Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201878 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149719 Jul 9, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>An Economics professor applauding a seriously methodologically unsound study, couldn't they find an actual sociologist? Yes dear, there are flaws in the existing studies, their sample bases are small and tend to be unrepresentative of the population of same sex couples with children, but their flaws pale in comparison to that agenda driven nonsense Regenerus pumped out. What you and the author of that piece you badly cut and pasted fail to grasp, is that if the problems that Regenerus claims to exist and at the magnitude he claims, even those small, unrepresentative samples should have stumbled across them. Amazingly, none of the dozens which have been done ever did. If all you have to offer are the lame attempts by others to blow life into a dead horse and childish insults, you really should quit while you're behind.
tricky dicky ricky, you live up to your infamy!

"The bias of the same-sex-parenting literature has been recognized by individuals within and outside this literature (indeed, in the same issue of Social Science Research as the Regnerus study, Loren Marks has provided another critique of this literature). Ironically, the common complaint about Regnerus — that he compares apples to oranges — is valid about practically every study that finds no difference between homosexual and heterosexual families. In the latter, biased samples of high-income, highly educated, self-selected lesbian parents are compared to random samples of opposite-sexed parents.

If the Regnerus study is to be thrown out, then practically everything else in the field has to go with it."

That is the VERY NEXT SECTION OF WHAT I POSTED PREVIOUSLY.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302749...

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

United States

#149720 Jul 9, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the same thing as being heterosexual.
Assuming you've had sex, were you homosexual before you first had sex?
<quoted text>
Choose to be gay then.
<quoted text>
Most men into anal sex are straight. Women also have anuses.
And you are saying gay men can learn to enjoy penis-vagina sex, yet you claim gay men don't exist! LOL.
<quoted text>
LOL. You are so stupid. Are you actually denying gay people exist!?
I'm not claiming anything except you have no litmus test for homosexuality, save self-identification. You promote the idea that homosexuals are "born" not made, but present nothing to support this.

But prove me wrong.

Give us the litmus test for homosexuality.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149721 Jul 9, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>An Economics professor applauding a seriously methodologically unsound study, couldn't they find an actual sociologist? Yes dear, there are flaws in the existing studies, their sample bases are small and tend to be unrepresentative of the population of same sex couples with children, but their flaws pale in comparison to that agenda driven nonsense Regenerus pumped out. What you and the author of that piece you badly cut and pasted fail to grasp, is that if the problems that Regenerus claims to exist and at the magnitude he claims, even those small, unrepresentative samples should have stumbled across them. Amazingly, none of the dozens which have been done ever did. If all you have to offer are the lame attempts by others to blow life into a dead horse and childish insults, you really should quit while you're behind.
Thank you tricky dicky ricky to be tricky too, and bring up another article by this 'economist' SMILE.

"MercatorNet: Is it possible to create laws which will accommodate both heterosexual and homosexual couples?

I think it is, but not without a cost. Let me first say that there are four major categories of costs and benefits of including any type of couple into marriage. There are costs and benefits of including, and there are costs and benefits of excluding. Most of the debate on gay marriage focus on just one or two of these categories, and as a result there is much confusion. Let me spell them out before answering your question:

Inclusion Benefits: These are the private benefits a couple gains from marriage, plus any social benefits. Most believe that the major social benefit of marriage is a sufficient quantity of high-quality children to perpetuate the society.

Inclusion Costs: Any type of couple that is included into marriage that requires a redefinition of marriage imposes a cost on the existing types of couples. Marriage has been designed for monogamous heterosexual couples. Any change to its institutional structure to accommodate others, must impose costs on the existing marriages. This is the argument of my paper in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.

Exclusion Benefits: Every society has values that pass judgement on various types of unions. Some believe that polygamy is moral, others believe it is immoral. Some believe that gay marriage is good, others believe it is bad. When a type of marriage is excluded, those who believe this type of marriage is wrong benefit. These benefits must be included in the decision to allow the type of couple into the franchise of marriage.

