Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,186

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.

Full Story
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196011 Jun 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course procreation has never been a requirement, it wasnt necessary.
But the fact remains that marriage has been the best setting for procreation IN EVERY culture.
Ss couples can never equate to that.
To call ss couples married is no different than calling a tail on a dog a leg.
I sympathize with the desperate attempt of homosexuals to be normal, but this denial simply makes you look foolish.
Wrong in our culture we recognize people that marry that cannot have children and have done so from the beginning, it is not any kind of requirement.... period
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196019 Jun 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. It has never been a requirement, exactly like he said in the very first sentence of his post.
Your attempt to create a straw man has failed again.
Then perhaps they should stop bringing it up as an argument.

It is no argument

but I will answer it every time they bring it up as any kind of argument, and I dont need your permision to do so.
PizzFrank

Monrovia, CA

#196020 Jun 14, 2013
Frank pizz off and don't come back you boo boo.
Semper Patrioticus

Williston, ND

#196021 Jun 14, 2013
Yeah, this wasn't the best ruling for human freedom because the gays are VERY militant and are actually opposed to normal marriage and normal childbearing and if they get the chance, they will mainstream gay marriage and ban normal marriage. It's in their charter. What did we learn from the mess left behind by the Communists and the Nazis? Don't give radicals a toe in the door. I can think of several other good reasons why the American people should not have given the "gays" what they wanted:

1. In a Jewish-Christian society, homosexual behavior is an abomination. The Christians will never "live and let live" and will use the law to force gays back into the closet.
2. The gays, already militant, will lash out at the community of faith and will use the Government to nullify the Bill of Rights to "protect" their interests.
3. Public Health: AIDS, Mental Illness and Narcotics use will spike, putting a dangerous strain on an already overburdened hospital system.
4. Population and Demographics: As the "gay" lifestyle becomes mainstream, more and more men will become effeminate and eventually the reproductive rate will drop to 0.0 Americans born per year.
5. Islamic Nations already have strained relations with the US and it will actually get worse if the entire population becomes "gay". Terrorism will reach an all time high with 100 suicide attacks a week on US soil because the "Ummah" will have decided that the US needs to be purged, not just changed. Radicalized Jews and some misled Christians will also join in the "purge" and a general civil war will be the result.

The States and the Federal Government needs to change all the laws back to favoring "normal" and "gay" needs to be treated like any other sex offense, with imprisonment and castration.

Historically, populations in nations under an occupation usually turn to homosexual behavior (yes, it is a lifestyle choice, you are not "born" gay) in order to protect themselves from and get favors from the occupying force. In the case of the occupying force, it is the Extreme Left, their social and political doctrine is Communist.

Finally we have to ask ourselves this? Do we grant rights to any group claiming to be a minority group? Historically the answer is a flat NO because protection of the community is paramount and is more important than the rights of the "minority".

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#196024 Jun 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want to march in the streets, I simply want to discuss marriage equality without fear or censorship.
Polygamy is a perfectly logical topic in any discussion of marriage equality. Your fear and attempts to censor it away speaks volumes.
Why are you a hypocrite?
I don't fear it b/c it has no effect on me at all. Not censoring....you carry on about it all the time. LOL You won't get it setting in front of a computer!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196026 Jun 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never brought it up as an argument against SSM. You are lying again.
I have stated repeatedly that procreation is not a requirement for marriage.
I simply call bullsh!t you when you lie and say someone said it is a requirement for marriage.
I didnít say you did moron, learn to read

your friends that hate same sex marriage brought it up and I answered, none of this is about you

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196028 Jun 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course procreation has never been a requirement, it wasnt necessary.
But the fact remains that marriage has been the best setting for procreation IN EVERY culture.
Ss couples can never equate to that.
To call ss couples married is no different than calling a tail on a dog a leg.
I sympathize with the desperate attempt of homosexuals to be normal, but this denial simply makes you look foolish.
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong in our culture we recognize people that marry that cannot have children and have done so from the beginning, it is not any kind of requirement.... period
Read what I wrote again, real slow.

I didn't say we don't recognize childless marriages.

I simply pointed out that ss couples are in a 'class' by themselves.
TightLid

Monrovia, CA

#196029 Jun 14, 2013
Who said anything about pickles?
der

Kelseyville, CA

#196031 Jun 14, 2013
Over time people who "think" like you get smaller in number, leaving you in a class by yourself, hateful bigot.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course procreation has never been a requirement, it wasnt necessary.
But the fact remains that marriage has been the best setting for procreation IN EVERY culture.
Ss couples can never equate to that.
To call ss couples married is no different than calling a tail on a dog a leg.
I sympathize with the desperate attempt of homosexuals to be normal, but this denial simply makes you look foolish.

