Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,939

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
laughing man

UK

#196922 Jun 20, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me know when you decide to support your previous accusation with some specifics. Until then, you're simply a waste of time.
You're quite the pubescent imbecile. I'm going to leave you twisting in the wind.

I'm laughing at what the Fundamentalist colon wreckers put on the front lines.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196925 Jun 20, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Where did I judge you? Did I judge you when I told you that it wasn't your place to be a judge of others?
Did you? You don't know?

Many times and many people on here.

Maybe you are referring to selective judgement by selective people about selective issues?

Isn't that really gay?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196926 Jun 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, visiting grandchildren, we will have a blast.:)
From a SS couple?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196927 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
From a SS couple?
I don’t happen to be gay, none of my children happen to be gay, that does not stop me or them from supporting our fellow Americans who do happen to be gay, in their fight for freedom against tynary.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#196928 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
From a SS couple?
My goodness. I'm not sure which is worse, your nosiness (which your bible refers to as "busybody"), or your desire to intentionally agitate (what your little bible refers to as "sowing discord"). Seems odd you would continue to exhibit behavior your sky Santa has stated he hates.

Typical Christian hypocrite fundamentalist.

Carry on plebe.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#196929 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
From a SS couple?
Here, you seem to be in desperate need of this information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilizat...
Hypocrite Watch

UK

#196930 Jun 20, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text> your desire to intentionally agitate
“Fundies = Blight on Society”

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196931 Jun 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t happen to be gay, none of my children happen to be gay, that does not stop me or them from supporting our fellow Americans who do happen to be gay, in their fight for freedom against tynary.
Truth, justice, and the Big D way! I thought I just heard trumpets.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196932 Jun 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth, justice, and the Big D way! I thought I just heard trumpets.
:)
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#196933 Jun 20, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your taxes are not altered when curriculums change Penguin Boy. You are completely unaffected. The fact that you don't like the curriculum is irrelevant.
Feel free to try again with how you are "affected".
<quoted text>
If it were BS, you would be able to refute it. let me know when that happens Penguin Boy.
<quoted text>
Um, shyt for brains, homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, it's a characteristic.
life·style
[lahyf-stahyl]
noun
1.
the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.
Notice the "THAT TOGETHER CONSTITUTE.....". I singular item, such as homosexuality, does not constitute a lifestyle Penguin Boy.
<quoted text>
Where did I state that SSM had something to do with Black history? Please present the exact statement.
Waiting....
Waiting....
Waiting....
Feel free to try again Penguin Boy. So far your batting ZERO, and your attempts to simply make personal attacks aren't helping you!
I don't expect this conversation to go on too much longer with you because you are a closed minded individual when it comes down to facts and reasoning. If you don't believe that your tax dollars pays for teachers in the public school system well then I guess this conversation is over. Your cult is in its plans and agenda to force gay education it is a fact and you know it so don't ask me to prove it. Consider this topic refuted. Who is penguin boy? u dumb ass homo!!
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#196934 Jun 20, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
but you expect gays to pay for YOUR way of life, however ignoratn you may appear here. our taxes go towards your benefits of being married and having kids....yet obviously that public education has done nothing to further your thinking. so it's ok that we shell out money for you while getting nothing for it. riiiiight.
the rest of your post is merely opinionated claptrap that has nothing to substantiate it. best of luck with your mindset in the coming years chum. you'll just more and more angry as time goes by and the rest of the public goes on with their lives and not having issues with how different people live. i guess you and others like you will remain fixated on just someone's sexual position while the rest of us won't be thinking about how others have sex. funny how guys like you like to think about something they loudly complain about other people doing, even if those people are doing that action in the privacy of their own homes.
shake my head at the utter and complete ignorance of some folks.
Ignorant?.. lol re-read what you are accusing me of "chum" show me where I am talking about your sex life you moron. You have a one track mind like the other homos. We all pay taxes so don't feel like you are the lone ranger u stupied azzz you get the benefits too.
Town Crier

UK

#196935 Jun 20, 2013
“Homosexuals = Blight on Society”

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#196936 Jun 20, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't expect this conversation to go on too much longer with you because you are a closed minded individual when it comes down to facts and reasoning.
Actually, in our "conversation" I'm the ONLY one supplying facts and reasoning. You are supplying ridiculous talking points that don't support your argument.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't believe that your tax dollars pays for teachers in the public school system well then I guess this conversation is over.
Who said I don't believe that my tax dollars pay (note the grammatical correction) for teachers? I sure didn't. You really should look into lessons on comprehension.

What I stated was that your taxes are EXACTLY THE SAME regardless of what curriculums are in place. In other words Penguin Boy, your taxes are EXACTLY THE SAME whether history of the gay rights movement is included or not included. Thus you are UNAFFECTED in any way. You have failed to demonstrate how you are "affected" if gays marry, which was your original claim. The fact that you are too dense to comprehend this isn't my problem.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Your cult is in its plans and agenda to force gay education it is a fact and you know it so don't ask me to prove it.
Homosexuality can't be taught you moron, so there is never going to be "gay education". Education doesn't have a sexual orientation you utter moron. But gays will be included in historical context when it comes to education in the tax payer funded school system. Their my taxes too Penguin Boy. Not a damn thing you can do about it, other than bitch.