Exclusion Costs: When a type of couple is excluded the benefits they would have achieved in marriage are not realized, and this is a cost. In addition, some clerk somewhere has to be able to tell if a couple should be excluded, and this logistical problem also is a cost."

Please, read the rest of the article here;

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is_i...

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#149722 Jul 9, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
I have asked you for years to prove that a higher percentage of straight men prefer anal sex compared to gays and you do nothing but duck and dodge......
Just another of your lies I have caught you spreading like the VD you spread every day......
Post a link to prove that..........LOL
Waiting..........
Wait all you like. I never claimed a higher percentage of straight men prefer anal sex compared to gays. I say most men into anal sex are straight. Do you understand the difference?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149723 Jul 9, 2012
DAMN! I sure do enjoy playing here!

Who says Hermaphrodites, straights, and lesbians can't get along with gay boys?

You having fun yet?

Smile.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#149724 Jul 9, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not claiming anything except you have no litmus test for homosexuality, save self-identification.
Even if what you say is true, that's the most important test there can be.
Prof Marvel wrote:
You promote the idea that homosexuals are "born" not made, but present nothing to support this.
Gay people claim they are born that way,the most important evidence there can be. I know I was born straight. What about you?
Prof Marvel wrote:
But prove me wrong.
Give us the litmus test for homosexuality.
The claims of gay people.
There, I proved you wrong.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#149725 Jul 9, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Quoting from the same silly article as rebuttal to my refutation of it, made sense to you why exactly? It's still the same Economics professor, still doing the same cheer for the same study which still remains seriously methodologically flawed.
Donald

United States

#149726 Jul 9, 2012
When is the Donald is driving to San Diego, California?
Mark

United States

#149727 Jul 9, 2012
When is the Mark is driving to Glendora, California?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149728 Jul 9, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Quoting from the same silly article as rebuttal to my refutation of it, made sense to you why exactly? It's still the same Economics professor, still doing the same cheer for the same study which still remains seriously methodologically flawed.
That gay twirl is a tornado tonight.

Smile.
Jennifer

United States

#149729 Jul 9, 2012
When is the Jennifer is driving to Rancho Cucamonga, California?

“"On The Threshold Of A Dream" ”

Since: Mar 12

Montreal Canada

#149730 Jul 9, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
I have asked you for years to prove that a higher percentage of straight men prefer anal sex compared to gays and you do nothing but duck and dodge......
Just another of your lies I have caught you spreading like the VD you spread every day......
Post a link to prove that..........LOL
Waiting..........
Well here you go little bigot buddy! What,you don't know how to Google it? Damn you are a simpleton! LOL

Heteros and anal sex
nymag.com/nightlife/mating/25988/

Or,how about this one
Heteros and anal sex
http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexinformation/...

So I guess you'd have to say that the vast majority of humans practicing anal sex is heterosexuals! Glad I could help little buddy! Now what? LOL

“"On The Threshold Of A Dream" ”

