Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201888 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.

laughing man

Luton, UK

#196848 Jun 19, 2013
Hey, the polyp buster is up to three sets of negative smilies already!

KEWL!!!!

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196849 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, take it apart, and show us where you are confused.
At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's your contrived drivel... You take it apart and explain it to us. The part that throws me is "...constraint on evolutionary mating behavior."
What is it about marriage that is a constraint (restriction, prevention, limitation) on mating behavior?
From where I sit, your definition literally means that marriage is a cross-cultural restriction on evolutionary mating behavior.
See, I just don't think you've thought this thing through.
I could be wrong. Maybe you had something else in mind when you made-up your own personal definition of marriage.
Am I the only one who finds this definition puzzling? Can anyone else explain it better?
Not sure anyone can help you VV, if that is what you have racked your brain over... Especially considering you are a 'professional' social worker.

Here is a brief but thorough explanation;

http://voices.yahoo.com/
analyzing-human-mating-behavio r-1020545.html

This paragraph on long term mating (marriage) explains the
strategy;

"The nature of human reproduction is such that paternal parental investment is not essential to offspring survival. Consequently, short term mating strategies are more favorable to males; Buss and Schmitt (1993) assert that by inseminating as many females as possible while providing as little parental investment as possible, males increase the odds of forwarding their genes. In contrast, the large amount of parental investment required by females makes long term mating strategies much more favorable for them. By attaining the commitment of their male counterparts, females can capitalize on the consequent non-genetic resources provided by the male (food, protection)."

But in all honesty VV, you understand exactly what I said. You play dumb because you have no counter for it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196850 Jun 20, 2013
Regarding the former Exodus International leader's apology;

While I agree with his transition from a belief that orientation is a choice, here is where his change becomes a pendulum swing too far;

"I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them. I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek. My beliefs about these things will never again interfere with God’s command to love my neighbor as I love myself."

Truth and love are not in conflict. His decision to restrict truth because of love in fact fractures love. The Biblical command is to speak the truth in love.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196851 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Regarding the former Exodus International leader's apology;
While I agree with his transition from a belief that orientation is a choice, here is where his change becomes a pendulum swing too far;
"I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them. I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek. My beliefs about these things will never again interfere with God’s command to love my neighbor as I love myself."
Truth and love are not in conflict. His decision to restrict truth because of love in fact fractures love. The Biblical command is to speak the truth in love.
Your Bible says so many things you ignore, cant help but laugh when you talk about its "commands".

Where are you with "Judge not, that ye be not judged"?

The only thing we have ever heard from you in this forum is judgments on others, I take it you pick and choose yourself what is important in your Bible and what you can just ignore as crap?
laughing man

Luton, UK

#196852 Jun 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Bible says so many things you ignore, cant help but laugh when you talk about its "commands".
Where are you with "Judge not, that ye be not judged"?
The only thing we have ever heard from you in this forum is judgments on others, I take it you pick and choose yourself what is important in your Bible and what you can just ignore as crap?
Lookit the hypocritical bedwetter.

The bible of the Fundamentalist Polyp Busters has an exact analogue, to wit:

"Celebrate Diversity"

which the polyp busters use or ignore at will.

Change your panties and hurry back.
Dorn

Altadena, CA

#196853 Jun 20, 2013
Thank you Veryvermillian for expressing your enlightenment about the reality of homosexual orientation being a fact of life.
The stories of committed same sex couples coming to light on the television has put light on the pain they have suffered from persecution by well meaning heterosexual people.
Of course the judge was right in his decision to challenge Prop.8.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196854 Jun 20, 2013
Dorn wrote:
Thank you Veryvermillian for expressing your enlightenment about the reality of homosexual orientation being a fact of life.
The stories of committed same sex couples coming to light on the television has put light on the pain they have suffered from persecution by well meaning heterosexual people.
Of course the judge was right in his decision to challenge Prop.8.
Fortunately more and more people are seeing the truth, Prop 8 has already been overturned, and the stay on that decision will be lifted shortly I am sure.

Just be cautious about lumping people into labeled boxes, that is what the other side does, don’t emulate them.

