Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201810 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.

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156042 Aug 23, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL More homo humor
Re-read your history, moron. The creators of this nations didn't want to get rid of religion, in fact, many migrated to this country to escape religious persecution. They only wanted it separated from the State. Separating Church & State does not mean our founders were fighting against religion, they just wanted it separated from the government. Pay attention, & you'll learn something
If they wanted it seperated from the government, that means we aren't a theocracy. Contradict yourself much ace?

No one is "fighting against religion" thisGuy, we're merely pointing out that we were not founded upon it, nor are we governed by it.

Now instead of all this claptrap, why don't you, or one of your fellow "we are a Christian nation" revisionists present the room with the official government documentations that confirm this?

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156043 Aug 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
I've edited down most of Dingleberry's response because most of it is gibberish that teaches us nothing.
No, you've edited it because it shows what a lying sack of cowardly shit you are.
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe I've handily shown, however, Dingleberry's thorough ignorance about the Little Black Book episode.
You erroneously believe a LOT of things. Two that come immediately to mind are that you believe (and have accused) that the bible contains hundreds of verses addressing homosexuality. You have also stated that that the GSLEN contributed to, and is credited in, your beloved Little Black Book. To date, you have yet to support these accusations, despite being asked to over 10 times. The only thing you have "handily shown" Gary, is that you are a lying coward.
DumbBar

La Puente, CA

#156044 Aug 23, 2012
Yawwn, another slow day for the tweeks on this topic.
Hey AKIdjit

Alhambra, CA

#156045 Aug 23, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Rose, on this you are wrong. There are a number of things which appear in the bible which have been proven to be factually and historically correct.
Sure, one can choose to believe or not believe in the "supernatural" portion's, that is simply a question of one's personal faith, but the fact remains that much of it has been proven to be nothing more than a historical representation of what was happening at the time.
So Jack and Rose really were on the the Titanic?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_ficti...

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156046 Aug 23, 2012
KiMare wrote:
I guess the previous question was too scary to answer.
Actually it was answered ad nauseum. You are just too stupid to be able to comprehend the answer because you erroneously begin from a starting point that evolution determines clothing choices and establishes certain behaviors to be male or female. Neither of these are true, thus your repetitious question was simply stupid.
KiMare wrote:
Here is another thought;
LOL!! Since your last "thoughts" were so educated!!
KiMare wrote:
In defense of calling gay unions marriage, the assertion is made that children are not a requirement for marriage.
Um, no, that's not quite the accurate spin KiMare. The assertion that children are not a requirement of marriage is not a defense of marriage, it is a defense of people that continually pretend that procreation is required in order to marry. There is a big difference. No one has stated that BECAUSE procreation is not required, gays should therefore be able to. NO ONE. Your intentional attempt to misrepresent that has been exposed, and is now dismissed.
KiMare wrote:
A unbelievably stupid statement!
The assertation that children are not a requirement of marriage is an unbelievably stupid statement? Really? Please explain to everyone here how a truthful statement can also be unbelievably stupid.

**crickets chirping**
KiMare wrote:
It amazes me that people have the audacity to even make it.
Let me get this straight. You are amazed that someone would make the statement "children are not a requirement of marriage". Got it. Are you amazed because you are under the impression that children ARE a requirement of marriage? Please explain the origin of your "amazement".
KiMare wrote:
The first indication of how stupid it is the fact that it comes from gay couples that have ZERO potential to procreate.
No KiMare, that's not an indication of how stupid the statement is. If the statement were stupid, it would be stupid no matter who said it. If a straight person were to state that procreation is a requirement of marriage, it would still be a stupid, and false statement.

