Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Read more: www.cnn.com 201,862

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.

Read more

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191070 May 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Many relationships are 'equal' in love. That does not make them marriage.
I agree that gays have every right and opportunity to purse legitimate rights and an identity for their relationship. That is their responsibility. It is not legitimate to impose an imposter relationship on marriage.
As to children, two distinctions.
1. Children in the natural home of their biological parents are at a significant advantage over ANY default setting. That setting, or as close as possible should always be the primary pursuit of society.
2. A ss couple ALWAYS deprives a child of one parental role. To do so deliberately should be criminal. It is narcissistically diabolical.
Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
There used to be a thing (at least in UK law) called 'common law' marriage where a couple weren't 'married' but were regarded as such because of the nature of their relationship. One thing this meant was they could use it to back up, say, any claim on a Will.
A great many families are either single parent families or those where both partners are not living at the family home. The amount of abuse by (hetero) step parents is very common, as is murder of children by them. From people (Ok, not stats) sharing their experience many site divorce and living with a (hetero) couple who are at odds with one another as deeply disturbing and something which must have effected them strongly enough for them to still be talking about long into adulthood. This is the nature of relationships. It has been said by some sociologists that the family unit although theoretically is the ideal (according to most psychologists) is in fact inherently damaging and dysfunctional to many - ie. it cuts both ways. I might suggest One reason children from SSM are less well adjusted is because of the bigotry their parents face; and beneath the surface is the thought that their family is not to be considered normal. Do you have the same issue with, say a mother and daughter raising that daughter's child, or where the father is in the mother role of housekeeper and primary caregiver because the wife is the one that has a career. Studies (no, I can't reference them, it's been a while since college) I recall conclude that it doesn't directly matter who (or how many) the bond parent or primary care giver is as long as the child does bond and is able to then feel secure enough to become (attach then detach) an independent individual within the family or whatever social setting they are being brought up in.
I would say most couples having children has some basis in narcissism.
I'm not sure how what you said is a response to what I said.

However, several points to your comments.

-You are referring to the 'Cinderella Effect' regarding step parents. The same principle applies to any none blood related person, and always in a ss couple household. King Solomon noted that principle when dealing with the two prostitutes and a child.

-You are trying to avoid the fact that ANY default parenting situation is a vastly inferior option to biological parents.

-You make a humorous attempt to avoid the fact that deliberately birthing a child apart from one parent is horribly wrong. In my mind, not the place for humor, nor a valid response.

Smile.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#191071 May 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure how what you said is a response to what I said.
However, several points to your comments.
-You are referring to the 'Cinderella Effect' regarding step parents. The same principle applies to any none blood related person, and always in a ss couple household. King Solomon noted that principle when dealing with the two prostitutes and a child.
-You are trying to avoid the fact that ANY default parenting situation is a vastly inferior option to biological parents.
-You make a humorous attempt to avoid the fact that deliberately birthing a child apart from one parent is horribly wrong. In my mind, not the place for humor, nor a valid response.
Smile.
What humourous attempt?? I was making a serious comment, no humour intended.
Pietro Armando

Newton Center, MA

#191073 May 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Our rights should not depend on what's in our underwear.
So then the right to specific health care for what's in one's underwear should be denied based on that reasoning?
I'll take that to mean you can't come up with a rational argument against gay marriage.
I take it you are unable or unwilling to answer the questions.

If its the consensus of society that marriage is simply a union of two consenting adults, there's no need to prohibit any two person, consenting adult, union, including blood relatives. Why should it matter who marries who, or who can't marry who?

Pietro Armando

Newton Center, MA

#191074 May 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
IOW, you can't come up with a rational argument against gay marriage, so you just lie and claim you have one I won't except.(Why not just post the actual argument? Oh, yeah, you don't have one!)
And then you called me names.
Then you had to look up the term "non sequitur" because you didn't know what it means. And it's clear you still don't.
Must suck to high heaven to be you!
Is it not the joining of certain "body parts" and the natural result, that provides the biological foundation to marriage?

Appealing to biology is logical.

