Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,192

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.

Full Story

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#151839 Jul 24, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
It's YOUR conclusion and hardly interesting but the chances of Bigfoot or UFO's or God existing (or NOT existing) are about equal.
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,(1) true,(2) false,(3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent. See also Occam's razor (assume simplicity over complexity).
And don't forget that YOU are the one who mentioned "evidence of absence" in the first place. All I did was use it to prove your "argument" false.
BTW I cut and pasted wiki because I don't want to tax your mind with complex philosophical arguments. And honestly I couldn't be bother to do more since "evidence of absence" is an AMATEUR debate ploy.
Blah Blah..
ELH

Portland, OR

#151840 Jul 24, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on my research the Yupik Eskimo priest scandal involved 12 priests and the victims were overwhelmingly boys.
Look forward to reading this reseach when you post your links.
Prof Marvel wrote:
Meanwhile, the continental United States priest scandal involved hundreds of priests whose victims were almost 100% boys.
Just a few posts back you claimed 100% without any QUALIFIERS ...now it's "ALMOST" 100%.

And this "almost 100% is limited to the "CONTINENTAL United States"? This is childish (and ridiculous) even for you.
Prof Marvel wrote:
In other words, ELH, you've been busted yet again for fabricating data.
Nice try at revising reality but you're the lying sack of shit who said 100% boys...Well,(back peddling) "almost" 100% boys...and (oops!) we are only counting the CONTINENTAL United States!
Prof Marvel wrote:
When are you going to stop lying to make your points, fella?
Um...you're the one who was trying to make some ridiculous off topic "point" and AS USUAL little man, I'm the one who proved YOU to be a lying sack of turds.

Now take your punishment like a man.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#151841 Jul 24, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
...yawn...
Don't you get tired of writing stupid shit? WHAT extra paperwork? And what makes you think all gay couples have HIV?
public assistence pays for medical bills, does it? hahahahahahaha
Haven't you read the propaganda from Family Research Council?
downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L43.pdf
We are better educated and make more money than you do.
Well you are gay so I would expect you to close you ears and look the other way, you can't handle the truth
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#151842 Jul 24, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
oooOOOooo.... Catalina.... I know why you go there......
Lets hear more gay humor ...

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#151843 Jul 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not a matter of 'believing' anything. Your relationship simply is not marriage. They are two clearly distinct relationships.
No one except gay couples who are incapable of procreating together are saying marriage 'requires' children. But the do occur 96% of the time in marriages. 0% of the time in gay unions. See the difference?
I'm personally not going to go back and forth on this issue with you.......I accept that you don't believe it is a marriage.......that is your right......I know it is and so does my State......eventually DOMA will be gone and my marriage will have federal recognition as well.

Please enjoy your week and have a great weekend.
Mon Sign or

Monrovia, CA

#151844 Jul 24, 2012
Singles to the out fields make good base runs.
ELH

Portland, OR

#151846 Jul 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
SCOTUS ruled that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."
Maybe you would like to help explain what they were referring to???
Loving v. Virginia - 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
The case overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States and had nothing to do with PROCREATION.

[QUOTE who="Johann Friedrich Blumenbach']
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[/QUOTE]

Apparently up until 1967 interracial relationships were socially TABOO! In fact it was ILLEGAL for white people to marry people of different races and especailly illegal for white people to marry black people!!!

It will probably come as a huge shock to someone as opened minded as you are but lots of people where really pissed off about this ruling and anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states until 2000.
KiMare wrote:
SCOTUS ruled that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."
Interesting editing..here's the REST of the ruling:

" To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

" The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State"


The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:


" There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

LOL, That last bit, especially "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.", sort of changes things doesn't it?

Now, Since measure 8 (and other state laws) clearly violate the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of The Constitution maybe YOU would like to explain why this same standard be not applied apply to DISCRIMINATION against same sex couples?

OMG...here comes a shit storm of nutty spam!



Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#151853 Jul 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Ah, Wat ASSumptions.
The only thing you know about my belief system is that I am a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian.
Wat a bigot.
Look who's calling whom a bigot, bigot.
ELH

Portland, OR

#151854 Jul 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
I was raised as a boy because my penis is functional, my vagina is not. While most hermaphrodites are sterile, I am not (It was difficult, a miracle you might say.).
You are so very "exceptional"! Fascinating story you have going there...Except that back when you were born your testicles would have been lopped off when you were an infant because it was easier. And BTW, since there is such a high rate of testicular cancer in intersexed people the medical profession has come full circle on this and castration would be the most likely recommendation NOW too.