Whether a gay couple can procreate without assistance is completely irrelevent, just as it is irrelevent for many straight couples, and it is merely a HUGE indicator of your desperation to create an arguement. Thus far, you have failed at demonstrating how stating that "children are not a requirement of marriage" is an "unbelieveable stupid statement" as you assertain.
KiMare wrote:
The second is the reason no one makes that demand. The 'demand' for children isn't there because the likelihood is so strong, it is and has always been assumed in marriage.
No, it is not assumed. And we were talking about "demands" we were talkking about "requirements". Children are not now, nor will they ever be a requirement of marriage. I certainly hope you get to the part of proving that statement to be "unbelievable stupid" sometime in this decade.
KiMare wrote:
Its like someone asserting for gays to be in a gay union they are required NOT to have children. Why bother with such a unnecessary question?
No, actually it's NOTHING like that. It would only be like that if no gay people had children. Damn you are stupid.
KiMare wrote:
Remember the nursery rhyme?
Jack and Jill sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First comes love.
Then comes marriage.
Then comes a baby in the baby carriage!
Wow, that was quite the closer!! "Hi, I'm KiMare and in order to support my arguments today, I will be quoting Nursery Rhymes."

Um, will you be getting to the part where you demonstrate the "unbelievable stupidity" of the statement that "children are not a requirement of marriage" anytime soon? Please keep in mind, in order to demonstrate that it is "unbelievable", you must demonstrate it is false.

Good luck with that you nitwit.

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156047 Aug 23, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You might think about forgetting 'theology' and start watching Fox News, the most fair and balanced news available.
Yet again you prove that you have nothing truthful to say.
DumbBar

La Puente, CA

#156048 Aug 23, 2012
Ya just don't learn do ya!

Your all over with on this topic, you have shown yourself to be under aged and an idiot.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#156049 Aug 23, 2012
Prof Dingleberry wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn. Same unsupported nonsense, different day. An obsession over a booklet that isn't even being published anymore according to the obsessor himself.
Hey Gary, just fyi, no one reads all your repetetitive ranting. Everyone else is aware that mindless, baseless repetition is the sin qua non of idiots and shills
On top of that, you have already proven yourself to be an intentional liar. When you can prove you have a shread of dignity by supporting your past statements, we'll consider paying attention to your current ones.
Recently, the LGBT added the letter "Q" for "Questioning Youth" to its acronym. There was no sensical reason to do this save to expand access to underage boys.

This is akin to the National Rifle Association or the League of Women Voters adding a "Q" to their acronym. It's ridiculous and not needed. Moreover, it smacks of Hitler Youth Groups a kind of organization we've never had in this country.

But gays get away with it because straight morons who support same sex marriage let them.

The upstart is gay predators now have a way of openly hooking-up with underage boys.

By now most of us have read registered pedophile Adam Flanders's letter about the alcohol, drugs, and man-boy encounters that went on in the "Gay-Straight Alliance" club he was a member of. He writes of how he and other adults routinely molested 14-year-old boys at these meetings.

Absent from the story is a law enforcement crackdown of these sham "clubs." The Flanders story should have been a wake-up call for law enforcement around the country but it wasn't.

The Little Black Book was a homosexual recruitment tract targeting underage boys. I presented the evidence; you haven't refuted a word of it.

The first tip-off is the fact that it was clearly promoting homosexual sex. There's no sensical reason for this either. Gays are only 4% of the population. Why not a sex book for everyone?

[sound of crickets]

Only one thing explains the creation of the Little Black Book -- out of control homosexual lust. The homosexuals running all the health organizations in the booklet wanted unfettered access to Boston-area boys -- they wanted fresh meat at their "Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs" and other man-boy hook-up scenes.

The only lie here is the one that has it gays are all monogamous, law-abiding citizens who just want equality, a white picket fence, and insurance benefits.

Bottom line, the men behind the Little Black Book were predators looking for prey and would have found plenty of it at that high school event they handing out the Little Black Book at hadn't they got busted.

That's all.



DumbBar

La Puente, CA

#156050 Aug 23, 2012
Go flog your monkey in front of a mirror instead of on this topic.
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

#156051 Aug 23, 2012
Prof Dingleberry wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet again you prove that you have nothing truthful to say.
actually you are not fooling anybody with your new name. Keep feeding the flames of hate, I'm sure that is helping. lol.
Hey DB

Alhambra, CA

#156052 Aug 23, 2012
Prof Dingleberry wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet again you prove that you have nothing truthful to say.
olMare watching the "news"

http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/...

