Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Prof Marvel wrote:

San Francisco ...
Greenwich Village ...
1970s ...
Bathhouses ...
Gay males copulating like demented bunnies ...
Equals --
HIV-AIDS epicenter.
There, I've spelled it out and formatted it so each bit of knowledge can be taken individually and you won't choke.
Is that simple enough of will it be necessary to turn it into a liquid to be poured down your low-IQ throat like baby food?

None of which actually rises to the level of a rational interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

Congratulations for making an utterly irrelevant post. Are you ready to make a big boy argument?

RiccardoFire wrote:

It's my opinion, why am I not allowed to have it? Why are u so intolerant of others? Are u a bigot?

You are entitled to your opinion. If you were intelligent and articulate, you could defend that opinion with a rational argument. Instead you offer an ignorant, intolerant, and bigoted opinion with no basis in fact, law, or reason.

Anyone who argues for fellow citizens to be held as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws, as you do, is bigoted. It is not the other way around. It appears that, in addition to being incapable of offering a rational defense of your opinion, you also level unfounded allegations at others. You really are quite the piece of work.

sharismh wrote:

Off-topic blather

When you have something to say that pertains to the actual topic of this thread, please let us know. Until then, feel free to STFU.

Prof Marvel wrote:

Which leads into all those Straight-Gay clubs you're now demanding all schools have. You tell us these clubs prevent bullying, but what you leave out is that they're a safe and clever way for adult males to hook-up with underage boys:
http://mainebusiness.mainetoday.com/newsdirec...

Your friends over at MassResistance sure know how to pick'em don't they? Hadn't heard this one before, considering that this was all going on five years ago, I wonder why? Let's see, MassResistance posts a more than year old open letter from an individual, not only acknowledging personally engaging in sexual abuse, but accusing others as well. What's missing is that an investigation ensued and the only allegation in the letter which could be confirmed was that its writer had committed calendar mandated sexual abuse. The then just turned 19 year old had had sex with a willing if not yet able to consenting 14 year old boy, who didn't quite meet the laws second requirement of being less than five years between your birthdays which somehow magically turns a felony into boys will be boys. Last I read, the then teenager who wrote the letter and did time for doing naughty things with a too young boy had gotten a restraining order against MassResistance for reprinting it. I didn't bother to follow the story from there. They deserve each other.

If a single, isolated, five year old example of alleged bad behavior, most of which turned out to be accuracy challenged, is all you're going offer as 'proof' of the 'horrors' of having 'gay-straight' alliances, I'd say that you've just been pretty darn successful in proving how safe they really are. Hundreds and thousands of these groups have been meeting for years now and in all that time and among all those groups you can find just one example of horny teenager and legal consequences. It shouldn't have happened even that once, but wow.

I've told you and I've told you, believing in what sites like MassResistance tell you without question, only makes people wonder if you've lost your mind.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
A child exists because of sperm, egg and an incubator.....SEX does not need to take place in order for a child to be created......sorry that this concept is so allusive for you.
Research has already taken place to create a child from the egg and womb of a woman, then fertilizing it with sperm made from the Stem Cells in her bone marrow.......so, my point is again that THE PHYSICAL ACT OF SEX NEED NOT BE NECESSARY in order to create a new living being.
And please don't get me wrong......I'm not saying I agree with this.....but it will certainly help those couples who want to have children, but can't for various reasons.

More "politically correct" bullshit from the homosexual retards

"A child exists because of sperm, egg and an incubator"
-I'm sorry, how the hell can a MAMMAL (like a human) an incubator? We aren't chickens, you dumb sodomites. And in case you haven't realized it, FATHERS provide the sperm & MOTHERS provide the egg. What happens when a male & female mammal have sex? The female gets pregnant & a baby is born! Mammals don't need incubators because they don't lay eggs. You're argument is just as ignorant as it is stupid.

"SEX does not need to take place in order for a child to be created"
-Then what the hell do you call a man & woman having sexual intercourse without protection, dumbass homo?

"sorry that this concept is so allusive for you."
-Oh you mean using Science & Reason to show your lifestyle is a pack of lies? Gee, how "homophobic" of me. </sarcasm>

"Research has already taken place to create a child from the egg and womb of a woman, then fertilizing it with sperm made from the Stem Cells in her bone marrow."
-What a perfect recipe for deformed humans </sarcasm>

"so, my point is again that THE PHYSICAL ACT OF SEX NEED NOT BE NECESSARY in order to create a new living being."
-Same for cloning humans, & we all remember how that turned out. Playing "God" does come with it consequences. I expect the same fate to happen to the fetus made from stem cells.

