Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments (Page 8,813)

Showing posts 176,241 - 176,260 of200,202
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203333
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
However, there is life-long mating behavior among animals, marriage WITHOUT the law.
I see. So now you are going to refer to life-long mating as marriage. Got it.

BTW, those natural life-long mating behaviors among animals include homosexual mating, oh, excuse me, homosexual marriage WITHOUT law.

Smile.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203335
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me help you;
"Mating is a human universal."
"All known societies have formal marriage alliances between MEN AND WOMEN (emphasis added)."
"More than 90% of all people in all societies marry at some point in their lives."
"In a cross cultural perspective, marriages are usually regarded as formal reproductive alliances (NOTE THE TIE-IN WITH CHILD BIRTH) that contain the features of (a) mutual obligation between husband and wife (NOTE THE GENDER DIVERSITY)(b) rights of sexual access (c) an expectation that marriage will persist through pregnancy, lactation, and child rearing and (d), and recognition of the legitimate status of the couple's children."
There is no 'theory' involved. There is simply a social science identified commonality that encompasses nearly all cross-cultural marriages. The rest of the article addresses their theory.
Face it queen, that single paragraph destroys virtually every claim gay twirl trolls like you make.
But girlfriend, you ALWAYS gloss over their use of the word "USUALLY" in the first paragraph. This indicates that NOT ALL marriages are regarded as formal reproductive alliances.

Why you don't get it is beyond me.

When a study is presented to a professional journal, every single word is scrutinized. I'm sure they didn't casually throw the word "usually" in their discussion.

And NOTHING in this article even addresses your claim that same-sex relationships or marriages are harmful to children.

You CANNOT draw conclusions from a study that the authors, themselves, did not draw.

Keep yammering, queen... Maybe you'll convince yourself.

Until David Buss and David Schmitt provide us with a study that directly deals with MARRIAGE--both gay and straight--and not mating behavior, you have no case.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203336
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the bottom line.
In the first paragraph, they verified my concise statement; Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
As to the rest of the content, I knew exactly where it went. As I noted with my first reference, I have chosen brief summaries that prove my statement.
You should take note of the practice of 'briefness'...
Again, you can find that statement in other articles regarding marriage and mating behavior.
No dear, HERE'S the bottom line. Mating behavior is completely irrelevant to the state issuing a marriage license. Always has been, always will be. All your precious articles regarding mating behavior will ALWAYS be irrelevant. Like you.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203337
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is simply stupid to call a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered half of marriage, marriage.
Clearly not the same.
It's simply stupid to continue to make claims that have no basis in legal fact.

I'll bet you just bark at the moon when you see more and more states and countries pass marriage equality laws.

The TOP queen gave her official approval for same-sex marriage in the U.K. yesterday.

LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!!

“Sara for Fun (( M 2 F ))”

Since: Aug 10

Bahrain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203338
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's simply stupid to continue to make claims that have no basis in legal fact.
I'll bet you just bark at the moon when you see more and more states and countries pass marriage equality laws.
The TOP queen gave her official approval for same-sex marriage in the U.K. yesterday.
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!!
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203339
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me help you;
"Mating is a human universal."
Let me help you; mating is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage. Even if it weren't, gays mate whether you like it or not. You don't get to make up your own definitions of what mating is.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"All known societies have formal marriage alliances between MEN AND WOMEN (emphasis added)."
Many known societies have formal marriage alliances between men and men and between women and women. The number of these "societies" continues to grow and won't be stopping. NO EMPHASIS NEEDED.

[QUOTE who="KiMare"]<quo ted text>
"More than 90% of all people in all societies marry at some point in their lives."
I highly doubt this figure, but in the end it's completely irrelevant.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"In a cross cultural perspective, marriages are usually regarded as formal reproductive alliances (NOTE THE TIE-IN WITH CHILD BIRTH) that contain the features of (a) mutual obligation between husband and wife (NOTE THE GENDER DIVERSITY)(b) rights of sexual access (c) an expectation that marriage will persist through pregnancy, lactation, and child rearing and (d), and recognition of the legitimate status of the couple's children."
No one cares about cross cultural perspective. We only care about the perspective of the state. Cross cultures aren't issuing marriages, the state is. The state has no mandates as it relates to mating or procreation.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no 'theory' involved. There is simply a social science identified commonality that encompasses nearly all cross-cultural marriages. The rest of the article addresses their theory.
Commonality is completely irrelevant. You are arguing "tradition". Sorry, that's not a valid argument when it relates to civil rights. Never has been and never will be. Your argument merely demonstrates your desperation.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Face it queen, that single paragraph destroys virtually every claim gay twirl trolls like you make.
Face it c*nt, NOTHING you have stated has destroyed ANYTHING. Gays are still getting married, their marriages are equal to their heterosexual counterparts, laws are continuing to be changed in order to accommodate and regognize our marriages, and all your fundie twirls, lies and obfuscations about procreation, sterility, essences, anal sex, AIDS and anything else you try and bring into the conversation will never alter that.

