and/or involvement?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183311 Mar 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If procreation is removed from marriage, either as a motivation to marry, or as a government interest in marriage, what is left? Why does it need government recognition, and/or involvement?
The Taliban has an opening for you, you would like it there.

Religion is mandated, anyone not conforming to social norms is not tolerated and harshly punished.

Just your style

I prefer the land of the free, where equality and justice is more important, but that is just me.
GoingGoing

Covina, CA

#183312 Mar 14, 2013
Current U.S. Census data shows that 1,135 of the nation's 3,143 counties are now experiencing "natural decrease," where deaths exceed births.

That's up from roughly 880 U.S. counties, or 1 in 4, since 2009.

This data trend is already apparent in Japan and many European nations.

Now this natural decrease is evident in large swaths of the U.S., much of it in rural areas or sections of the USA.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183313 Mar 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
VV, maybe this analogy will help your foolishness;
Probably not. It's the stupidest attempt at an analogy I've ever seen on Topix. Walnut trees hanging apples.... oh yeah.....
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183314 Mar 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If procreation is removed from marriage,...
Um.... when was it a requirement for marriage?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183315 Mar 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Um.... when was it a requirement for marriage?
Sigh.....XBox ....the requirement, at least in 32+ U.S. states is, marriage is between a man and a woman. Here's where it gets really radical. Most married couples will have sex, aka coital intercourse. You might have read about it in sex ed class. Any way, that act, can result in, and quite often does, conception. Before you know it baby is born and grows up to post on internet forums under the moniker, "Xavier Breath". Everybody has a mother and father, even you.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183316 Mar 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh.....XBox ....the requirement, at least in 32+ U.S. states is, marriage is between a man and a woman. Here's where it gets really radical. Most married couples will have sex, aka coital intercourse. You might have read about it in sex ed class. Any way, that act, can result in, and quite often does, conception. Before you know it baby is born and grows up to post on internet forums under the moniker, "Xavier Breath". Everybody has a mother and father, even you.
Where is the requirement for procreation for marriage? There isn't one.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183317 Mar 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the requirement for procreation for marriage? There isn't one.
It seems to be an attempt to diminish millions of marriages between people that either could not or choose not to have children.

He can only make himself feel better by diminishing the marriages of others perhaps?

I am curious if procreation is a requirement for a marriage to be valid if they want to invalidate those millions of other marriages?

Procreation has never... ever... been requirement for a marriage. I don’t think we want to start that now.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#183318 Mar 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> No dear, your clients are the jokes. How many CUs did you recommend today?
CLIENTS???
but I thought I was not a lawyer..

you insisted thousands of times now!

You are a lying fraud as usual...

How many names do you judge icons with anyway?
are you actually up to re-logging in 8 times ?
pathetic.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183319 Mar 14, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
CLIENTS???
but I thought I was not a lawyer..
you insisted thousands of times now!
You are a lying fraud as usual...
How many names do you judge icons with anyway?
are you actually up to re-logging in 8 times ?
pathetic.
What Law School taught you about evidence?
Dorn

La Puente, CA

#183320 Mar 14, 2013
Gay married couples who do not have their own children are helping the Plant Earth decrease population growth rate.
Gay married couples who have the natural urge to nourish children and adopt unwanted children should be applaulded.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#183321 Mar 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What Law School taught you about evidence?
so you refuse to decide what lies to tell for today?

come on, did I never go to law school because I failed the LSAT?
(obviously that stupid attack by you was one of my favorites)

MAKE UP YOUR TWISTED MIND....

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#183322 Mar 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You were trying to imply that children are not an integral part of marriage. In that foolish attempt, your deceitful exaggeration was exposed.
It is again.
You make my case;
By your own stats, as child bearing declines, so does marriage. A clear and undeniable correlation that as you put it, even a fool should be able to see...
Then you make the silly assertion that child bearing 'should be included on the marriage license'. Ignoring the fact that some states still require blood tests because to the potential, why would they? If children need government permission, why not sex? What about eating together? Using the same bathroom??? Your gay twirl is sooooo silly...
Just a note, divorces do rise after children are adults. Moreover, the argument for no-fault divorce was that 'staying together for the children' was not a good reason. What happened? Divorce skyrocketed and social health of children plummeted. You should know this as a 'social worker'...
The government has to have a prevailing reason to determine who can marry. There is one for the fundamental building block of society; families. There is none for discriminatory support of some friendships between a arbitrary number of people.
Bazinga!
I clearly stated that procreation is ONE of the reasons that people get married. It, however, IS NOT the only reason that people marry.

If the only reason for marriage is procreation, then the government should ONLY be handing out licenses to fertile couples who clearly want to have children.

Using your stupid perspective, those who are infertile due to medical problems or age and those who are simply uninterested in having children SHOULD NOT be issued a license to marry.

These people, as you point out, are only arbitrary friends.

If you're going to refuse same-gender couples the right to marry due to their inability to "naturally" create life, then you're going to have to refuse marriage to those heterosexual couples who cannot have or do not want to have children as well.

Is that a step you're willing to take?
WayOut

Covina, CA

#183323 Mar 14, 2013
And the hits just keep on coming.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183324 Mar 14, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I clearly stated that procreation is ONE of the reasons that people get married. It, however, IS NOT the only reason that people marry.
If the only reason for marriage is procreation, then the government should ONLY be handing out licenses to fertile couples who clearly want to have children.
Using your stupid perspective, those who are infertile due to medical problems or age and those who are simply uninterested in having children SHOULD NOT be issued a license to marry.
These people, as you point out, are only arbitrary friends.
If you're going to refuse same-gender couples the right to marry due to their inability to "naturally" create life, then you're going to have to refuse marriage to those heterosexual couples who cannot have or do not want to have children as well.
Is that a step you're willing to take?
I would take it a step further, procreation has never ever been mandatory or even implied as a reason for marriage, there are millions upon millions of marriages that cannot or choose not to have children.

That is a choice, not any kind qualification for marriage.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183326 Mar 14, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
so you refuse to decide what lies to tell for today?
come on, did I never go to law school because I failed the LSAT?
(obviously that stupid attack by you was one of my favorites)
MAKE UP YOUR TWISTED MIND....
It was a simple question. What law school taught you about evidence?
get real

Clearlake, CA

#183328 Mar 14, 2013
The study of the psychopath reveals an individual who is incapable of feeling guilt, remorse or empathy for their actions. They are generally cunning, manipulative and know the difference between right and wrong but dismiss it as applying to them

The fact that this thread continues infinitum makes the case for many G/L folks being....well....let's say....in need of some help.

Big D

Modesto, CA

#183329 Mar 14, 2013
get real wrote:
The study of the psychopath reveals an individual who is incapable of feeling guilt, remorse or empathy for their actions. They are generally cunning, manipulative and know the difference between right and wrong but dismiss it as applying to them
Chuckle - that applies to every overly religious person I know

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.

South Pasadena Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: MI Windows and Doors (Apr '09) 4 hr KGR 110
Mtb Hill Proposal "...does not have a positive ... 12 hr Whats Going On 5
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 13 hr Bruin For Life 28,359
Rename Griffith Park to Villaraigosa Park? 13 hr La Merced Dude 6
Christmas 2014 and New Year’s 2014 Closures and... 21 hr James Macpherson 1
Guitarist Adam Levy Joins LA College of Music a... 21 hr James Macpherson 1
Los Angeles Company Verifi Provides Hillsides w... 21 hr James Macpherson 1

South Pasadena News Video

South Pasadena Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

South Pasadena People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

South Pasadena News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in South Pasadena

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:08 pm PST