;0)

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156053 Aug 23, 2012
Well, since you chosen to cut and paste a post that has already been debunked, I hope you won't mind if I simply do the same with the response. Were you somehow under the impression that repetition magically creates truth?
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
KiMare wrote:
From an evolutionary perspective, as Richard Dawkins puts it, genes are 'selfish'. Genes in a sense are desperate to survive, and so healthy animal psychology will be permeated with thoughts of heterosexuality in order to promote continuance of the species.

Animals are permeated with thoughts of heterosexuality??!!!! Really, Dawkins said that?!!! Please cite the source.
KiMare wrote:
In fact, males and females have inherited (in general) antipodal characteristics to MINIMIZE homosexual attraction.

Wow, you are brilliant!! Guess that's why homosexuals only make up a small percentage of the population!!! Wow, call the press!!! Hey, why is there nothing in your "research" that concludes that males and females have inherited antipodal characterstics to ELIMINATE homosexual attraction? Get back to us right away on that one, ok??!!!!! Seems to me our continued and constant existence throughout our species' time on this planet would be a clear indicator that we serve an evolutionary purpose! LOL! But please, don't let rational thinking get in the way of your blabbering!

Carry on!
KiMare wrote:
In addition to enhancing the proverbial hunting and gathering,
Heterosexuality ensures one is a better hunter and gatherer? Who knew?!!! I'll bet there are a lot of lesbians that would disagree!! Wow, this is some fascinating stuff you're making up KiMare!!

[QUOTE who="KiMare"]
everything from the added bass in male voice, masculine body chemistry producing male scents, larger more powerful body, to substantially thicker body and facial hair, all serve as 'ornamentation' to create gender differentiation and consequentially it's reciprocal attractions.
Yes KiMare, and sometimes those reciprocal attractions come from the same gender! Shocker!!!!
KiMare wrote:

Thus in example, many women will be irrationally turned on by facial hair on a guy, but men will generally be disgusted by facial hair on a woman.
So, let's make sure we are understanding. According to you, men being "disgusted" by facial hair on women, experience this feeling because evolution has determined it!!! Wow!! That's some funny stuff you're spouting KiMare!!! One has to wonder how our species survived before women started shaving their legs and arm pits!!!

Given this evolutionary predisposed "feeling" of disgust that men would have had for getting their penis anywhere near a hairy legged, hairy pitted, woman with an over grown bushy vagina!!!!!

You should write a paper on that KiMare!!
KiMare wrote:

Homosexuality is a disgrace to the will of natural selection.

And yet Nature produces about 18,000 more of us homosexuals EVERY DAY!!!! Hate to break it to you moron, but trying to invoke Nature to attempt to support yourself is the move of a complete fool!!!

Carry on!!
KiMare wrote:
It's a 'bottle cap' preventing otherwise potentially intelligent productive people from passing the legacy of their genes to the next generation.
Gays prevent procreation? Since when? Gays can't be intelligent? Since when?

LOL!!! What a buffoon!!! LOL!! My sides are aching from your stupidity!!!
DumbBar

La Puente, CA

#156054 Aug 23, 2012
Go flog your monkey in front of a mirror instead of on this topic. While your trying to think of a come back!

