Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201877 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.

jacques renault

Chicago, IL

#156448 Aug 26, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
You go from nursery rhymes to trees now in order to justify your reasoning.......interesting!!!
By the way, Gays and Lesbians can and do have biological children.......and though it isn't with their spouse necessarily at this moment in time......it is no different than a heterosexual couple who needs outside help conceiving children as well!!!
if a couple comes with a lock and the key to it, that's different than idiots bringing two locks or two keys and a turkey baster

have you thought about revivifying dead bodies like Dr Frankenstein to be your children?

the tree tale for fairies was brilliant, by the way

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#156449 Aug 26, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
...By the way, Gays and Lesbians can and do have biological children.......and though it isn't with their spouse necessarily at this moment in time...
I'm against special rights that allow them to divorce the other parent of their child, then have a same sex marriage and petition the court to give them custody because homosexuals have been a victim of discrimination in the past. The child's best interest must come first, not greed for political power.
Goofball

La Puente, CA

#156450 Aug 26, 2012
Whats the score now?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#156452 Aug 26, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Nursery and nature are both a natural part of reality. The integrity of reality crosses all dimensions, that is why you have no direct response to it.
'Man'ufactured children can be manipulated for wrong reasons. And you do so to their harm.
The homosexuality-is-unnatural-and /or-against-God’s-design argument: Claims of the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality permeate antigay bigots’ dialogue. Consider just a few comments plucked from an especially vituperative Free Republic thread concerning a recent New York Times piece. The article was about how some young gay male couples are beginning to feel societal pressure to have children.

*The libtards keep saying 2 faggots are “normal”. If they’re normal, how come they can’t have kids?

*I am still looking through my high school biology text to see if “fertilized excrement” can render life. Nope, it requires a female ovum. Oh well, back to the reality of the natural order.

This last comment is tactless. But it isn’t wrong, of course. It’s just irrelevant. Nature is two things and two things only: mechanistic and amoral. Intravaginal heterosexual sex can produce offspring. Homosexual intercourse cannot produce offspring. To extrapolate from these mechanistic facts of procreation some moral directive about what we should and should not do with our genitalia is to assume an intelligent creator that designed our reproductive anatomies. And that old philosophical error—that an intelligent mind is needed to account for our bodies, and that this preconceived design should in turn dictate our social behaviors—lies at the flawed heart of the “unnaturalness” argument against homosexuality.
It’s also where the scariest part of the story—religious zealotry—comes into focus:

* how EVIL —to destroy the chance for a child to be raised by his mother....With biology you get a connection to the past and future-—when I married and had children. It is the Law of Nature-and makes life meaningful-as God Designed.

* Homos & lesbians are the lowest form of degeneracy as pointed out in Romans 1:18-32, when God gives them over to their own reprobate desires, to enter into unnatural affections, men with men and women with women, doing those things which are an abomination & reprehensible. They will be judged and destroyed as a result of their sexual perversions.
I suffer absolutely no illusions, none whatsoever, about making even the slightest of dents in the scripture-fortified cerebral cortices of religious fundamentalists. A childhood inoculation against any form of scientific reason about topics such as evolution and homosexuality has made so many of their brains impenetrable to logic and appeals for careful, dispassionate introspection.
Those who live in the natural world rather than the supernatural aren’t burdened by any such ridiculous anatomically-based moral quandaries. There is no need to decipher deep ethical principles from biological adaptations, because there are no divine messages to be found in the natural selection of traits created by random genetic mutations. The concept of evil does not exist for those of us in the natural world, but cruelty, ignorance, and fear of the unknown are plentiful; and they are more destructive than any evil imaginable. We shudder not at the thought of a wrathful God who smites Sodomites, but at the very real wrath of people who actually believe that they are the warrior allies of this imaginary beast.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...
Goofball

La Puente, CA

#156453 Aug 26, 2012
I like this game, idiots against the wind.