I am a heterosexual, and have been for freedom and equality from the beginning.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#196855 Jun 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately more and more people are seeing the truth, Prop 8 has already been overturned, and the stay on that decision will be lifted shortly I am sure.
Just be cautious about lumping people into labeled boxes, that is what the other side does, don’t emulate them.
I am a heterosexual, and have been for freedom and equality from the beginning.
Yup. This thread days are numbered. The old Rizzo and socks can have it. It will be obsolete when the ruling comes. It will be OPEN TOPIC just for him.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196856 Jun 20, 2013
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>Yup. This thread days are numbered. The old Rizzo and socks can have it. It will be obsolete when the ruling comes. It will be OPEN TOPIC just for him.
It will happen, either with the Supreme Court ruling either today or more likely next week.

Or if they totally screw it up, it will happen in the next election cycle, either way, Prop 8 is dead.

I am still personally more interested in the DOMA decision as Prop 8 is doomed either way.

If they strike section 3, you have federal recognition, that is a very important key to it eventually being recognized in every state.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196857 Jun 20, 2013
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>Yup. This thread days are numbered. The old Rizzo and socks can have it. It will be obsolete when the ruling comes. It will be OPEN TOPIC just for him.
I do wish there was a more mature topic forum, maybe I should look around for one.
Erroders

Covina, CA

#196858 Jun 20, 2013
Kleinfontein, South Africa..

A all-white encampment or prison less than an hour from South Africa’s capital has been fighting to stay all-white with a segregated life style.

This of course was the norm for the country before Nelson Mandela toppled the apartheid (racists)regime.
laughing man

Luton, UK

#196861 Jun 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I do wish there was a more mature topic forum, maybe I should look around for one.
A fly has angst over a turd.

Will wonders never cease?
Common peeps

Covina, CA

#196862 Jun 20, 2013
Accusations Leveled Against Citrus College. Glendora, California Trustee Ed Ortell.

Part-time faculty say the college board trustee used his status to secure jobs for family members at the college.

This type of activity is common for the City Of Glendora, California it's self.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#196863 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have freedom already.
However, ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile
So what? Is there a point to your statement? Have there been people denied the opportunity to marry because they are mutually sterile? Please provide some examples.

Waiting....

Waiting....

waiting....
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196864 Jun 20, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? Is there a point to your statement? Have there been people denied the opportunity to marry because they are mutually sterile? Please provide some examples.
Waiting....
Waiting....
waiting....
No that argument is reserved for same sex marriage only, they won’t apply that "rule" to anyone else.

It was a bogus argument from day one, but they don’t have anything else they can cling to, so they cling to a sinking ship
laughing man

Luton, UK

#196865 Jun 20, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? Is there a point to your statement? Have there been people denied the opportunity to marry because they are mutually sterile? Please provide some examples.
Waiting....
Waiting....
waiting....
Homosexuals = blight on Society

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196866 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, take it apart, and show us where you are confused.
At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
<quoted text>
Not sure anyone can help you VV, if that is what you have racked your brain over... Especially considering you are a 'professional' social worker.
Here is a brief but thorough explanation;
http://voices.yahoo.com/
analyzing-human-mating-behavio r-1020545.html
This paragraph on long term mating (marriage) explains the
strategy;
"The nature of human reproduction is such that paternal parental investment is not essential to offspring survival. Consequently, short term mating strategies are more favorable to males; Buss and Schmitt (1993) assert that by inseminating as many females as possible while providing as little parental investment as possible, males increase the odds of forwarding their genes. In contrast, the large amount of parental investment required by females makes long term mating strategies much more favorable for them. By attaining the commitment of their male counterparts, females can capitalize on the consequent non-genetic resources provided by the male (food, protection)."
But in all honesty VV, you understand exactly what I said. You play dumb because you have no counter for it.
So marriage IS a constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

In other words, it's not natural.

The survival of the species, it would seem, would be more likely if there were no marriage contract to tie these men to one woman. The man--especially the successful, most powerful man, would be able to spread his genetic traits to more women; leading to greater numbers of smarter, faster, stronger, genetically superior offspring.