As for your so called "gay agenda", here's a copy. You might consider reading it.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con...
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Consider this topic refuted.
Hardly. The topic was how you are affected by gays getting married. You've not established one way you are personally affected. Your taxes aren't changed in anyway. But if you wish to quit the topic defeated by your own stupidity, have at it Penguin Boy.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is penguin boy?
You are Brunhilda. It goes back to that time where you tried to argue that penguins are capable of flight. Basically demonstrating your utter stupidity yet again.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
u dumb ass homo!!
Um, I'm not the one making claims I can't support. That would be you dumb ass Penguin Boy.
laughing man

UK

#196939 Jun 20, 2013
get outta my neighborhood wrote:
“Homosexuals = Blight on Society”
“Non registered users = cowards”

Well, Little Precious changed its incendiary slogan, and for no logical and rational reason. God, those people are so damned stupid. How can they even find their way to the shitchute?

*snicker*
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#196940 Jun 20, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, in our "conversation" I'm the ONLY one supplying facts and reasoning. You are supplying ridiculous talking points that don't support your argument.
<quoted text>
Who said I don't believe that my tax dollars pay (note the grammatical correction) for teachers? I sure didn't. You really should look into lessons on comprehension.
What I stated was that your taxes are EXACTLY THE SAME regardless of what curriculums are in place. In other words Penguin Boy, your taxes are EXACTLY THE SAME whether history of the gay rights movement is included or not included. Thus you are UNAFFECTED in any way. You have failed to demonstrate how you are "affected" if gays marry, which was your original claim. The fact that you are too dense to comprehend this isn't my problem.
<quoted text>
Homosexuality can't be taught you moron, so there is never going to be "gay education". Education doesn't have a sexual orientation you utter moron. But gays will be included in historical context when it comes to education in the tax payer funded school system. Their my taxes too Penguin Boy. Not a damn thing you can do about it, other than bitch.
As for your so called "gay agenda", here's a copy. You might consider reading it.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con...
<quoted text>
Hardly. The topic was how you are affected by gays getting married. You've not established one way you are personally affected. Your taxes aren't changed in anyway. But if you wish to quit the topic defeated by your own stupidity, have at it Penguin Boy.
<quoted text>
You are Brunhilda. It goes back to that time where you tried to argue that penguins are capable of flight. Basically demonstrating your utter stupidity yet again.
<quoted text>
Um, I'm not the one making claims I can't support. That would be you dumb ass Penguin Boy.
Let me guess : you are the Bitch in the relationship right????
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#196941 Jun 20, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Brunhilda, no one takes you seriously hon. Not since you made the comment that penguins were able to get to Noah's ark by flying to the middle east.
Anyone with an education over 1st grade is well aware of how ridiculously stupid you are. What makes it fun is watching you repeatedly demonstrating how proud you are of your stupidity.
JoAnah, I dont know what you are bablying about and I'm not your hon got it? save it for your freaky husband/dyke.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196943 Jun 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t happen to be gay, none of my children happen to be gay, that does not stop me or them from supporting our fellow Americans who do happen to be gay, in their fight for freedom against tynary.
Yeah, that could never be the case for anyone, could it.

Just pointing out another distinction between ss couples and marriage.

I'm supporting marriage and family from the tyranny of a imposter relationship imposing themselves on society.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196944 Jun 20, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My goodness. I'm not sure which is worse, your nosiness (which your bible refers to as "busybody"), or your desire to intentionally agitate (what your little bible refers to as "sowing discord"). Seems odd you would continue to exhibit behavior your sky Santa has stated he hates.
Typical Christian hypocrite fundamentalist.
Carry on plebe.
Speaking the truth is 'sowing discord', and it hurts your feelings?

But the classic is, confronting denial on a debate site is 'nosiness'.

I don't want to hurt your feelings, but you really are an idiot troll.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196945 Jun 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have freedom already.
However, ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile,
pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
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....
I was referring specifically to your partner and you. You say you are married, but it's clearly not the same, is it?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196946 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.
<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.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
So all this playing dumb, now you understand AND AGREE!

Then you pontificate on the 'glories' of ignoring marriage.

And conclude with the personal opinion of an author that ABORTION AND SS COUPLES ARE PROGRESS? A defective failure of mating behavior being equated to mating behavior?

Here is the bottom line;

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Clearly distinct.

Here is an interesting site I came across;

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardi...
paper-82-evolution-marriage

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
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... 2 hr William Knight 2
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 6 hr subscibe 15,995
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 10 hr lollypop 5,068
Why some high-tech parents want low-tech kids 11 hr Ray Ban 1
US stocks start lower 12 hr Go Blue Forever 22
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Mon GOP bull 2,265
Camden, TN. Topix Moderator (Aug '13) Sep 13 ladybee 16
•••

Palo Alto News Video

•••
•••

Palo Alto Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••