Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Judged:

5

5

5

Watchmann wrote:

<quoted text>
Where did I say it did?

Judged:

5

5

5

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
What applicability to you think this has?
Does the constitution guarantee equal protection of the laws for all persons?
Does it enjoin states from making laws abridging the rights of US citizens?

Judged:

5

5

5

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
A swing and a miss. Homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in 1973.
Feel free to find any reputable medical, scientific, or academic organizations that feels otherwise.

Judged:

5

5

5

Religionthebiglie wrote:

<quoted text>
You said it in your post, fucktard.
Watchmann wrote:
The function of culture, religion and government is to support and protect that foundational relationship of society.

Judged:

5

5

5

Watchmann wrote:

Doesn't sound like much of a change to me. In all of recorded human history, every single culture has had marriage. You listed two variations. One was the number of wives, usually related to the availability of woman and sometimes wealth, the other was custom. Not much variation. Still male and female.
Gay 'marriage', on the other hand has never, in a single culture, in all of human history ever established itself and spread. It has briefly appeared (as it has very recently in our times), but never lasted.
The basis of marriage has been fundamentally two fold.
The 95% plus of humans who have a heterosexual attraction to the opposite sex which they are physically designed to fulfill.
And the resulting product of children who are best supported by a long-term commitment of the parents.
The last person on earth qualified to claim the definition of marriage is a gay who fails in both categories.
The function of culture, religion and government is to support and protect that foundational relationship of society.
Got your lies exposed and your brains stumped again.

Judged:

5

5

5

Watchmann wrote:

"More than 50% of males that molest boys, also molest girls."
<quoted text>
http://childprotection.lifetips.com/cat/63573...
"Chronic child molesters prefer either their own gender or the opposite gender as sexual partners."
The actual percentage of pedophiles who molest both genders is so low, they don't record the percentage.

Watchmann wrote:

It fatally undermines your attempt to equate gay unions with marriage.

Watchmann wrote:

That is simply a scientific evolutionary fact, as is the Cinderella Effect.
You remember the last time you challenged me, right?

Judged:

5

5

5

Watchmann wrote:

<quoted text>
No, your reply made no sense.

Judged:

5

5

5

Watchmann wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexuality is deemed a disorder because it fails one of the two basics of evolution, the desire to reproduce. Just a simple fact. Numerous other issues only corroborate that reality.

Judged:

5

5

5

Watchmann wrote:

<quoted text>
-What 2%? Whatever it is, not much, but it is observable.
-Yes gays have always been around. I never claimed there have never been gay 'marriages'. I have said that they never established themselves and spread.
-Your demand to identify every marriage in history is unreasonable and illogical. You know that. It is simply a stupid, silly attempt to avoid the truth. It only exposes your lack of validity.
-gay marriages are a oxymoron.

Judged:

5

5

5

Watchmann wrote:

<quoted text>
Just as marriage is consistently observerable in every culture, gay 'marriage' should be also at at least a 2% rate. It is not. Not even 1%. Anywhere. Ever.

Judged:

5

5

5

Watchmann wrote:

Great overview of the Cinderella Effect
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/buller...
If the psychological underpinnings of parental care have indeed evolved by natural selection, we may
furthermore anticipate that parental feeling and action will not typically be elicited by just any random
conspecific juvenile. Instead, care-providing animals may be expected to direct their care selectively
towards young who are (a) their own genetic offspring rather than those of their reproductive rivals, and
(b) able to convert parental investment into increased prospects for survival and reproduction. This is
the kernel of the theory of discriminative parental solicitude, which (notwithstanding some interesting
twists and caveats) has been abundantly verified in a broad range of care-giving species (see Clutton-
Brock 1991; Daly & Wilson 1980, 1988a, 1995).

Judged:

5

5

5

Watchmann wrote:

Probably the best article on the subject I've come across;
http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/culture/lega...
"Is there anything about marriage that makes it legitimate for society to legislate who can and who cannot marry? After all, nobody says that society should legislate who can be friends with each other, or who can be business partners with each other. So what concern is it of society who marries each other?
The answer to this question, as almost everybody agrees, is that, in contrast to a friendship or business relationship, a marriage relationship can (which is not to say "should") produce children, and society has a legitimate concern with the interests and welfare of children. The point is simply that there is only one fact about a marriage relationship that both distinguishes it from other kinds of relationships and gives society a legitimate reason for legislating who may enter into this relationship (i.e. marry each other), and that is its potential for producing children with society's formal approval.
When society allows people to marry it is endorsing their right to "create a child of their own" (which used to be equivalent to the right to have sex.) All of the benefits society confers on married couples are essentially ways that society promotes and encourages certain potentially child-producing relationships."

Judged:

5

5

5

Religionthebiglie wrote:

<quoted text>Appealing to tradition. Logical fallacy. In your case, phallusy.....you're a dickhead.

Judged:

5

5

5

Joe Fortuna wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell me how can 2% spread?
Looks like a unreasonable statement to me.
When you get down to it how many of those 2% will want to marry?
It is unreasonable to make that claim, because you don't know.
I've seen a lot of homosexual art works from ancient times, it would seem if you were going to put it on your walls, pottery, make statues of them, you would have to accept homosexuality. Most ancient culture did just that. Which suggest to me you are not even a good guesser.

Judged:

5

5

5

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Still don't know the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile, I see.
Do you realize how foolish these posts make you look?
<quoted text>

Judged:

6

6

6

Watchmann wrote:

Seriously, really idiotic!!!

Judged:

5

5

5

Joe Fortuna wrote:

<quoted text>
Using the same logic that was used to claim homosexuality is a disorder. Which was basically, it cause harm to the individual, can be used to discribe religious beliefs as a disorder, because it has not only cause harm to the individual, but for innocent by standers as well.

Judged:

5

5

5

Joe Fortuna wrote:

<quoted text>
So anything that isn't a desire to reproduce is a disorder, or just homosexuality?
In 1952, when the American Psychiatric Association published its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, homosexuality was included as a disorder. Almost immediately, however, that classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. That study and subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation. As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.
In recognition of the scientific evidence,[103] the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities." After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals "to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations." The National Association of Social Workers has adopted a similar policy.
Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.[2]

Judged:

5

5

5

Watchmann wrote:

I don't see where I made any reference to homosexuality...
I simply pointed out another lie.

Watchmann wrote:

You clearly don't have a problem with that. What does that say about your argument???

Judged:

5

5

5

Religionthebiglie wrote:

<quoted text>
Yawn. This off-topc claptrap has nothing to do with the fact that other people's relationships are none of your flucking business.