You all haven't even seen what the score will look like next inning.
Frank Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#156454 Aug 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
The homosexuality-is-unnatural-and /or-against-God’s-design argument: Claims of the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality permeate antigay bigots’ dialogue. Consider just a few comments plucked from an especially vituperative Free Republic thread concerning a recent New York Times piece. The article was about how some young gay male couples are beginning to feel societal pressure to have children.
*The libtards keep saying 2 faggots are “normal”. If they’re normal, how come they can’t have kids?
*I am still looking through my high school biology text to see if “fertilized excrement” can render life. Nope, it requires a female ovum. Oh well, back to the reality of the natural order.
This last comment is tactless. But it isn’t wrong, of course. It’s just irrelevant. Nature is two things and two things only: mechanistic and amoral. Intravaginal heterosexual sex can produce offspring. Homosexual intercourse cannot produce offspring. To extrapolate from these mechanistic facts of procreation some moral directive about what we should and should not do with our genitalia is to assume an intelligent creator that designed our reproductive anatomies. And that old philosophical error—that an intelligent mind is needed to account for our bodies, and that this preconceived design should in turn dictate our social behaviors—lies at the flawed heart of the “unnaturalness” argument against homosexuality.
It’s also where the scariest part of the story—religious zealotry—comes into focus:
* how EVIL —to destroy the chance for a child to be raised by his mother....With biology you get a connection to the past and future-—when I married and had children. It is the Law of Nature-and makes life meaningful-as God Designed.
* Homos & lesbians are the lowest form of degeneracy as pointed out in Romans 1:18-32, when God gives them over to their own reprobate desires, to enter into unnatural affections, men with men and women with women, doing those things which are an abomination & reprehensible. They will be judged and destroyed as a result of their sexual perversions.
I suffer absolutely no illusions, none whatsoever, about making even the slightest of dents in the scripture-fortified cerebral cortices of religious fundamentalists. A childhood inoculation against any form of scientific reason about topics such as evolution and homosexuality has made so many of their brains impenetrable to logic and appeals for careful, dispassionate introspection.
Those who live in the natural world rather than the supernatural aren’t burdened by any such ridiculous anatomically-based moral quandaries. There is no need to decipher deep ethical principles from biological adaptations, because there are no divine messages to be found in the natural selection of traits created by random genetic mutations. The concept of evil does not exist for those of us in the natural world, but cruelty, ignorance, and fear of the unknown are plentiful; and they are more destructive than any evil imaginable. We shudder not at the thought of a wrathful God who smites Sodomites, but at the very real wrath of people who actually believe that they are the warrior allies of this imaginary beast.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...
Too long and boring.

YUK!YUK!YUK! Sue Wee!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#156455 Aug 26, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
What a total lie doc......the Plaintiff's AREN'T afraid of anything because they know that if SCOTUS decides to hear the appeal, they will win, and if the more likely happens, where SCOTUS refuses to hear the appeal, they will win.
Baker v Nelson is US Supreme Court precedent for state's rights defining marriage as one man and one woman.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

"Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent, though the extent of its precedential effect has been subject to debate."
Reality

Madison, WI

#156456 Aug 26, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Too long and boring.
YUK!YUK!YUK! Sue Wee!
poor baby boi did it make your head hurt?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156457 Aug 26, 2012
Mona Liar wrote:
<quoted text>
The homosexuality-is-unnatural-and /or-against-God’s-design argument: Claims of the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality permeate antigay bigots’ dialogue. Consider just a few comments plucked from an especially vituperative Free Republic thread concerning a recent New York Times piece. The article was about how some young gay male couples are beginning to feel societal pressure to have children.
*The libtards keep saying 2 faggots are “normal”. If they’re normal, how come they can’t have kids?
*I am still looking through my high school biology text to see if “fertilized excrement” can render life. Nope, it requires a female ovum. Oh well, back to the reality of the natural order.
This last comment is tactless. But it isn’t wrong, of course. It’s just irrelevant. Nature is two things and two things only: mechanistic and amoral. Intravaginal heterosexual sex can produce offspring. Homosexual intercourse cannot produce offspring. To extrapolate from these mechanistic facts of procreation some moral directive about what we should and should not do with our genitalia is to assume an intelligent creator that designed our reproductive anatomies. And that old philosophical error—that an intelligent mind is needed to account for our bodies, and that this preconceived design should in turn dictate our social behaviors—lies at the flawed heart of the “unnaturalness” argument against homosexuality.
It’s also where the scariest part of the story—religious zealotry—comes into focus:
* how EVIL —to destroy the chance for a child to be raised by his mother....With biology you get a connection to the past and future-—when I married and had children. It is the Law of Nature-and makes life meaningful-as God Designed.
* Homos & lesbians are the lowest form of degeneracy as pointed out in Romans 1:18-32, when God gives them over to their own reprobate desires, to enter into unnatural affections, men with men and women with women, doing those things which are an abomination & reprehensible. They will be judged and destroyed as a result of their sexual perversions.
I suffer absolutely no illusions, none whatsoever, about making even the slightest of dents in the scripture-fortified cerebral cortices of religious fundamentalists. A childhood inoculation against any form of scientific reason about topics such as evolution and homosexuality has made so many of their brains impenetrable to logic and appeals for careful, dispassionate introspection.
Those who live in the natural world rather than the supernatural aren’t burdened by any such ridiculous anatomically-based moral quandaries. There is no need to decipher deep ethical principles from biological adaptations, because there are no divine messages to be found in the natural selection of traits created by random genetic mutations. The concept of evil does not exist for those of us in the natural world, but cruelty, ignorance, and fear of the unknown are plentiful; and they are more destructive than any evil imaginable. We shudder not at the thought of a wrathful God who smites Sodomites, but at the very real wrath of people who actually believe that they are the warrior allies of this imaginary beast.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...
Nice gay twirl.