Read what I wrote again, real slow.

I didn't say we don't recognize childless marriages.

I simply pointed out that ss couples are in a 'class' by themselves.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196033 Jun 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course procreation has never been a requirement, it wasnt necessary.
But the fact remains that marriage has been the best setting for procreation IN EVERY culture.
Ss couples can never equate to that.
To call ss couples married is no different than calling a tail on a dog a leg.
I sympathize with the desperate attempt of homosexuals to be normal, but this denial simply makes you look foolish.
<quoted text>
Read what I wrote again, real slow.
I didn't say we don't recognize childless marriages.
I simply pointed out that ss couples are in a 'class' by themselves.
so you agree with me and not Rock Hudson that procreation has absolutely no place whatsoever in a discussion about gay marriage?

If so good, the courts agree with you, it has no place in the argument.

no place whatsoever

as you are more and more in a minority position opposing same sex marriage, what desperate attempts are you going to take to try to appear normal?
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#196035 Jun 14, 2013
FareWay wrote:
Where is the 19th hole anyway?
lol ... See Frank Rizzoto for that!! haha
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196036 Jun 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems anything unfavorable to your arguments has no place in this discussion. How convenient for you.
No as there is nothing unfavorable about the procreation argument, the procreation arguments clearly shows that we accept marriages of couples that cannot have children and have always done so.

It is sometimes annoying having to explain that over and over and overÖ but some people never seem to internalize that.
centralia

Mount Vernon, IL

#196037 Jun 14, 2013
Know what GAY stands for ? Got Aids Yet !
Ant Factory

Monrovia, CA

#196038 Jun 14, 2013
Best time for the busy bee ant factory to start up.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196042 Jun 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has said procreation is a requirement for marriage yet you lie and accuse everyone of saying it. It is annoying indeed.
Several keep implying that it does, but you ignore them, no problem as I will ignore you when I reply to them
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196043 Jun 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Several keep implying that it does, but you ignore them, no problem as I will ignore you when I reply to them
You can't ignore me.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196044 Jun 14, 2013
First week in introductory bonehead cultural anthropology class you would learned this:

The origins of marriage.

How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that itís about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?
Marriageís primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a manís children were truly his biological heirs.

Procreation is not a requirement for marriage but it most certainly is one of the main reasons marriage began.

It's not a valid argument against SSM but being dishonest and claiming it is unrelated is ridiculous and desperate.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196045 Jun 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
First week in introductory bonehead cultural anthropology class you would learned this:
The origins of marriage.
How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that itís about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
What was it about, then?
Marriageís primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a manís children were truly his biological heirs.
Procreation is not a requirement for marriage but it most certainly is one of the main reasons marriage began.
It's not a valid argument against SSM but being dishonest and claiming it is unrelated is ridiculous and desperate.
What is desperate is clinging to an argument that has already been soundly defeated multiple times in court.

You can say whatever you want against same sex marriage, but the procreation argument is already defeated in the only place it count, in court
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196046 Jun 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
What is desperate is clinging to an argument that has already been soundly defeated multiple times in court.
You can say whatever you want against same sex marriage, but the procreation argument is already defeated in the only place it count, in court
I am not using procreation as an argument against SSM. I support SSM and believe procreation is not a valid argument against it.

But to attempt to totally disassociate procreation from marriage is ridiculous and dishonest.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#196047 Jun 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
What is desperate is clinging to an argument that has already been soundly defeated multiple times in court.
I agree, it has (SSM) But the SSM folks didn't give up. Why should the other minority groups that want equal rights?

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.

Palo Alto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Daly City Officer Charged With Excessive Force (Aug '06) 20 hr yes call me 09864... 376
'Hybrid' store displays new plans (Jun '07) Tue Silver Blade 4
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... Tue Best Yet 32
Review: Calvary Chapel (Apr '09) Dec 21 WhyWait 36
Police chase on Sunday early morning thru EPA Dec 21 D mann 1
Police Blotter: Porch package snatcher arrested... Dec 21 One way or another 5
Bill Widmer named new Rancho Palos Verdes city ... Dec 20 Are you serious 1

Palo Alto News Video

Palo Alto Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Palo Alto News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palo Alto

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:01 pm PST

NFL 2:01PM
Michael Crabtree uncertain about 49ers future
Bleacher Report 2:46 PM
Breaking Down San Francisco's Game Plan vs. Cards
NBC Sports 3:43 PM
49ers' Crabtree doesn't know what future holds - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 3:54 PM
Derek Carr returns to practice with Raiders - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 9:05 PM
49ers Potential Cap Casualties for 2015