Perhaps you can answer the questions I posed.
If its the consensus of society that marriage is simply a union of two consenting adults, there's no need to prohibit any two person, consenting adult, union, including blood relatives. Why should it matter who marries who, or who can't marry who?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191075 May 6, 2013
Hallelujah wrote:
You have no idea the "special rights" the gay cult in this country is asking for but you will when your child, grandchild, or even yourself is terminated from a job to hire a homosexual. The gay cult is suing churches to force those of faith to marry them; the gay cult is suing privately owned business who refuse to perform gay marriage which is infringing on the rights of God loving heterosexuals.
Are liars like YOU considered "god loving?" No one is suing churches to force them to do ANYTHING. And no one is firing ANYONE so they can be replaced by a homosexual. Good grief. Do you really think LYING proves your point?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191076 May 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it not the joining of certain "body parts" and the natural result, that provides the biological foundation to marriage?
Appealing to biology is logical.
Perhaps you can answer the questions I posed.
If its the consensus of society that marriage is simply a union of two consenting adults, there's no need to prohibit any two person, consenting adult, union, including blood relatives. Why should it matter who marries who, or who can't marry who?
A biological foundation to marriage? HUH? It's a legal contract.... there's nothing biological about it.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191077 May 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
IOW, you can't come up with a rational argument against gay marriage, so you just lie and claim you have one I won't except.(Why not just post the actual argument? Oh, yeah, you don't have one!)
And then you called me names.
Then you had to look up the term "non sequitur" because you didn't know what it means. And it's clear you still don't.
Must suck to high heaven to be you!
What kind of horseshit are they making up about you now? These losers are SO desperate.
Progress

Covina, CA

#191078 May 6, 2013
The efforts by the few shall be rewarded.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#191079 May 6, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, with the 'scared" or "frightened" schtick. Geez, do you really think that we are frightened? That's so silly, it's laughable, in a sad sort of way. About as scared of you as any of us are, when telling children not to play with matches...
Sorry, Boo-Boo, but you're not scary little spookies.
Then what is your personal objection to gays and lesbians?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#191080 May 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And the article goes on to note the profundity of not finding validity for homosexuality by now. A discrete way of acknowledging THERE IS NO VALID PURPOSE FOR IT.
You note you are satisfied with an attempted explanation that is rejected by scientists. I'm shocked.
You conclude by exposing once again your bigotry. Homosexuality has been recognized as a defective aberration by every culture, apart from any religion.
Smirk.
This article DOES NOT conclude that there is no valid purpose for homosexuality. Where do you come up with such nonsense?

And you KNOW that you lie when you say that homosexuality has been recognized as a defective aberration by every culture. Where does the article you cited say this?

Again, I can only be left with one conclusion; namely that pull your ideas from your behind only because your head is so firmly lodged up there.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191081 May 6, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What kind of horseshit are they making up about you now? These losers are SO desperate.
They are desperate, they are losing the legal battle ( which is the only battle of any importance ), so they are desperately trying to convince themselves that their ignorant bias has an excuse.

They cannot win, they are losing on every front, people are even leaving their churches as they have exposed themselves to be little more than a hate group.

Sometimes I think the Westborough Baptist church has done more for Same Sex marriage than anyone else has. Winston Churchill once indicated that England owes more to the vices of John than to the enlightenment or valor of other kings ( or something like that, I didnít look it up ), I can see his point. It is much the same here.

The ignorant and hateful bias of these people has exposed what they are, and people turn their backs on them. When the pulpit become a political grandstand, they lost their innocence and their way, and it exposed them for what they actually are.

You have it exactly right, they are desperate, and really have no hope left.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191082 May 6, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They are desperate, they are losing the legal battle ( which is the only battle of any importance ), so they are desperately trying to convince themselves that their ignorant bias has an excuse.
They cannot win, they are losing on every front, people are even leaving their churches as they have exposed themselves to be little more than a hate group.
Sometimes I think the Westborough Baptist church has done more for Same Sex marriage than anyone else has. Winston Churchill once indicated that England owes more to the vices of John than to the enlightenment or valor of other kings ( or something like that, I didnít look it up ), I can see his point. It is much the same here.
The ignorant and hateful bias of these people has exposed what they are, and people turn their backs on them. When the pulpit become a political grandstand, they lost their innocence and their way, and it exposed them for what they actually are.
You have it exactly right, they are desperate, and really have no hope left.
"desperate" "hate group" "ignorant bias" "ignorant and hateful" "have no hope" "desperately trying to convince..."

What a drama queen! Too funny. Try and relax tough guy.
Hairy Jerry

United States

#191083 May 6, 2013
Well liberalism stricks again, & the judge must have got his degree in the castro, and then went ot the 9th circut court. He belongs in the white house, with biden & obama. It's sicking !!!!!!!
Favored ruling

Covina, CA

#191084 May 6, 2013
Ruling in favor of the ones that need it the most.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#191085 May 6, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They are desperate, they are losing the legal battle ( which is the only battle of any importance ), so they are desperately trying to convince themselves that their ignorant bias has an excuse.
They cannot win, they are losing on every front, people are even leaving their churches as they have exposed themselves to be little more than a hate group.
Sometimes I think the Westborough Baptist church has done more for Same Sex marriage than anyone else has. Winston Churchill once indicated that England owes more to the vices of John than to the enlightenment or valor of other kings ( or something like that, I didnít look it up ), I can see his point. It is much the same here.
The ignorant and hateful bias of these people has exposed what they are, and people turn their backs on them. When the pulpit become a political grandstand, they lost their innocence and their way, and it exposed them for what they actually are.
You have it exactly right, they are desperate, and really have no hope left.
what i don't understand is how any one church or faith thinks they get to dictate to others how to practice someone's faith, or how to believe. case in point is a discussion i was involved in the oklahoma city topix thread about gay marriage with one fellow named antitheist who couldn't accept there were other denominations or faiths that believed differently than his chosen denomination he followed (which he finally confessed being a southern baptist). just where do they get the justification, the downright smugness, in thinking they get to dictate what or who a christian is in the first place? they don't own the word "christian" any more than i do. yet he really believes he's the one that says who is and who isn't a christian and how anyone and everyone gets to believe.