You're a loser, fighting a losing battle, on a lost cause.

Oh, and you're ugly to boot.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203340
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is simply stupid to call a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered half of marriage, marriage.
Clearly not the same.
No, what's stupid is continuing to reference things that don't really exist. Like "half a marriage". That's what's really stupid.

One can only assume that you find your "arguments" from the same fundie store as the village idiot, Brian_G. You sound more and more like him everyday. And by like him, I mean, idiotic and desperate.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203341
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A gay troll fishing...
A fundie c*nt being agitative.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203342
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
But girlfriend, you ALWAYS gloss over their use of the word "USUALLY" in the first paragraph. This indicates that NOT ALL marriages are regarded as formal reproductive alliances.
Why you don't get it is beyond me.
When a study is presented to a professional journal, every single word is scrutinized. I'm sure they didn't casually throw the word "usually" in their discussion.
And NOTHING in this article even addresses your claim that same-sex relationships or marriages are harmful to children.
You CANNOT draw conclusions from a study that the authors, themselves, did not draw.
Keep yammering, queen... Maybe you'll convince yourself.
Until David Buss and David Schmitt provide us with a study that directly deals with MARRIAGE--both gay and straight--and not mating behavior, you have no case.
First you falsely portrayed the first paragraph as a theory, now you try to distort again. You are so predictable.

The 'usually' simply notes rare exceptions which in no way invalidate the normal.

The first paragraph simply notes commonly held understanding by social scientists about marriage. It then proceeds to address a separate theory about short term relationships.

Keep twirling queen.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203343
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's simply stupid to continue to make claims that have no basis in legal fact.
I'll bet you just bark at the moon when you see more and more states and countries pass marriage equality laws.
The TOP queen gave her official approval for same-sex marriage in the U.K. yesterday.
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!!
I made no claim about a purported 'legal' fact.

I simply noted reality: SS couples will only evert be a mutually sterile duplicate gendered half of marriage.

Even a Queen can't change that.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203344
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I made no claim about a purported 'legal' fact.
I simply noted reality: SS couples will only evert be a mutually sterile duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Even a Queen can't change that.
Lets see

The legal facts ( which you ignore are )

Animals ( other than man ) do not have marriage contracts

Precreation is not now nor has ever been a requirement for a marriage license

Mating behavior is not stipulated on a marriage contract

Same sex couples are legally married and recognized on both the state and federal level

Some people can and do have children regardless of marital status ( and always have )

People raise children regardless of their biological connection to the child ( I have 3 myself that I raised that were not biologically mine, however they all call me Dad )
Bob

Brentwood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203345
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Jess wrote:
Woohoo!!
RANKIN THE. MORON lives in O.C.
The O. C. Times, they called him that
'Cause he's not authentic like me.
Yeah, the guy from the O.C. paper
Said he makes druggies feel good
They'll vote for him, and not for me

See, real druggies , liars and thieves like RANKIN
Or me, or informed
Have talked the talk, and walked the walk.
Not come in late and won!

