Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201480 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.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#163841 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not. I am against freaks of nature.
Then don't look in the mirror!
R Hudson wrote:
I am against aberrations. I am not even against gay people. I am against the doors that the whole issue opens. I am against indoctrination of our children.
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
R Hudson wrote:
I don't give a rats ass if gay people want to live together. I am against the idea of gay PDA. I am against seeing men walk around in spandex shorts and wearing high heel shoes.
The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.
R Hudson wrote:
I am against the lowering of the proverbial bar that the issue leads to. WE do not have a "heterosexual day parade". WE do not push our heterosexuality into anyones face or into the schools at an indecent age bracket. We teach nature in schools , at the junior high school level. I am against chicken hawking. I am against anything that goes against the grain of nature, and gayness is not the norm. I am against the wasting of governmental time and money, making your agenda a waste of taxpayer money. Go be gay. i don't care.
Can't get your mind off of adult males having sex with male children, can you?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#163842 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So.....we DID just materialize out of thin air ?
Take a biology class, dummy.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#163843 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Society is the victim. Normal people are the victims. Our national value system is the victim.
How so? How does giving people equal rights harm anybody?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163844 Oct 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
Our nation was not founded upon any religion, as repeatedly stated by our founders
This isn’t a question, this is a fact, we were not founded as a Christian nation, and our founders specifically stated we were not.
A fact you either know, or are ignorant of, not an opinion.
I can provide quoted from our founders all day long on the subject, but lets start with the clincher
John Adams– a signed document as president of the United states
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”
BTW, that is not a QUOTE from John Adams, it is an excerpt from a treaty he signed.

But let's have some fun, we can all play this game...

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

""[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."- Benjamin Rush

"[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy ... the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments.[T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God." -Gouverneur Morris

"The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts."- John Jay

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine.... Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."- James Wilson

" Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." - George Washington

"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness ... it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof."- Benjamin Franklin

Founding a nation that would not have a "National Religion" is not the same as founding one which has "NO RELIGION."

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163845 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't. I don't think black people are property with no right to life, I do believe women should be able to vote. I think white males who don't own property should also have equal rights. I think it is wrong to murder people, even put bounties on their heads, and take their land. Yep, the founders and I disagree on many things.
<quoted text>
Wrong. You can't wiggle your way out of being caught, no matter what word games you play.
<quoted text>
LOL. If you only knew...
You are so clueless Rose. You are too stupid to even comprehend your own lies.

Are you this much of a joke in real life? My guess is you are.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163846 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is. The whole idea that there is a "creator" is religious. It's purely based on faith, with no evidence.
<quoted text>
LOL. Just admit you have no real argument.
We should build something out of you, you are dense! At least then you would serve a purpose aside from using up perfectly good O2.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163849 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
How so? How does giving people equal rights harm anybody?
It doesn't. So why are you a racist?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#163853 Oct 18, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, that is not a QUOTE from John Adams, it is an excerpt from a treaty he signed.
Does "anal retentive" have a hyphen?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#163854 Oct 18, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so clueless Rose. You are too stupid to even comprehend your own lies.
Are you this much of a joke in real life? My guess is you are.
Really? What lie did I tell?

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163855 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's both have a go at her....
Be fine if she looked like her picture. But it's probably some fat old pervert dude in pink bra and panties. Maybe Rose_NoHo. Yecch.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163857 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Does "anal retentive" have a hyphen?
We know you don't like facts.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163858 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? What lie did I tell?
The one where you claimed to be educated.
Parkerfu

Pilot Hill, CA

#163859 Oct 18, 2012
Way to go!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163860 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Does "anal retentive" have a hyphen?
Writing your memoirs?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#163864 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh...since you asked...
The question was: Does not society have a right to set certain standards, by which we all live ?
Not if those rules violate the basic equal rights of individuals.
R Hudson wrote:
Same-sex marriage proposes the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage.
Hallmark crap. Marriage is a legal contract. Marriage is a right.
R Hudson wrote:
It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
R Hudson wrote:
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses.
Another is that it always denies a child either a father or a mother. It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

Gay couples can raise children without getting married.
R Hudson wrote:
Another is that, in the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants. Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
What a bunch of BS.
R Hudson wrote:
The whole purpose of same-sex marriage , objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
Again, stupid, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
R Hudson wrote:
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children,
Rose's Law...
R Hudson wrote:
and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.” If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? It is already being promoted as the next barrier to be bridged. Where does it end ?
Hope that answered your questions.......Because I cannot state it any more clearly than that. "Whew"
LOL. Slippery slope fallacy.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#163866 Oct 18, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The one where you claimed to be educated.
LOL. If you only knew...
I pass gas that is better educated than you are.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#163868 Oct 18, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
We know you don't like facts.
No problem with facts. But you are just nit-picking, arguing semantics, and playing word games.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163871 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. If you only knew...
I pass gas that is better educated than you are.
We do know, you childish posts speak for themselves. But keep at it Rose, you will get that GED, I have faith in you.

And we know, when you pass gas it most certainly is the smartest thing in the room.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#163872 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So you produce ad hominem as a defense against the refutation of your claim ? That rape does not occur in nature ? I see you are again sidestepping, as you do so often, instead of admitting that you were erred. But think no more about it, it would only place you into an unrecoverable loop.
Your kitty porn site doesn't prove that animals have the concepts of consent and rape.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163873 Oct 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem with facts. But you are just nit-picking, arguing semantics, and playing word games.
Pointing out something that was presented as Quote in fact wasn't, is not nit-picking, it is fact checking.

But most of the time you don't know fact from fantasy, so I understand why this concept is foreign to you.

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.

Upland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 9 hr Brew In 36,118
Pizza Corp. at 9805 6th St. Unit 101; Rancho Cu... Fri Tanya 31
male predator gropping women Fri Tanya 3
News Beltran gets life sentence (Apr '09) Thu Wolf 445
Drugs/Meth/H/oxy30etc Wed Tyler15 3
Black Jun 20 George 2
News Vagos motorcycle club targeted in Southern Cali... (Mar '06) Jun 20 Rattrapper 4,850

Upland Jobs

Personal Finance

Upland Mortgages