Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Coming to West Covina, California

KiMare wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have to admit I enjoyed Watching Archie bunker as a kid.He was funny beacause he was MAKE BELIEVE!!! If you are serious about these comments you are just ignorant and scary!!!!!!!!!! You really take the humor out of "All in the family". Oh no...Edith DOES NOT agree....Moron.

The key question is this: do we let the LGBT create a new category of entitlement -- sexual orientation.

This is what's at stake -- same-sex marriage is just the window dressing; which is to say, the strawman the LGBT asks, "What possible objection can anyone have to two people who love each other getting married," s not the real question at all. The real question is what possible objection can anyone have to adding a third, fourth, fifth, and possible sixth gender to our biological classification system.

That's what it boils down too, folks -- the LGBT wants you to change the rules of biology -- science!-- to accommodate them.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Sexual orientation is like handedness. What makes one person right handed, and another left handed? We really don't know, but we know it's not a conscious choice.(BTW, fundies used to kill lefties, and even when I was growing up, left handed kids were beaten for using their left hand.) Another way orientation is like handedness...while most of us have a dominant hand, we also have at least some ability to use the other hand, if you catch my drift...

Here we go again ... I don't catch your drift .. We do know, or some of us know it's the brain that controls us. Lol .. fundies used to kill lefties, lefties were beaten up when you were growing up, I call BS ... lol what era are you from you idiot?

Never say, never again!

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..........

She didn't say a higher percentage of straight men like anal sex. She said most of the men that engage in anal sex are straight. If you can extract your head from your own rear orifice and think about it you may be able to actually understand. I'll give you some help, as I'm nice.

If we accept that between 2 and 10% of the population are gay and there is a fairly equal number of men and women in that subset of the population then between 1 and 5% of the population are gay men. That means (ignoring bisexuals) that between 45 and 49% of the population consists of straight men (assuming a fairly equal split of the general population in terms of males & females). Soooo, if 100% of gay men engage in anal sex (it is my understanding that this is not true) then only 2 to 12% of straight men need to engage in anal sex for the absolute number of straight men engaging in anal sex to equal the absolute number of gay men engaging in anal sex.

Surveys have shown that a much higher percentage of straight men engage in anal sex. Perhaps one in four (CDC 1992). Math question for you, is 25% of 50% of the population greater than 100% of 1% of the population (or 100% of 10% of the population)?
What I'd like to know is why some of you guys can't understand the difference between percentages and absolute numbers.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
First, like a girl, you're not going to talk to me, NOW you want a new 'story' line???
ANYTHING but reality, huh?

Sooo, girls won't talk to you. May I be so bold as to suggest you try oral hygiene?

ELH wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Bruno, Bet you got a little woody when you posted that Enjoy your "fun time"!
BTW, you post (#149657) has been REPORTED as pornographic pedophilia. I hope others report it as well and look forward to "Professor Marvelous posting the article about the cops arresting you and seize your computer.

BFD .. I responded to your statement it seemed to fit. You can report all you want you troll moron, don't forget to report yourself lol ...

Night-scape, now go back to bed.

Prof Marvel wrote:

The real question is what possible objection can anyone have to adding a third, fourth, fifth, and possible sixth gender to our biological classification system.
That's what it boils down too, folks -- the LGBT wants you to change the rules of biology -- science!-- to accommodate them.

So, how many sexual orientations are there according to you?

Prof Marvel wrote:

The key question is this: do we let the LGBT create a new category of entitlement -- sexual orientation.
This is what's at stake -- same-sex marriage is just the window dressing; which is to say, the strawman the LGBT asks, "What possible objection can anyone have to two people who love each other getting married," s not the real question at all. The real question is what possible objection can anyone have to adding a third, fourth, fifth, and possible sixth gender to our biological classification system.
That's what it boils down too, folks -- the LGBT wants you to change the rules of biology -- science!-- to accommodate them.

Your post is rambling nonsense.
Gay marriage is a simple equal rights issue.
A man can marry a woman, so a woman should have that same right.
A woman can marry a man, so a man should have that same right.
Actually, gay marriage removes gender as an issue when it comes to marriage laws.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
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?

He'll have to do the "algebra".

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Abject terror masquerading as scoffing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Are you sure?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

All I hear is laughter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

If you heard screams of abject terror it was probably just reaction of those neighborhood children peering into your window.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

and getting a glimpse of your hairy ass.

Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch...

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
So, how many sexual orientations are there according to you?

man on top, inflatable woman on bottom, door locked, windows shut, cloths on, lights off

or

man on top woman on bottom doors shut, shades down flannel nightie up around hips, nightlight

ELH wrote:

<quoted text>
man on top, inflatable woman on bottom, door locked, windows shut, cloths on, lights off
or
man on top woman on bottom doors shut, shades down flannel nightie up around hips, nightlight

That's funny.....and Marvel may just agree with ya........lol

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
BFD .. I responded to your statement it seemed to fit.

You pornographic pedophile fantasy (post #149657) has been removed. Did you wash your hands (or at least lick your fingers off) when you finished whacking off or do you save time by using a "sneeze" cover on your key board?

Bruno wrote:

lol! I've used the sock method before. It's nice and soft and if you blow in the sock you just toss it in the hamper for washing. No tell tale signs or strange stains to give evidence you have been naughty. Nobody goes looking at a dirty sock unless they are weird

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-01...

Funny. Right?