[refrain]

Oh, RANKIN THE MORON lives in O.C.
The O.C. Times, they called him that

'Cause he's moron but not authentically.
Oh, Rankin the Coward lives in O.C.
The O.C. Times, they called him that
'Cause he's slander , but not authentically.
Some say RANKIN. "articulate"
And bright and new and "clean."
The druggies sure loves this guy,
A instigator interloper's dream!
But, when you vote for a FOOL
Watch out, and don't be fooled!
Don't vote the RANKIN THE LIAR in -
'Cause 'cause I won't have nothing after all these years of sacrifice
And I won't get justice. This is about justice. This isn't about me, it's about justice.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203347
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. So now you are going to refer to life-long mating as marriage. Got it.
BTW, those natural life-long mating behaviors among animals include homosexual mating, oh, excuse me, homosexual marriage WITHOUT law.
Smile.
I inferred no such thing. I simply noted that the law is not required for life long mating or marriage

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203348
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No dear, HERE'S the bottom line. Mating behavior is completely irrelevant to the state issuing a marriage license. Always has been, always will be. All your precious articles regarding mating behavior will ALWAYS be irrelevant. Like you.
Well lets see, it is your rabid opinion vs science.
Mikey

Chatsworth, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203349
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww. Yes, in general. You suck.
Silly bigoted POS, I don't suck I blow...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203350
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply noted reality: SS couples will only evert be a mutually sterile duplicate gendered half of marriage.
That's not reality, that's made up fantasy fundie-land. Look, we get it, you don't want to accept our marriages. No one cares. your acceptance is about as important as the acceptance of donkey. Your lack of acceptance doesn't make them any less real, it just publically demonstrates how juvenile you are.

Now, you run along with your pouty face, and you stomp your feet all day long! Your very poorly created opinions don't trump facts.

Your imaginary "half marriages" and "mutual sterility" and "essences" and obsession with anal sex demonstrate NOTHING, other than your complete and utter stupidity.

Smile ugly! We love when fundies throw themselves into public arguments about which they know nothing other than their beliefs!! Nothing shows you all off for what you are more than that!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203351
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I inferred no such thing.
Ah, yes you did. I realize with the tremendous amount of lying and fundie-twirling that you do, it's easy for you to lose track.

http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"However, there is life-long mating behavior among animals, marriage WITHOUT the law."

See kumquat, you explicitly implied it. You called "life-long mating behavior" "marriage" WITHOUT the law.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply noted that the law is not required for life long mating or marriage
Um, yes dear, the law is required for marriage. Marriage is a legal institution. It is not recognized without the law. It is however, not required for mating. Mating and marriage are two different things. Neither are dependent upon the other. And that fact will always be the thorn in your nonsense.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203352
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not reality, that's made up fantasy fundie-land. Look, we get it, you don't want to accept our marriages. No one cares. your acceptance is about as important as the acceptance of donkey. Your lack of acceptance doesn't make them any less real, it just publically demonstrates how juvenile you are.
Now, you run along with your pouty face, and you stomp your feet all day long! Your very poorly created opinions don't trump facts.
Your imaginary "half marriages" and "mutual sterility" and "essences" and obsession with anal sex demonstrate NOTHING, other than your complete and utter stupidity.
Smile ugly! We love when fundies throw themselves into public arguments about which they know nothing other than their beliefs!! Nothing shows you all off for what you are more than that!!!
Try to relax fruitloops.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203354
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
But girlfriend, you ALWAYS gloss over their use of the word "USUALLY" in the first paragraph. This indicates that NOT ALL marriages are regarded as formal reproductive alliances.
Why you don't get it is beyond me.
When a study is presented to a professional journal, every single word is scrutinized. I'm sure they didn't casually throw the word "usually" in their discussion.
And NOTHING in this article even addresses your claim that same-sex relationships or marriages are harmful to children.
You CANNOT draw conclusions from a study that the authors, themselves, did not draw.
Keep yammering, queen... Maybe you'll convince yourself.
Until David Buss and David Schmitt provide us with a study that directly deals with MARRIAGE--both gay and straight--and not mating behavior, you have no case.
Relax spice cake.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203355
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Well lets see, it is your rabid opinion vs science.
1) Stating that "Mating behavior is completely irrelevant to the state issuing a marriage license" is not a rabid opinion, it's a bona fide statement of fact. It's demonstrable and provable.

2) Science has nothing to do with marriage. But don't let that stop you from pretending it does.

Smile!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 176,241 - 176,260 of200,202
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

59 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 4 min Reverend Alan 50,447
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 5 min Browneye 67,582
Gay Teacher Files Sex Discrimination Claim Agai... 7 min Wondering 96
Vet sues after burial with gay partner is denied 13 min Wondering 18
Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors 14 min Wondering 1,537
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 15 min DNF 1,789
Indiana Won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages 23 min Rainbow Theology 31
Tony Perkins Warns Support of Gay Rights by 'Li... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 22
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••