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156055 Aug 23, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Lesbians dressing and acting like men are really acting like lesbians???
No stupid, lesbians act like lesbians. The fact that you like to pretend that certain behaviors have been evolutionarily assigned to one gender or the other, a ridiculous notion, is why you can't comprehend the truth.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your name fits.
It's a parady of the idiot Prof. Marvel. Glad you like it.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
From a Stanford evolutionary scientist, "From an evolutionary perspective, as Richard Dawkins puts it, genes are 'selfish'. Genes in a sense are desperate to survive, and so healthy animal psychology will be permeated with thoughts of heter
osexuality in order to promote continuance of the species.
In fact, males and females have inherited (in general) antipodal characteristics to MINIMIZE homosexual attraction. In addition to enhancing the proverbial hunting and gathering, everything from the added bass in male voice, masculine body chemistry producing male scents, larger more powerful body, to substantially thicker body and facial hair, all serve as 'ornamentation' to create gender differentiation and consequentially it's reciprocal attractions.
Thus in example, many women will be irrationally turned on by facial hair on a guy, but men will generally be disgusted by facial hair on a woman.
Homosexuality is a disgrace to the will of natural selection. It's a 'bottle cap' preventing otherwise potentially intelligent productive people from passing the legacy of their genes to the next generation."
Yes dear, you cut and pasted this entire diatribe yesterday. It was as stupid and silly then as it is now. The response that demonstrates the stupidity of your post can be found here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...

Only morons think that repetition creates truth, or will garner different results KiMare.

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156056 Aug 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
The Death of NAMBLA ...
Same sex marriage was the death-knell for NAMBLA in Massachusetts and that's because after same-sex marriage man-boy hook-up clubs could now operate in the open.
Consider these words from the Bagley website:
<quoted text>
Simply put, Bagley is a place where adult men can hook-up with under-age boys. All the other stuff on their website about health, education, fellowship is just window-dressing. Bagley's real reason for being is man-boy hook-ups.
What gays discovered is that if they created a non-profit and gave it a bullshit HIV-AIDS related goal they could get away with murder.
That's called turning a negative into a positive.
It's used with great effect with youth drop-in centers where they claim their client base is all "at-risk" boys. They then promote the false notion that all runaways boys survive on the streets by exchanging sex for food and shelter -- that is, all of their clients are bisexual if not full-bore homosexuals.
This explains why when it came time to put out a sex manual, these merry fellows used your tax dollars to put out a homosexual sex manual even though homosexuals make-up less than 4% of the population.
If you read the Little Black Book you know it is a blatant and unapologetic homosexual sex promotion tract. There's certainly safe-sex content in it but the bulk of the content celebrates and promotes homosexual youth sex (as well as gay bars and hook-up clubs like Bagley).
Any kid reading this packet of filth would not help to think homosexual sex was something he should give a try. And then there's the environment of supporting gay men he is encountering virtually everywhere he goes for youth resources in the Boston area.
If it's the "Youth on Fire" drop-in center near Boston gay men welcome him, direct him to the facility's hot showers, help him towel off, hand clean underwear. Somewhere during the intake process he's given The Little Black Book. Then during intake counseling he's told about Bagley.
The kid doesn't stand a chance.
If he's not bisexual when he first comes to the place he certainly a flaming queer by the time he leaves.
In other words, if you support same-sex marriage you're indirectly responsible for this assembly-line homosexualization of American boys.
You're also responsible for the astounding growth of man-boy sex trafficking agencies in Massachusetts since same-sex marriage.
The gay-run non-profits mentioned above actually carry ads for these man-boy sex agencies on their website.
http://www.ccaa.org/pump.html
In other words, you've been conned -- the LGBT has played your dumb ass like a bass fiddle.
They have gone after runaway boys in Massachusetts with a vengeance and got so so out-of-hand with their gluttony at one point they tried to make in-roads into high school boys. This turned out a complete bust and almost shut-down their assembly-line homosexualization of runaway boys pogram -- and would have hadn't straight morons who support same sex marriage let them off the hook.
These men are not the harmless, monogamous, long-suffering creatures you stupidly think they are. They are relentless predators who'd swim a river of shit to get their sweaty paws on underage boys.
And YOU are their enablers....
Yawn. As noted with KiMare, baseless repetition doesn't magically create truth Gary. It's merely the sin qua non of idiots. Thanks for demonstrating that you are an idiot.

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156057 Aug 23, 2012
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are saying is
Hey Mike, just fyi, whenever anyone begins a post as you did above, it's a clear indicator that they are about to intentionally misrepresent, misquote, and lie.