Please relate my specific statements directly to a (brief) passage you are inferring I am guilty of.

Smile.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#156458 Aug 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
The homosexuality-is-unnatural-and /or-against-God’s-design argument:...
I've never used that argument, you build a strawman just so you can knock it down. I've always written, "There is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality", and I don't buy M.L.'s arguments that homosexuality is unnatural.

They want to dismiss us as bigots so they won't have to listen. They deserve our pity.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156459 Aug 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
The homosexuality-is-unnatural-and /or-against-God’s-design argument: Claims of the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality permeate antigay bigots’ dialogue. Consider just a few comments plucked from an especially vituperative Free Republic thread concerning a recent New York Times piece. The article was about how some young gay male couples are beginning to feel societal pressure to have children.
*The libtards keep saying 2 faggots are “normal”. If they’re normal, how come they can’t have kids?
*I am still looking through my high school biology text to see if “fertilized excrement” can render life. Nope, it requires a female ovum. Oh well, back to the reality of the natural order.
This last comment is tactless. But it isn’t wrong, of course. It’s just irrelevant. Nature is two things and two things only: mechanistic and amoral. Intravaginal heterosexual sex can produce offspring. Homosexual intercourse cannot produce offspring. To extrapolate from these mechanistic facts of procreation some moral directive about what we should and should not do with our genitalia is to assume an intelligent creator that designed our reproductive anatomies. And that old philosophical error—that an intelligent mind is needed to account for our bodies, and that this preconceived design should in turn dictate our social behaviors—lies at the flawed heart of the “unnaturalness” argument against homosexuality.
It’s also where the scariest part of the story—religious zealotry—comes into focus:
* how EVIL —to destroy the chance for a child to be raised by his mother....With biology you get a connection to the past and future-—when I married and had children. It is the Law of Nature-and makes life meaningful-as God Designed.
* Homos & lesbians are the lowest form of degeneracy as pointed out in Romans 1:18-32, when God gives them over to their own reprobate desires, to enter into unnatural affections, men with men and women with women, doing those things which are an abomination & reprehensible. They will be judged and destroyed as a result of their sexual perversions.
I suffer absolutely no illusions, none whatsoever, about making even the slightest of dents in the scripture-fortified cerebral cortices of religious fundamentalists. A childhood inoculation against any form of scientific reason about topics such as evolution and homosexuality has made so many of their brains impenetrable to logic and appeals for careful, dispassionate introspection.
Those who live in the natural world rather than the supernatural aren’t burdened by any such ridiculous anatomically-based moral quandaries. There is no need to decipher deep ethical principles from biological adaptations, because there are no divine messages to be found in the natural selection of traits created by random genetic mutations. The concept of evil does not exist for those of us in the natural world, but cruelty, ignorance, and fear of the unknown are plentiful; and they are more destructive than any evil imaginable. We shudder not at the thought of a wrathful God who smites Sodomites, but at the very real wrath of people who actually believe that they are the warrior allies of this imaginary beast.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...
Nice gay whine.

Please relate my specific statements directly to a (brief) passage you are inferring I am guilty of.

Smile.
Reality

Madison, WI

#156461 Aug 26, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never used that argument, you build a strawman just so you can knock it down. I've always written, "There is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality", and I don't buy M.L.'s arguments that homosexuality is unnatural.
They want to dismiss us as bigots so they won't have to listen. They deserve our pity.
Brian, if people where to go to the thread called " Is hmosexuality a sin", they would see that you are a bible thumping fundie, so stop the bull shiet and post what you really think!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#156462 Aug 26, 2012
Reality wrote:
Brian, if people where to go to the thread called " Is hmosexuality a sin", they would see that you are a bible thumping fundie, so stop the bull shiet and post what you really think!
I've posted, "There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality" hundreds of times, isn't that proof it's what I really think? I've never posted on the that thread, I'm interested in protecting marriage not defaming opponents.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#156463 Aug 26, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I already explained this to you. This is a choice of the State. There is no court decision nor federal law requiring them to do so, nor does the Constitution require it.
<quoted text>
The fact that you state- some do and some don't- simply provides proof that it is a state issue, not a judicial or federal one.
<quoted text>
The fact that you can hang around long enough to get judges appointed to agree with you does not make it Constitutional. The fact that you even think that way merely shows that you are less interested in the true meaning of the Constitution than you are in your personal opinion being affirmed regardless of the Constitutionality of that opinion- that is where we get the term "activist judges" from. We might as well shred the Constitution as it has no meaning under that philosophy.
It's a civil rights issue and should be decided on by the federal government. It’s the exact same fight that Black Americans waged. The states don't have the sensibilities to determine such a matter. And the electorate has not right to vote on another citizens rights. That’s what the founding fathers intended. You can continue to babble on about how states rule the union, but, it just comes across as hatred and bigotry. And you know that’s what’s in your heart. BTW, regardless of what fool sits in the oval office, there will be marriage equality in the USA.
Winston Smith