nevermind the fact that this country isn't a theocracy. that just seems to dumbfound many that think that their closely held religious beliefs should be made into public secular laws. everytime i read things like that, i just have to shake my head in disbelief.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191086 May 6, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
what i don't understand is how any one church or faith thinks they get to dictate to others how to practice someone's faith, or how to believe. case in point is a discussion i was involved in the oklahoma city topix thread about gay marriage with one fellow named antitheist who couldn't accept there were other denominations or faiths that believed differently than his chosen denomination he followed (which he finally confessed being a southern baptist). just where do they get the justification, the downright smugness, in thinking they get to dictate what or who a christian is in the first place? they don't own the word "christian" any more than i do. yet he really believes he's the one that says who is and who isn't a christian and how anyone and everyone gets to believe.
nevermind the fact that this country isn't a theocracy. that just seems to dumbfound many that think that their closely held religious beliefs should be made into public secular laws. everytime i read things like that, i just have to shake my head in disbelief.
He's obviously a blowhard. Blowhards come in all stripes. Religious, non religious, etc. Take Big D for example, he is a religion hater type blowhard.
is Rose divorced yet

Justice, IL

#191087 May 6, 2013
Question for the group.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191088 May 6, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
what i don't understand is how any one church or faith thinks they get to dictate to others how to practice someone's faith, or how to believe. case in point is a discussion i was involved in the oklahoma city topix thread about gay marriage with one fellow named antitheist who couldn't accept there were other denominations or faiths that believed differently than his chosen denomination he followed (which he finally confessed being a southern baptist). just where do they get the justification, the downright smugness, in thinking they get to dictate what or who a christian is in the first place? they don't own the word "christian" any more than i do. yet he really believes he's the one that says who is and who isn't a christian and how anyone and everyone gets to believe.
nevermind the fact that this country isn't a theocracy. that just seems to dumbfound many that think that their closely held religious beliefs should be made into public secular laws. everytime i read things like that, i just have to shake my head in disbelief.
I like it when a minority of them call a majority of Christians.. not Christian ( chuckle ). Each one seems to have personal knowledge of how everything is supposed to be, and anyone that disagrees with them... is not "right with their particular god". Funny part is, they all seem to KNOW what their God is thinking, and it doesnít seem to be the same god.

I have pointed out the thousands of Christian churches that want to preform Same sex marriages, where is the demand for their religious freedom?

No.. it is all ignorant bias, they pick and choose the church that will tell them what they want to hear. Just like they pick a news station that will report what they want to hear, and then they close their eyes to actual knowledge and pick the "facts" they want to believe regardless of reality.

I donít actually hate these people, but I certainly feel sorry for them. But I will not let them dictate to other Americans.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#191089 May 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And the article goes on to note the profundity of not finding validity for homosexuality by now. A discrete way of acknowledging THERE IS NO VALID PURPOSE FOR IT.
You note you are satisfied with an attempted explanation that is rejected by scientists. I'm shocked.
You conclude by exposing once again your bigotry. Homosexuality has been recognized as a defective aberration by every culture, apart from any religion.
Smirk.
Is that like having no proof of God's existence? A discrete way of acknowledging there is no God? Or is it just your way of not understanding that you can't prove a negative. Science has a long history of uncovering previously elusive evidence.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191090 May 6, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that like having no proof of God's existence? A discrete way of acknowledging there is no God? Or is it just your way of not understanding that you can't prove a negative. Science has a long history of uncovering previously elusive evidence.
Just as you canít prove Peter Pan doesnít exist

Equal provability with any God

All on the same level of believability

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
News Walmart Closing Five Stores For 'Plumbing Probl... 41 min Steve 2
News Taft finally gets shot against Mater Dei (Mar '10) 42 min Brandog 2
Dance School/Academy (Sep '07) 1 hr Crotchety 2
Tax Fraud Blotter: Oh, Mother 1 hr Tim McGyver 2
News Stalker case leads to lawsuit against St. Bruno... (Feb '13) 1 hr Fr Feeley 1,330
News Albertsons out (Jul '08) 1 hr Kim Childs 42
News Wal-Mart said to cut management layer to stream... 2 hr Watchers 1
More from around the web

South Pasadena People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]