Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
"There are still mysteries, however, and one of the most prominent is the origins of homosexuality.
The mystery is simple enough. Its solution, however, has thus far eluded our best scientific minds."
As to societal response to homosexuals, perhaps you want to name one.
Smile.

KiMare wrote:

KiMare'a wrote;
2. A ss couple ALWAYS deprives a child of one parental role. To do so deliberately should be criminal. It is narcissistically diabolical.

KiMare wrote:

In other words, you assert every couple having children does so with a narcissistic intent, therefore justifying a narcissistic ss couple depriving a child of one parent. Really?

KiMare wrote:

How do you think the child will feel about that?
I hoped to find a reasoned response with you, but the denial and avoidance is so disappointing again.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
If I did have a testicle, that would be one more than you have.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
That's your claim.
I think it would be narcissistically diabolical for a monstrous thing like you to raise a child!
Don't you agree?
:)
<quoted text>
Yeah, stupid, hate to break it to you, but nobody has children out of some selfless desire to see the human race continue.
<quoted text>
Well, at least you don't have to dress up for Halloween.:)

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
You are hilarious. Taking drugs isn't work. You're stoned.... and a liar.

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
How original......... as if

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Just because narcissists such as your self cannot even imagine altruism doesn't mean selflessness doesn't exist. You probably rely on it to pay your bills.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
"There are still mysteries, however, and one of the most prominent is the origins of homosexuality.
The mystery is simple enough. Its solution, however, has thus far eluded our best scientific minds."
As to societal response to homosexuals, perhaps you want to name one.
Smile.

WHY VOTE wrote:

Ok, I don't really care if same sex people get married or are together in any capacity. I am for equal rights BUT.......... I am very annoyed that peoples votes don't mean anything anymore. What happened to a majority vote rules? What happened to the peoples voice?
My stance on this has nothing to do with same sex couples. This is just the latest thing a court has overturned or blocked that THE PEOPLE voted for. Look at AZ., look back at prop. 187 which would have saved is billions in illegal immigrant funding. The people of the USA are trying to make changes to better our country and the few judges are effectively disenfranchising us.
Again this is not directed at same sex couples it is major frustration over the majority loosing there voice.
WHY VOTE????

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes equal protection. The husband and wife are equally protected under law within the marital relationship.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Look, stupid, people have kids for their own reasons, because they want to. They want someone to carry on the family name, they want to see what the kids will look like, they feel pressured to have kids, or they just want to... Not because humanity will die out without their spawn.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes it will stupid.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

Some Funny Rose_NoHo quotes-
"Even if that were true, it would be a non issue." (I love that one)
"Polygamy is not an equal rights issue, it just isn't." (another gem)
"If three people go to a justice of the peace and ask to be married, they'll be told what everybody else who asks for a poly marriage is told, No. Equal. See?"
(a favorite)

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, at least you are admitting I make good arguments you can't counter.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
If one could doesn't spawn humanity will die out?

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I am ridiculing them.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
We were talking about if no one reproduced. Nice straw man though.