You might try a new routine, that one's been exhausted already by those far superior to you.
DumbBar

La Puente, CA

#156058 Aug 23, 2012
You didn't read the last one, it says your a phoney pill of Republican/Tea Party Nation TRASH.

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156059 Aug 23, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Eventually you will grow up and see that your grandfather was correct.
Your problem is you are unable to think outside of the talking point's and labels.
No, my problem is that there are aggitative people seem to exist solely only to stir the pot and pretend that progress isn't beneficial, whether that progress be human or mechanical.

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156060 Aug 23, 2012
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Just lookimg at your rediculous photo proves there is a God, and each time you change it will even make you a believer.
Um, my rediculous[sic] photo is a picture of Gary Lloyd, the poster that calls himself Prof. Marvel. It is a picture of him in a penis suit, because that's all he talks about in his posts. He really, really, really wanted to be in one, but is too chicken shit to actually do it, so I created the picture to make him happy.

I'm so glad you like it.

As for the "changes" you mention, um, I don't buy into that bullshit. Nor will I ever be a believer in your ridiculous sky Santa. But I love that your mythical crystal ball tells you otherwise!! You fundies and your "predictions" are always a hoot.

Thanks for the post!

“Just keeping it real”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156061 Aug 23, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Recently, the LGBT added the letter "Q" for "Questioning Youth" to its acronym. There was no sensical reason to do this save to expand access to underage boys.
This is akin to the National Rifle Association or the League of Women Voters adding a "Q" to their acronym. It's ridiculous and not needed. Moreover, it smacks of Hitler Youth Groups a kind of organization we've never had in this country.
But gays get away with it because straight morons who support same sex marriage let them.
The upstart is gay predators now have a way of openly hooking-up with underage boys.
By now most of us have read registered pedophile Adam Flanders's letter about the alcohol, drugs, and man-boy encounters that went on in the "Gay-Straight Alliance" club he was a member of. He writes of how he and other adults routinely molested 14-year-old boys at these meetings.
Absent from the story is a law enforcement crackdown of these sham "clubs." The Flanders story should have been a wake-up call for law enforcement around the country but it wasn't.
The Little Black Book was a homosexual recruitment tract targeting underage boys. I presented the evidence; you haven't refuted a word of it.
The first tip-off is the fact that it was clearly promoting homosexual sex. There's no sensical reason for this either. Gays are only 4% of the population. Why not a sex book for everyone?
[sound of crickets]
Only one thing explains the creation of the Little Black Book -- out of control homosexual lust. The homosexuals running all the health organizations in the booklet wanted unfettered access to Boston-area boys -- they wanted fresh meat at their "Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs" and other man-boy hook-up scenes.
The only lie here is the one that has it gays are all monogamous, law-abiding citizens who just want equality, a white picket fence, and insurance benefits.
Bottom line, the men behind the Little Black Book were predators looking for prey and would have found plenty of it at that high school event they handing out the Little Black Book at hadn't they got busted.
That's all.
Baseless repetition is the sin qua non of idiots. Thanks for proving your an idiot Gary.

Hey, how you coming with the providing the page number of where the GSLEN is credited in your Little Black book? Will you be providing that information anytime soon you chicken shit liar?!!!

How about the remaining 13 bible verses you owe us about homosexuality? Will you be presenting them anytime soon Gary?

Why such a coward Gary?

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.

Placentia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
ssk gangsters (Jan '13) 11 hr CAVE Por Vida 13
Cow Punches Woman In Los Angeles In Scene Caugh... 12 hr Blowron 3
Obama Pulls Head from Rear End, Sticks It Back In 12 hr Clitton 2
David Letterman's Face Infected With Wrinkles 12 hr The Pope and His ... 5
do you notice more black people in brea? 16 hr Needlemeyer 1
Master Kim 18 hr Master Kim 5
Cathy Torrez murder in 1994 (Jul '07) May 14 Jon Barroso Menti... 20
More from around the web

Placentia People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]