Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
So far so good ... now tell us why what you and another man do behind a stall in a public men's room is a Civil Rights issue.

It must be pathetic to always have one's mind in the gutter. Your trannie friends out of town this weekend Gary?

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at what you have been throwing back and forth the last five pages...
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that isn't chocolate pudding...
<quoted text>
You must have missed your mouth and got some 'pudding' in your eye.
It is ignorant gays kissing a$$ and trying to pass it off as pudding.
It is gays trying to stick bent rods up a straight sewer pipe.
I get a severe charlie horse in my sphincter muscle just thinking about it.
Do you really understand how utterly ridiculous, harmful and sick that behavior is???

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Your obsession with anal sex, and your constant need to metaphorically discuss it, are creepy.

I totally agree that anal sex is 'creepy'!

It appears you are agreeing with me about my post? I don't understand, why are you one of the a$$ kissing 'chocolate' pudding throwers???

By the way, most of the time I'm not metaphorical about it at all!

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Calm down ELH, you've going to mess your panties!

Proving once again that smarmy comebacks are all you have.

I think it's time to leave you and "the professor" here to talk amongst yourself. Enjoy and your azzpuppetry.

PS: Don't let mommy catch you sniffing her panties again. You know what happened last time.

TTFN!

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
But this issue is an entirely separate issue, why couldn't it be "fixed" then like the other issues you mention? There is no other issue in this world that can be comopared to this one, and it's obvious dont you agree ??? It has been man and woman from the beginning of time.

All civil issues are handled in their own time. Your question is a stupid as asking why when black men got the right to vote that women didn't at the same time too. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Nothing more than an attempt to prolong a failed argument. Your posts are childish, just like your mentality.

Oh, and ALL civil liberty issues are comparable. We often compare these issues, but when we do, we get asshats like you saying "stop pretending gay is a skin color". There are numerous comparisons to our fight for civil equality, and the fights of others. TONS.

Here are 12 examples of similarities between our fight, and the fight of inter-racial couples:

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-...

Any other stupid thing you'd like to ask Penguin Boy?

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I love it when you fundies make up your own definitions of things.
Marriage already has a definition. It is a "union", and "institution" and a "ceremony". That definition doesn't change when the gender of the participants isn't the way you like it.
Hey, why don't you try and sell us again on how sperm doners and egg doners are "parents"!! I always love when you try and spin that bullshyt.
Must suck to think that your cause is so just, yet the only way you can defend it is by being deceitful and lying!!! Carry on clown.

If that is the definition, then why does the law have to be changed?

Instead of making up stupid statements and trying to attribute them to me, why don't you simply respond to direct quotes???

Must suck to think that your cause is so just, yet the only way you can defend it is by being deceitful and lying!!!

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
lol ... corrected to some degree, but not necessarily the right thing to do in many casses. Not all change is good when you have to force certain issues to make society believe in it.

I see. Not neccessarily the right thing to do. Got it. Please be specific. Of the two items that were being presened, which in your opinion were not the right thing to do? Allowing women to vote, or abolishing slavery?

Which of these changes were not good when forcedon society? Please do educate the room.

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, his post elequently demonstrated the opposite. Your statement is NOT fact, it is your dream.
<quoted text>
Not according to these specialists:
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Psychoanalytic Association
National Association of Social Workers
Child Welfare League of America
North American Council on Adoptable Children
Canadian Psychological Association
What you got to back up your claim dolt?

I'm begging you, list the studies they base that assertion on!!!

Waiting....(ad nauseum)

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
You claim to be straight yet your knowledge homosexual minutia surpasses that of most homosexuals.

Pot, meet kettle. Your trannies still out of town Prof Marveless? You here cause you need some masturbatory material?

I am glad to see someone exposing these men and woman who hide behind the badge and act as if they are so perfect when yet it is the law at times that have become more of the criminal than the people they attempt to apprehend.

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>sorry jack, my Religion beliefs don't teach to discriminate against homo's. It teaches that God will be the Judge.

By indicating that you believe that some type of judgement is predetermined for gays, you are alredy discriminating.

Nice try Ricky Ritardo.

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you are a lying nincumpoop religitard with a sociopathic fascination of other people's sexual activities.
<quoted text>
You're a righteous as a piece of shyt. What a freakin' blow hard.
<quoted text>
You also created your god. The rest of us just try and let you live in your little fantasy world while we actually take care of things.