United States

#156464 Aug 26, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do. The first thing I thought of when you made wild speculations as to where I learned "YUK!YUK!YUK! such as The Three Stooges was that you were being a bit trivial. But what the heck I figured I'll go along, Winnie is my friend. So then I felt comfortable asking where you learned "Schtick", a word I use often in my posts.
Nevermind my willie! I don't know how long we're going to stay friends Winston with you hitting on me like that. It's not like that with me. I don't think of you that way. I hope you stop that and stop calling me girl names so we can stay friends!
Don't flatter yourself, Franny, you're the one whipping your willie out waving it about for all of us to point and laugh. I brought in the Curly version of nyuk nyuk nyuk just to point out what a stooge you were being, not to speculate on anything. You really need to stop making assumptions.
Winston Smith

United States

#156465 Aug 26, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you say so. I do tend to make people in denial uncomfortable, otherwise popular or at least noticed.
Smile.
Noticed like a bit of dog dung in the path. Something to just step over and pay no mind to other than avoiding contact. The only one in denial around here is you. But then again, dummies usually aren't aware of their low IQ.
Winston Smith

United States

#156466 Aug 26, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice gay whine.
Please relate my specific statements directly to a (brief) passage you are inferring I am guilty of.
Smile.
A brief passage of yours? Think of a loud raspberry.
Bill Of Rights

Tempe, AZ

#156467 Aug 26, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't flatter yourself, Franny, you're the one whipping your willie out waving it about for all of us to point and laugh. I brought in the Curly version of nyuk nyuk nyuk just to point out what a stooge you were being, not to speculate on anything. You really need to stop making assumptions.
Well Winston,you gotta remember Ratzo is pushing 90 with advanced Alzheimer's affecting him now days and he's on his last leg and has trouble finding his way home sometimes now so perhaps we should cut him a little slack? Nah,he's a total jerk and completely against marriage equality and never posts anything relevant or with any semblance of intelligence so carry on good sir,he is a total jag off! LOL

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#156468 Aug 26, 2012
Marram wrote:
It's a civil rights issue and should be decided on by the federal government. It’s the exact same fight that Black Americans waged. The states don't have the sensibilities to determine such a matter. And the electorate has not right to vote on another citizens rights. That’s what the founding fathers intended. You can continue to babble on about how states rule the union, but, it just comes across as hatred and bigotry. And you know that’s what’s in your heart. BTW, regardless of what fool sits in the oval office, there will be marriage equality in the USA.
Baker v Nelson is US Supreme Court precedent for State's defining marriage as one man and one woman. There are no gender equality rights in the Constitution, the ERA failed because the people did not consent to same sex marriage. Consent is very important in marriage.

DOMA is the law of the land, Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA into law; he's president of the senate now.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Vice_Pr...

Don't cry to me about "hatred and bigotry" now, you voted for Obama when he said there is a sacred aspect to marriage that allows state's to define marriage as one man and one woman. Now, Obama says state's may define marriage as two men or two women or one man and one woman. BFD

I have pity for those on the left.
Dude

New Castle, DE

#156469 Aug 26, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Baker v Nelson is US Supreme Court precedent for State's defining marriage as one man and one woman. There are no gender equality rights in the Constitution, the ERA failed because the people did not consent to same sex marriage. Consent is very important in marriage.
DOMA is the law of the land, Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA into law; he's president of the senate now.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Vice_Pr...
Don't cry to me about "hatred and bigotry" now, you voted for Obama when he said there is a sacred aspect to marriage that allows state's to define marriage as one man and one woman. Now, Obama says state's may define marriage as two men or two women or one man and one woman. BFD
I have pity for those on the left.
Gender and sexual orientation policies have changed since 1972.

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.

Wasco Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Leo Hernandez 1 hr Chaps 2
Delano drop outs and snitches 2 hr sky1123 37
Rosa Garibay 41 3 hr Bobby Brown 5
Hot guys running. 4 hr Nicki93215 3
spots out of jail. 8 hr Hernandez 15
Veronica perez is pregnant 8 hr North kern 5
What? 9 hr Lola 5

Wasco Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wasco Mortgages