Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[chance47]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
1. The cross cultural constraint predates gay couples claiming marriage by quite some time making your point pointless.
The statement is a simple fact that you cannot directly refute, hence these games....

By calling my questioning 'games' I take it you are simply dismissive on this. Noted.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
....
2. I said the basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You had no logical counter, so you made up a statement (lied) I never made. Again, where did I say marriage wasn't about love?
...

Careful now... asking why you think marriage isn't about love is NOT claiming that you made the statement. Telling me I lied is , well, ironically a lie of yours.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
...3. Maybe you've heard the term 'survival of the fittest', which is the summation of the four points in the link. Or put simply, no mutation occurs if there is not procreation. There is no procreation by gay couples.
....

Another lie... lots of gays have procreated... and lots of straight people do not....

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
...4. Point 3; hence gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.
This is simple logic.....

I daresay that is not simple logic (maybe simpleton logic!).'blunders' are what define and drive evolutionary forces. I would contend that humans have a certain frequency of how many will be gay - just like a certain frequency will have curly hair or blue eyes. There is no 'blunder' in what we are... just variation.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
...If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Smile.

Thanks for the stream of consciousness, I suppose. Here are my responses in order if you are interested:
Love exists even in the void of marriage (for straight people and gay)
Lots of committed relationships have nothing to do with mar
riage (or sex)
Human rights are innate, not granted
Equate… diversity … redundancy.. what???
Surely, sacred religions aren’t afraid of the doing of you or I…
Violate history? Oh yeah, bring back slavery and the dark ages! Yipee!
Things don’t get better without change
Laws do change this – for instance the marriage tax credit
WTF is duplicating sexuality
So children of single parents are also condemned? Really?
WTF is design of sexual union
Evolution has no laws. Not one... none at all…
Pray tell, what is the unhealthiest relationship of all?(hint: it’s not SSM)
Reproduction doesn’t require marriage; and marriage does not imply kids
Dilute.. the..what, huh?

[sheesh void of hate]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Who cares whether its the polices job idiot? And moron, grasp this, the police system will make regulations with FORCED marriages, with a verifiable reason in order to prevent prison rape, like they are supposed to, dimwit!

Are you drunk, high, or just plain stupid? The "police system" will make regulations with forced marriages?..with a varifiable reason in order to prevent prison rape?

Can you point out where they've done this in Canada?

The more you post the more I am astounded by the magnitude of your idiocy.

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Because if gay marriage does not exist officially, then cell mates won't be married to each other for prison regulations. Most prison rapes are done to men, by men, stupid. If gay marriage does exist, they will be able to put in that regulation, moron.

Can you explain to the rest of the forum why your posts read like they were composed by a ten year old?

[Dusty Mangina]

Kimare, you have yet to back up a previous statement, so I'll ask again:

In which culture/s was SSM legally recognized previously? Still waiting for your answer.

Just pull down your drawers and talk to the mangina. Don't keep you internal lesbian waiting.

Crickets. Chirp. Chirp.

[sheesh void of hate]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>That's true, can't keep up with the real argument.

Well now, since you've not provided a real argument...

[Frankie Rizzo]

chance47 wrote:

<quoted text>
By calling my questioning 'games' I take it you are simply dismissive on this. Noted.
<quoted text>
Careful now... asking why you think marriage isn't about love is NOT claiming that you made the statement. Telling me I lied is , well, ironically a lie of yours.
<quoted text>
Another lie... lots of gays have procreated... and lots of straight people do not....
<quoted text>
I daresay that is not simple logic (maybe simpleton logic!).'blunders' are what define and drive evolutionary forces. I would contend that humans have a certain frequency of how many will be gay - just like a certain frequency will have curly hair or blue eyes. There is no 'blunder' in what we are... just variation.
<quoted text>
Thanks for the stream of consciousness, I suppose. Here are my responses in order if you are interested:
Love exists even in the void of marriage (for straight people and gay)
Lots of committed relationships have nothing to do with mar
riage (or sex)
Human rights are innate, not granted
Equate… diversity … redundancy.. what???
Surely, sacred religions aren’t afraid of the doing of you or I…
Violate history? Oh yeah, bring back slavery and the dark ages! Yipee!
Things don’t get better without change
Laws do change this – for instance the marriage tax credit
WTF is duplicating sexuality
So children of single parents are also condemned? Really?
WTF is design of sexual union
Evolution has no laws. Not one... none at all…
Pray tell, what is the unhealthiest relationship of all?(hint: it’s not SSM)
Reproduction doesn’t require marriage; and marriage does not imply kids
Dilute.. the..what, huh?