So, does your (imaginary) kid look like the UPS guy?
KiMare wrote:
I am glad I can make you laugh and cry at the same time.
Cry? Keep dreaming you delusional fucktard.
KiMare wrote:
If you don't like my posts here, you are welcome to leave.
Tell me...how does your tiny brain contain that giant ego of yours?
Bill Of Rights

Tempe, AZ

#151855 Jul 24, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets hear more gay humor ...
Well your mouth is open isn't it? LOL,Close it and poof! No more lie's will come out! LOL

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#151856 Jul 24, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v. Virginia - 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
The case overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States and had nothing to do with PROCREATION.
<quoted text>
Apparently up until 1967 interracial relationships were socially TABOO! In fact it was ILLEGAL for white people to marry people of different races and especailly illegal for white people to marry black people!!!
It will probably come as a huge shock to someone as opened minded as you are but lots of people where really pissed off about this ruling and anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states until 2000.
<quoted text>
Interesting editing..here's the REST of the ruling:
" To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
" The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State"
The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
" There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
LOL, That last bit, especially "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.", sort of changes things doesn't it?
Now, Since measure 8 (and other state laws) clearly violate the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of The Constitution maybe YOU would like to explain why this same standard be not applied apply to DISCRIMINATION against same sex couples?
OMG...here comes a shit storm of nutty spam!
You missed a part:
"The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. "- Loving v Virginia
Clearly through the decision of the court it found that the union of the Loving's was alike in all ways to any other marriage aside from the color of the skin, something the 14th Amendment clearly was designed to eliminate. The real question comes when we ask, will the SCOTUS answer the question the same when it comes to a union which is only similar, not exactly the same as all other marriages, as is the case with same sex marriages. This question is yet to be answered, but what we do know is they didn't see a need to over turn Hernandez v Robels.
Bill Of Rights

Tempe, AZ

#151857 Jul 24, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you are gay so I would expect you to close you ears and look the other way, you can't handle the truth
And you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass! LOL,You've got to be about the dumbest MO FO except for your buddy the Bi-sexual Gayry on this thread! I mean they don't call you the village idiot for nothing do they? Tell us,how does one grow up to be as completely ignorant as you are? I bet if Gayry the Bi-sexual under age tranny lover blew in your ear you could feel and hear the wind coming out the other ear! LOLOL
ELH

Portland, OR

#151858 Jul 24, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah Blah..
Is this a "debate" or an "argument"?

Or does our Constitutional Scholar, MasterDebator, Philosopher extrodenair have his whitey tighties in a bunch?
ELH

Portland, OR

#151859 Jul 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
The only thing you know about my belief system is that I am a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian.
Delusional much?

Aside from knowing that you are a former mental patient who has to carry around a note stating that (s)he is allowed to be out in public unsupervised...

we do know that you are a self centered narcissist prone to sweeping generalizations, wild exaggerations and frequent "Professor Marvelous" ass kissing.

ELH

Portland, OR

#151860 Jul 24, 2012
akpilot wrote:
The real question comes when we ask, will the SCOTUS answer the question the same when it comes to a union which is only similar, not exactly the same as all other marriages, as is the case with same sex marriages.
Gender aside, why isn't SSM marriage EXACTLY the same as "other" marriages?
Bill Of Rights

Beacon, NY

#151861 Jul 24, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Delusional much?
Aside from knowing that you are a former mental patient who has to carry around a note stating that (s)he is allowed to be out in public unsupervised...
we do know that you are a self centered narcissist prone to sweeping generalizations, wild exaggerations and frequent "Professor Marvelous" ass kissing.
You know ELH with someone of His/Her background you would think He/She would be more understanding and empathetic and show some plain old compassion towards others that have lived through similar situations and life experiences! Makes one wonder and go...Hmmmmm??? Pretty damn sad if you ask me! Carry on good lady! ;)
ELH

Portland, OR

#151862 Jul 24, 2012
Bill Of Rights wrote:
<quoted text>
You know ELH with someone of His/Her background you would think He/She would be more understanding and empathetic and show some plain old compassion towards others that have lived through similar situations and life experiences! Makes one wonder and go...Hmmmmm??? Pretty damn sad if you ask me! Carry on good lady! ;)
I seem to recall a previous asspuppet who's "best friend" died of "AIDS"... Interestingly, "she" was also mentally ill and physically deformed. It sure makes you wonder about the female influences in a certain emotionally crippled anti social hatemongers childhood.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#151863 Jul 24, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Gender aside, why isn't SSM marriage EXACTLY the same as "other" marriages?
If I have to explain that to you, you need more help than I could ever provide you.