Calm down, you are not making any sense! You are sounding like Danny's brother. Take a break, let someone else throw 'chocolate' pudding for a little bit!

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>sorry jack, my Religion beliefs don't teach to discriminate against homo's.

Then please educate us on the origin of your discrimination then.

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL!!! You forgot to mention "you're angry". LOL!!!
Fundie 101: When you can't establish a point, tell your opponent they are "in denial" or "angry".
Nothing helps establish credibility for fundies then these two statements!!!! LOL!!!!!! What a moron!!!

Don't forget 'gay twirl', look how dippy dizzy it's making you.

Smile.

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a serious problem with gays pretending that gay unions are marriage. It is a offensive farce.
I have a problem with children being raised in a situation that deprives them of at least one parent AND one gender. I find it diabolically criminal to deliberately birth a child into that situation.
I have a problem equating obvious and critical distinctions in the attempt for those in denial to continue.
<quoted text>
I am being guided about "realistic problems" from someone who uses their septic system as a playground? Excuse me if I don't agree.
I am being challenged to think from 'my brain instead of my ass' by someone who confuses rare failure in the evolutionary design of procreation with high failure percentage in a manipulated genetic defect setting? Using horror story news accounts (which I could more than match), instead of scientific validation?
Smile
<quoted text>
Perhaps you could point out how anything I said hinders "love, hope, compassion and understanding" because of a person's sexuality.
Additionally, the definition of a bigot is;
big·ot
&#8194; &#8194;[big-uht] Show IPA
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
My post was about facts, not creed, belief or opinion. I would suggest that it is your response that fits the definition of bigot more accurately.
A wild guess would be this is why you have a problem with the word marriage too.

Jeebus, can you please learn how to use quotations properly.

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
He knows more about male-to-male anal sex than you do.
How do you explain that?

Because he's taken the time to educate himself rather than being a parrot shill for massrestance.

Any other stupid questions?

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Your niece can get married.
Who told you she couldn't?

That wasn't his question. Why don't you try and answer it again Prof. Deceit?

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
There's no such thing as SSM, and why would it be the norm if 90+% of the population aren't gay?
Damn you are stupid Penguin Boy.

In 8000 years of human history with thousands of cultures, gay 'marriages' have NEVER established themselves and spread?

If he is stupid for simply pointing out reality, what does that make you not seeing such blatant reality?

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
If you were provided with a good reason against gay marriage, would you stop demanding it?

Without a reason to ponder, we have no need to.

Any other stupid questions Prof. Pedophile?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
130k posts, and that is the best you can do???

It's certainly better than anything you've done.

DYI wrom bin wrote:

<quoted text>
Proving once again that smarmy comebacks are all you have.
I think it's time to leave you and "the professor" here to talk amongst yourself. Enjoy and your azzpuppetry.
PS: Don't let mommy catch you sniffing her panties again. You know what happened last time.
TTFN!

You are right, I have smarmy comebacks. Yours are bbbooorrrring1

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_new...

"Oxford, June 10, 2012 - Despite considerable research showing that children of same-sex parents fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents, two papers - a review of existing studies and a new study - published today in Elsevier’s Social Science Research, find insufficient data to draw any definitive conclusions.

The review by Dr. Loren Marks from Louisiana State University finds that much of the science that forms the basis for the highly regarded External link 2005 official brief on same-sex parenting by the American Psychological Association (APA) does not stand up to scrutiny. The new study by University of Texas sociologist and professor Mark Regnerus, provides compelling new evidence that numerous differences in social and emotional well-being do exist between young adults raised by women who have had a lesbian relationship and those who have grown up in a nuclear family.

Dr. Marks reviewed studies published between 1980 and 2005 cited by the 2005 official APA brief which asserted that:“Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

“The jury is still out on whether being raised by same-sex parents disadvantages children”, explains Marks.“However, the available data on which the APA draws its conclusions, derived primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalized claim either way.”

Of the 59 studies referenced in the APA brief, more than three-quarters were based on small, non-representative, non-random samples that did not include any minority individuals or families; nearly half lacked a heterosexual comparison group; and few examined outcomes that extend beyond childhood such as intergenerational poverty, educational attainment, and criminality, which are a key focus of studies on children of divorce, remarriage, and cohabitation. In other words, "A lack of high quality data leaves the most significant questions unaddressed and unanswered," concludes Marks."