Too wordy.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Protecting? I don’t understand, homosexual marriage does not attack heterosexual marriage in any way at all. There are over 18,0000 legal homosexual marriages in California now, It certainly did not hurt my marriage, how did it hurt yours?

They diminished the sanctity of your status.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
She's mentally ill, and has a lack of love in her life, and is now trying to fufill it sexually.

I've been pointing out that very fact, but Chongo refuses to acknowledge this. It is sad.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
No moron, hard to believe you are 69, more like 20. The majority of the voters were against same sex marriage, 80%!

I've also pointed out how easily election results can be rigged, to support any agenda that is being forced upon us. Imagine, I've been told that elections are all honest and straightforward. No rigging ever occurs, according to one poster (Big D). We live in a perfect world...LOL

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Only 9 states do, moron.

Which means that 41 do not. Hopefully, the fad will end soon, and we can return to normality...

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Did I say poly was your obsession dummy? Learn to read.
So what if you don't give a flip about poly? Most people don't give a flip about SSM. What do I care what you give a flip about? So what if it might not be decades? Are these your real reasons to deny equal rights?
By what logic do you insist on the traditional, arbitrary, religious and discriminatory number of two?

Many do not give a flip about SSM, but are forced to watch as it becomes valid. But for those that give a flip about poly and incest, it must be a slap in the face to watch "equality' being doled out, but only for some....Like "Animal Farm". We are all created equal, but some are more equal than others...

[Pressed shirts]

If you want to get away with a crime of stealing money since 2001 then join a police department and you'll get your free "white collar" crime pass card.

Four defendants remain in the case against a group of sheriff's deputies caught in a decade-long pay scandal.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TBQ0DHC...
So I will not find any post by you on this thread, correct?

I just clicked on your link, and guess what ? Brian_G's name didn't appear, JizzyLips...You moron. Go invest in some more Reynolds Wrap, your protective layer has worn away. Dumb-ass.....

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
That's ignorance and bigotry.
Some homosexuals are bad too. Does that mean we should not allow SSM? Of course not.

Big D would probably state that it was only bigotry and ignorance when it was used against the gays, as all others are below his protective threshold...

[Dusty Mangina]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Which means that 41 do not. Hopefully, the fad will end soon, and we can return to normality...

You can't stop the beat.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
No. I am not arguing that it won't be a decade or two away. So what? Why do you keep stressing that?
Your arguments regarding polygamy seem to be:
-I don't care.
-Polygamists are bad people.
-Same sex marriage is here now, polygamy is not.
-Frankie's obsessed with polygamy.
Did I miss any?

Looks like a perfect summary to me...Except you forgot the part where he says "poly is off-topic"...

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Again you are confusing what I might think ( which doesn’t matter ) with the reality that nothing will come of it for the next couple of decades.
did you want to make the wager?

...Because, Big D, I'll take that bet. How much ? And I don't take checks...

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, you have to prove that it does someone harm, that is why Prop 8 was overturned and that decision upheld by the California appellate courts.
You can’t just deny people the right to happiness just because you don’t like them. You aren’t royalty, you don’t get to just decide on a whim who is protected under the law and who is not.
You have to show how it harms others, your lawyers have already failed in that task twice, and now at the supreme court no new evidence can be presented, only failed evidence already presented.
You are on the wrong side of history.

This argument, RIGHT HERE, sounds an awful lot like the one used to benefit the gays:
"The Browns present a strong argument that what they do in their home is their business. And the more they argue for privacy and rights to marry whomever they choose, the more it morphs into a parallel argument in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, if Turley is right when he says that, in this marriage debate, we are truly concerned with liberty and protections for “private relations among consenting adults,” then the number should not matter any more than sex."
...doesn't it ? In fact, if we delete a couple of words..."then the number should not matter any more than sex.", then it is a carbon copy. As is proper. As Frank and I have been saying.
Smile. You're the guest star of "Ooops, Guess I F**ked Up Again"....Played nightly on Topix.

[GoodHunting]

A 72-year-old homeowner immediately retrieved his handgun when he heard several home intruders attempting to gain entry to his Las Vegas residence.

This happened early Feburary 04, 2013 Monday morning when the criminals entered his bedroom, he opened fire, killing one of the suspects and sending the rest fleeing.

Finally the police showed up so they could clean up the crooks and haul them away.

[Wat the Tyler]

UK legalizes gay marriage. Meanwhile in the "land of the free" we have drone strikes killing US civilians without trial. Pathetic AmeriKKKa

[Crazy EXs]

Arm yourself, crazy LAPD cops are killing people.

Irvine and LAPD Police have identified a former Los Angeles Police Department officer suspected of shooting a newly engaged couple to death in an Irvine parking garage.