"And please don't get me wrong......I'm not saying I agree with this"
-I have a hard time believing you. I've read your posts. You support the homosexual agenda. You're no better than a freak who supports pedophilia & bestiality in my eyes. In my eyes, you're no better than a pervert who supports rape.

"...but it will certainly help those couples who want to have children, but can't for various reasons."

-CORRECTION:
"...but it will certainly help those couples who want to have children TO SEXUALLY ASSAULT, but can't for various reasons, LIKE BEING MISOGYNISTS OR MISANDRISTS."

There fixed it!

The Forum Jury wrote:
secondly the notion that homosexuality is not a defect. that gays can procreate too - artificially.
if what you are talking about is things like surrogacy, it can cost $100,000 or more. The price alone prevents the majority of people from affording it.
Secondly, this procedure is available only in the industrialized. What about gays that make up the 3/4 of the world that's NOT industrialized? I guess they are just damned.
BUT WAIT, it still gets worse! Like Haha was saying, even if the procedure occurs, only one parent gets their genes passed to the child! The other parent remains a complete genetic stranger to the child!(Just imagine being the parent that lost in the coin toss to decide that issue)
So if you mean to tell me that homosexuality is so far from reproductive that they need $100,000 worth of procedures/borrowing members of the opposite sex to actually simulate heterosexuality/pray to be one of the lucky ones who lives in an industrialized country to even do the procedure/and still AT BEST will leave one parent a total genetic stranger to the child; HOW THE HELL DOES THIS NOT PROVE HOMOSEXUALITY IS A DEFECT?!?
I know you like shoving things up your ass, but at least draw the line with putting your heads up there!

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Another one who claims not to be gay.
I'm curious, Boogle Eyed, if you're not gay, how did you become such a walking encyclopedia on anal sex?

How did YOU?

You left yourself open for that one.

Watchmann wrote:
It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design.

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
This is just more of your opinion. Keep in mind that the vast majority of couples--married or unmarried--do things with their genitals that do not involve what you call "fit together by design". They engage in oral, anal, and tactile/digital intercourse. Surely you know this.
And if you start yammering on about how the body isn't built for these things--well--just take that up with God, because that's how mankind has decided to use their genitals.
And no amount of shouting, whining, stomping, or condemning is going to change the way people have used and will use their genitals.

Watchmann wrote:

No, it is not my opinion. I have always posted medical verification that anal sex is inherently harmful. You have been unable to post anything that discounts that medical testimony.

Now you are asserting the ludicrous. You fulfill the proverb, "Allow one ludicrosity, invite a thousand."

Physical anatomy is clear. Only the penis and vagina are by design and function for intercourse.

I have already verified numerous times that the anus was never designed for intercourse. But lets run with your assertion that the mouth is also a sexual organ.

The mouth/tongue self-lubricates (one for you), and it is very sensitive (two for you).

However, it is also a taste organ. Notice there is no piss flavored soda? I have yet to see butt crack cologne either...

Your idea also breaks down at the application point. Not to mention the healthy behavior point. Forget common sense, that was left a long time ago.

I'm sorry to take you here, but this is your reality lesson for today... I am extremely hairy, which you probably find attractive like my wife does. At times I have a single dread starting at the top of my butt crack. Other times there is a butt crack bugger (a combination of hair, toilet paper, sweat and poop all rolled into a bugger). You put your mouth there???

Let's take your assertion even further. Why stop at the penis/vagina/rectum? There are other body openings. How about some ear wax? Or, something a little kinky, having sex by picking the other person's nose with your tongue?

It's two to one, but what a one. I think I won (smile).

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Ok, so how can u tell Romney is the worst of 2 evils. We gave obama a chance, he was a fraud and corrupt, why would u reward him because of a person that has a good business mind and you know he would be a lot more honest then the great obama.

You mean his good job killing business mind don't you?