Since: Mar 12

Montreal Canada

#149731 Jul 9, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you tricky dicky ricky to be tricky too, and bring up another article by this 'economist' SMILE.
"MercatorNet: Is it possible to create laws which will accommodate both heterosexual and homosexual couples?
I think it is, but not without a cost. Let me first say that there are four major categories of costs and benefits of including any type of couple into marriage. There are costs and benefits of including, and there are costs and benefits of excluding. Most of the debate on gay marriage focus on just one or two of these categories, and as a result there is much confusion. Let me spell them out before answering your question:
Inclusion Benefits: These are the private benefits a couple gains from marriage, plus any social benefits. Most believe that the major social benefit of marriage is a sufficient quantity of high-quality children to perpetuate the society.
Inclusion Costs: Any type of couple that is included into marriage that requires a redefinition of marriage imposes a cost on the existing types of couples. Marriage has been designed for monogamous heterosexual couples. Any change to its institutional structure to accommodate others, must impose costs on the existing marriages. This is the argument of my paper in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.
Exclusion Benefits: Every society has values that pass judgement on various types of unions. Some believe that polygamy is moral, others believe it is immoral. Some believe that gay marriage is good, others believe it is bad. When a type of marriage is excluded, those who believe this type of marriage is wrong benefit. These benefits must be included in the decision to allow the type of couple into the franchise of marriage.
Exclusion Costs: When a type of couple is excluded the benefits they would have achieved in marriage are not realized, and this is a cost. In addition, some clerk somewhere has to be able to tell if a couple should be excluded, and this logistical problem also is a cost."
Please, read the rest of the article here;
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is_i...
What? Create laws that will accommodate both gays and heterosexuals? I take it you forgot about the Constitution bird brain! Try reading the 14th amendment again,or for the first time! Separate but equal is not equal,and how about equal treatment under the law? Sorry but Unconstitutional but it doesn't surprise me that you'd post something so idiotic and unamerican! D-U-H!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149732 Jul 9, 2012
Days Of Futures Past wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Create laws that will accommodate both gays and heterosexuals? I take it you forgot about the Constitution bird brain! Try reading the 14th amendment again,or for the first time! Separate but equal is not equal,and how about equal treatment under the law? Sorry but Unconstitutional but it doesn't surprise me that you'd post something so idiotic and unamerican! D-U-H!
A number of different levels to respond to, but I'll stick with the context level.

Read the question he responded to at the beginning of the quote.

DUH!!!
Liz

United States

#149733 Jul 9, 2012
When is the Liz is driving to West Covina, California?
Liz

United States

#149734 Jul 9, 2012
Coming to West Covina, California
1 post removed

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#149736 Jul 9, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Um hon, proving that the writer of your National Review article has anti-Gay bias issues of his own is meant to enhance his credibility in speaking to the validity of the Regenerus study how exactly? He can dress up his bias in some incredibly vague economic concepts, big whoop.
6 posts removed

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#149743 Jul 9, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Um hon, proving that the writer of your National Review article has anti-Gay bias issues of his own is meant to enhance his credibility in speaking to the validity of the Regenerus study how exactly? He can dress up his bias in some incredibly vague economic concepts, big whoop.
Abject terror masquerading as scoffing.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#149744 Jul 9, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Abject terror masquerading as scoffing.
Sorry sweetie, it's more like abject loathing of the willfully malinformed and pathetic wastes of genetic material that lay ridiculous claims of superiority over myself and my community. The scoffing is just fun. You evidently want to be mocked and ridiculed, if not, you wouldn't be playing the fool around here, I'm just all too happy to oblige.
Winston Smith

United States

#149745 Jul 9, 2012
ELH wrote:
OMG, it's a regular dumbazz PARADE around here this morning!
<quoted text>
Right. Because EVERYONE know that there is NOTHING that a 12-15 year old kids wants to do MORE that be DIFFERENT from all this friends. It's a well know FACT that other than being abandoned by their siblings and parents there is NOTHING that teens (or preteens) wants more than being ostracized, ridiculed and abused by their peers.
Check ANY adolescent development text box and you'll see that I am right.
Ah yes, I recall being in grade school and junior high and going along with the crowd in ridiculing the one or two kids that were "different." Fortunately I grew emotionally and didn't end up being a vile prick like some of the jackasses in here.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min Denny CranesPlace 233,700
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Realtime 1,406,376
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min Agents of Corruption 391,786
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min Dr Guru 219,818
News Cruz Questions Trump's Ties to Mob-Linked Felon 26 min AIPAC 666 12
News Will Green Political Machine Foil Trump? 32 min Into The Night 58
News Commentary: Hillary's speech was not good 41 min Lawrence Wolf 28
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 57 min Born USA 5,762
More from around the web