Your notion that pairing a man with a woman for life in order to make sure that she is capable of being cared for--that their offspring will be better cared for--assumes that women can't provide for their own offspring sufficiently.

In the animal kingdom, there are many species in which the female raises her offspring to maturity on her own.

Using your own definition of marriage, maybe mankind needs to establish a situation where men are able to impregnate as many women and offspring as he can support. Once the offspring have been raised to maturity, the husband should divorce his wife and start anew.

But that's neither here nor there. The bottom line is that you have found a single article written by a "Yahoo contributor" on which you base your definition of marriage.

Oh, and by the way, the author of the article that you steal from (you steal from her by not identifying her as the source for your findings), also wrote an interesting piece about how she supports that LGBT movement.

Emmy Diers says, "The fact that issues such as abortion and gay marriage are even open for discussion is a testament to the fact that progress is still being made. These discussions were not openly taking place even thirty years ago. Eventually it will happen; until then we must continue to advocate and to educate the public. We must also continue to be optimistic and above all else, we must remain patient."

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#196868 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Bwah ha ha ha haha!! People can and do mate without marriage. They were able to do so for eons before the institution was even invented. And they continue to do so to this day. The institution of marriage has NO requirements related to mating. NONE.

At the most basic essence, marriage is about maintaining property and inheritance. Period.
KiMare wrote:
http://voices.yahoo.com/
analyzing-human-mating-behavio r-1020545.html
Thank you for your ridiculous link. But since mating is not a requirement of marriage I'll skip it as being as completely irrelevant as your posts.
KiMare wrote:
This paragraph on long term mating (marriage) explains the
strategy;
"The nature of human reproduction is such that paternal parental investment is not essential to offspring survival. Consequently, short term mating strategies are more favorable to males; Buss and Schmitt (1993) assert that by inseminating as many females as possible while providing as little parental investment as possible, males increase the odds of forwarding their genes. In contrast, the large amount of parental investment required by females makes long term mating strategies much more favorable for them. By attaining the commitment of their male counterparts, females can capitalize on the consequent non-genetic resources provided by the male (food, protection)."
You seem to be under the impression this string is about mating. It isn't.
KiMare wrote:
But in all honesty VV, you understand exactly what I said. You play dumb because you have no counter for it.
What needs to be countered? Your view of mating habits? LOL! The subject of this string is marriage, not mating. Mating habits are completely irrelevant to the topic.

What else you got?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196872 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Regarding the former Exodus International leader's apology;
While I agree with his transition from a belief that orientation is a choice, here is where his change becomes a pendulum swing too far;
"I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them. I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek. My beliefs about these things will never again interfere with God’s command to love my neighbor as I love myself."
Truth and love are not in conflict. His decision to restrict truth because of love in fact fractures love. The Biblical command is to speak the truth in love.
I think you'll find that the Biblical command is to not judge another person--that you do not have the supernatural ability that God possesses to pass judgment on another human being.

You do not know truth. You may think you do, but you don't. None of us know truth. We have FAITH that we believe guides us to truth.

But to actually determine another person's truth is dangerously arrogant.

You are not God. You cannot know what He has called me to be or to do.

You can only carry on in your own personal journey, doing those things that you BELIEVE He has called you to do.

And don't take this the wrong way, but I don't believe that He brought you into this world to judge others. Maybe you were meant to teach others about Him. Maybe you were meant to help bring others to Him. But to be His judge--telling others what His truth is? I don't think so.
laughing man

Luton, UK

#196873 Jun 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
This Jonah1 clown is an extremely angry little piece of work. Big fun!
They all appear as haters this fine morning.

Oooooh, I used a slogan!

LAFF!!!!

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.

Torrance Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Honorable mention Naughty Maggie 3 hr Stay South Bay In... 2
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 8 hr Hipocrit 20,505
looking for my brother 20 hr benkel 1
Review: iLoveKickboxing - Redondo Beach (Oct '15) Aug 25 blessed528 43
Best Furniture Store in Torrance Aug 22 musttoast 1
Kroenke and Rams Suck Aug 22 OJ s 1
Tiny dog on Anaheim st - Sunday night Aug 22 k8baldwin 1

Torrance Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Torrance Mortgages