KiMare wrote:

Watchmann wrote:
It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
This is just more of your opinion. Keep in mind that the vast majority of couples--married or unmarried--do things with their genitals that do not involve what you call "fit together by design". They engage in oral, anal, and tactile/digital intercourse. Surely you know this.
And if you start yammering on about how the body isn't built for these things--well--just take that up with God, because that's how mankind has decided to use their genitals.
And no amount of shouting, whining, stomping, or condemning is going to change the way people have used and will use their genitals.
Watchmann wrote:
No, it is not my opinion. I have always posted medical verification that anal sex is inherently harmful. You have been unable to post anything that discounts that medical testimony.
Now you are asserting the ludicrous. You fulfill the proverb, "Allow one ludicrosity, invite a thousand."
Physical anatomy is clear. Only the penis and vagina are by design and function for intercourse.
I have already verified numerous times that the anus was never designed for intercourse. But lets run with your assertion that the mouth is also a sexual organ.
The mouth/tongue self-lubricates (one for you), and it is very sensitive (two for you).
However, it is also a taste organ. Notice there is no piss flavored soda? I have yet to see butt crack cologne either...
Your idea also breaks down at the application point. Not to mention the healthy behavior point. Forget common sense, that was left a long time ago.
I'm sorry to take you here, but this is your reality lesson for today... I am extremely hairy, which you probably find attractive like my wife does. At times I have a single dread starting at the top of my butt crack. Other times there is a butt crack bugger (a combination of hair, toilet paper, sweat and poop all rolled into a bugger). You put your mouth there???
Let's take your assertion even further. Why stop at the penis/vagina/rectum? There are other body openings. How about some ear wax? Or, something a little kinky, having sex by picking the other person's nose with your tongue?
It's two to one, but what a one. I think I won (smile).

Here, I think I found the solution to one of your many problems:

http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/ivory-soap-b...

You might want to pick some up and use it sometime.

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
San Francisco ...
Greenwich Village ...
1970s ...
Bathhouses ...
Gay males copulating like demented bunnies ...
Equals --
HIV-AIDS epicenter.
There, I've spelled it out and formatted it so each bit of knowledge can be taken individually and you won't choke.
Is that simple enough of will it be necessary to turn it into a liquid to be poured down your low-IQ throat like baby food?

Did you include cross dressers giving you blow jobs in that summary?

How about the rest of the world?

It is all clear now, you're one of those dull witted mutton heads that think the entire world exists in a region bordered to the north by Canada, the south by Mexico, the east by the Atlantic, and the west by the Pacific. I've got news for you dumdum, the vast majority of HIV cases are in Sub-Saharan Africa. That little insignifican corner of the globe accounts for a little more than 68 percent of HIV cases. The US? It accounts for a portion of the 3.8% pf cases in North America (you've heard of Canada haven't you?)

That must put San Fran right smack dab in the middle of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Who'd a thunk it?

thisGuy wrote:

Does the physical act of putting penis into vagina need to take place in order for life to begin? Think carefully about your answer.....BECAUSE, the answer is simply NO it does not.....yet a life can be created with donor sperm, an egg and someplace for the cells to grow and be nourished.......usually a womb but an incubator could do the same job......LOOK IT UP:-)

Silly Boy, yes, sexual intercourse can result in pregnancy......but is it the only way? AGAIN NO, a woman can use a turkey baster to get those lil spermies up inside her.....NO PHYSICAL SEX ACT TOOK PLACE, but pregnancy still happened!!!

I seriously doubt you have READ anything I have ever posted.....otherwise you'd know my position on Pedophiles and Child Molesters!!!

Is not a womb the same as an incubator? I suggest you look it up.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
You are entitled to your opinion. If you were intelligent and articulate, you could defend that opinion with a rational argument. Instead you offer an ignorant, intolerant, and bigoted opinion with no basis in fact, law, or reason.
Anyone who argues for fellow citizens to be held as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws, as you do, is bigoted. It is not the other way around. It appears that, in addition to being incapable of offering a rational defense of your opinion, you also level unfounded allegations at others. You really are quite the piece of work.

go back 17,843 post, I defended it. Did u read it? The problem is that you won't allow another opinion. You act like it's set. If that was the case, why wasn't gay marriage allowed years ago in this country and others? People Don't Want It. It opens the door for best friends to marry, there is already enough fraud with straight marriage, don't need more of it with everyone marrying anyone. You act like gay marriage will solve the world. All you do is whine and whine here, what is wrong with you?

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean his good job killing business mind don't you?