Here is the problem that you and most other's on this forum have, you are unwilling to accept that the two simply aren't the same, similar yes, but not the same. That doesn't make one better than the other, it is just an acceptance of fact.

The other problem you have is that you lump everyone into the same category, if they aren't 100% behind you they are a bigot, that's a great way to win people over. Because I don't accept that there is a Constitutional requirement to allow same sex marriage or compel the people and the State's to do so, doesn't mean I am against it. I simply follow the Constitution as it was drafted. I agree with most here, I don't see any compelling argument to ban same sex marriage, I think it is silly and I also feel we have much more important things to worry about. But with that said, I cannot sit by and watch the Constitution get trampled just to get my way. Take for instance- gun laws- I see no reason why people should be restricted from having fire arms, but if a State or local community decides to ban them there isn't a Constitutional argument against them doing so. The 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the Federal Government not the State or the People, the SCOTUS has really screwed up with this incorporation doctrine nonsense.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#151864 Jul 25, 2012
Marcia_Marcia_Marcia wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not respond to your LGBT sex cult comment so that is why i did not rebut it. But a cult uses mind control
1.People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
2.Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
3.They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group;
4.They get a new identity based on the group;
5.isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled
The LGBT community does make people dress a certain way or isolate them form their families.
Your list of sex cult markers is helpful. It shows the LGBT community meets the definition of sex cult almost entirely.

Directly below I've placed each of your list items in brackets. My response follows without brackets.

[1.People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;]

Gays are told they are being oppressed. This causes physical and emotional distress.

[2.Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;]

Gays are told the full acceptance of homosexuality by society will solve all their problems. Forty years ago gays were told the repeal of sodomy laws would solve their problems. Ten years after that they were told bathhouses would solve their problem.

But their problem is their mental disorder -- homosexuality -- not how society responds to it.

If you have brain cancer society's response to it doesn't cure it.

[3.They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group;]

"Coming Out" is ritual whereby the new gay joins the extended gay family. The new gay receives unconditional love and acceptance from the group.

[4.They get a new identity based on the group;]

In other words, "Coming Out" bestows upon the new gay a new identity -- homosexual.

[5.They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled]

Although this is not literally done, members of the LGBT community do not deviate a syllable from the LGBT agenda. Unspoken pressure causes new members raised in traditional religion to reject their religion and birth family if their religion and birth family doesn't accept the LGBT agenda.

Criticism of the LGBT agenda is absolutely forbidden which is why we never see deviation from its talking points in forums such as this one.

When gay journalist Randy Shiltz criticized the LGBT community for its post-pride obligatory orgies he was immediately ostracized. Other gay writers and public figures experienced the same thing.

People are not allowed to conceal their homosexuality. When gay activists get wind a prominent person is homosexual they publicly expose him.

Most gays come from good families where conspicuous acts of lewdness like lying on a beach in Fire Island and sucking-off all comers s(no pun) would be considered an abomination. Once joining the LGBT community lewdness is redefined -- in fact, it is stripped from the acolyte's vocabulary entirely -- he is encouraged to show his loyalty by allowing himself to be dry-humped in public or letting his "top" lead him around in public on a dog leash.

[The LGBT community does (not?) make people dress a certain way or isolate them form their families (it usually the families that isolate the family member) and they do not control access to information.]

The LGBT community and homosexuality are not the same thing. The homosexual generally is not isolated from his family until they see or hear reports of him marching down main street in a penis suit and erect penis hat.

Summary:

All the characteristics of a sex cult are found in the LGBT community.

And once again, thank you for identifying these characteristics for us.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#151865 Jul 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Summary:All the characteristics of a sex cult are found in the LGBT community.
Thanks again for showing us just how much of an idiot you actually are.......but then, most who post in this thread already knew that!!!

Again, the GLBTQI Community is NOT a sex cult, no matter how much you want them to be.

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.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Worth a Look 18 hr WE JUST DONT CARE 12
John Root to take over Jerry Deal's seat: Longt... Oct 21 Fiona 1
La Victoria's Orange Sauce (Jan '06) Oct 21 Kay 128
Beam me up Scottie Oct 20 guest 12
From Tower of Power - The Mic Gillette Band Oct 3 IGotSoul 1
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Sep '14 abusedmom 108
Catalytic Converter Theft. Toyota Truck/SUV own... (May '07) Sep '14 Jesie 950

Redwood City News Video

Redwood City Dating
Find my Match

Redwood City Jobs

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Redwood City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Redwood City

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]