He has not ever been President before, what more could you be afraid of after the debunkle we have now. I doubt he will make GM into a China company and create jobs overseas like the great obama. He is an honest man and will not hire a bunch of holders napatonos van jones and other crooks on his staff. He won't delay the trial of the fort hood killer, he won't disarm our nukes. He won't back up the scum occupy wall streeters. he won't back the muslim brotherhood, will stand up for a country getting rockets fired on them today, Israel.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Does the physical act of putting penis into vagina need to take place in order for life to begin? Think carefully about your answer.....BECAUSE, the answer is simply NO it does not.....yet a life can be created with donor sperm, an egg and someplace for the cells to grow and be nourished.......usually a womb but an incubator could do the same job......LOOK IT UP:-)
Silly Boy, yes, sexual intercourse can result in pregnancy......but is it the only way? AGAIN NO, a woman can use a turkey baster to get those lil spermies up inside her.....NO PHYSICAL SEX ACT TOOK PLACE, but pregnancy still happened!!!
I seriously doubt you have READ anything I have ever posted.....otherwise you'd know my position on Pedophiles and Child Molesters!!!
Is not a womb the same as an incubator? I suggest you look it up.

The point is no life comes from anal sex. Just a lot of crap!

The only good thing about Obama is that he tries to be the father he didn't have.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
But that's just it.......does the fact that you claim not one Gay man has died from HIV/AIDS that he got from anal sex a reality? NO, just you deciding that being a smart azz is all you've ever had......again.....both sad and pathetic.

You've got me all wrong, fella.

I'm your friend.

You want everyone to believe anal sex is safe, normal, and as wholesome as mom's apple pie. Well, the only way we can do that is by getting people to believe the 365,000 gay men who died by catching HIV via anal sex were actually straight men who were having anal sex with other straight men.

Be quiet.

If you don't say anything the dumb clucks who bought same-sex marriage might just buy this pile of bull.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Your friends over at MassResistance sure know how to pick'em don't they? Hadn't heard this one before, considering that this was all going on five years ago, I wonder why? Let's see, MassResistance posts a more than year old open letter from an individual, not only acknowledging personally engaging in sexual abuse, but accusing others as well. What's missing is that an investigation ensued and the only allegation in the letter which could be confirmed was that its writer had committed calendar mandated sexual abuse. The then just turned 19 year old had had sex with a willing if not yet able to consenting 14 year old boy, who didn't quite meet the laws second requirement of being less than five years between your birthdays which somehow magically turns a felony into boys will be boys. Last I read, the then teenager who wrote the letter and did time for doing naughty things with a too young boy had gotten a restraining order against MassResistance for reprinting it. I didn't bother to follow the story from there. They deserve each other.
If a single, isolated, five year old example of alleged bad behavior, most of which turned out to be accuracy challenged, is all you're going offer as 'proof' of the 'horrors' of having 'gay-straight' alliances, I'd say that you've just been pretty darn successful in proving how safe they really are. Hundreds and thousands of these groups have been meeting for years now and in all that time and among all those groups you can find just one example of horny teenager and legal consequences. It shouldn't have happened even that once, but wow.
I've told you and I've told you, believing in what sites like MassResistance tell you without question, only makes people wonder if you've lost your mind.

Cut the LGBT obfuscation.

You wanted an example of gay adults abusing access to schools and I gave it to you. That said, your point that one incident doesn't indict everybody is valid.

How many incidents do you need to finally admit those Straight-Gay clubs in high schools are just a way for adult gay males to hook up with young boys?

How many?

Give it a number.

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>He has not ever been President before, what more could you be afraid of after the debunkle we have now. I doubt he will make GM into a China company and create jobs overseas like the great obama. He is an honest man and will not hire a bunch of holders napatonos van jones and other crooks on his staff. He won't delay the trial of the fort hood killer, he won't disarm our nukes. He won't back up the scum occupy wall streeters. he won't back the muslim brotherhood, will stand up for a country getting rockets fired on them today, Israel.

Romney is an honest man! Bwahahahahahahahahahahha! That is a real knee slapper. He's a friggin' politician you dolt. By the time they've made it to the federal level they don't know how to be honest. You really are a sap.

Occupy Wall Streeters? Have you met any of them? They aren't just a bunch of hippies & layabouts. They're more representative of the general population than any group of teabaggers. But you are correct, he'll be at the beck and all of the real Wall Streeters. Part of the problem, not the solution.

You don't think there will be any crooks in his entourage? My God! You did just fall off the turnip truck. Take a look at his "work" history. It is loaded with nefarious monetary gains at the expense of jobs and tax payer money. The man has made millions off predatory capitalism and has bankrolls in the Caymans. He's been a bit reluctant to release tax records. They've been after him for quite a while on this matter and he's finally released 2010. I suppose it took him that long to finally cook one up that looks almost wholesome.

Go ahead with your sainthood of the man. It really uncovers your stupidity layer by layer by layer. You're quite the onion of idiocy.

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>The point is no life comes from anal sex. Just a lot of crap!

Aha! A confession about your very own conception. Thanks for the honesty.