Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
Is this the best you can do ??? lol this post did nothing but make me laugh thank you ... now go play with yourself

and you were so "not bothered" by someone reminding you that you were due for a nappy change that you RE POSTED the post and COMMENTED on it...LMAO

Prof Marvel wrote:

You LGBT fellows seek...

Um..."You LGBT FELLOWS"? Hey Bruno! Here is someone who doesn't know the difference between male and female maybe you should give the professor an anatomy lesson!

Pssst! the "fellow" is the one with the naughty bits on the OUTSIDE!

http://www.google.com/imgres...

Never going back, only forward!

So you sit around and suck wind on changing backwards!

Phelanite wrote:

<quoted text>
The reason it is an 'important' issue is because there are many people with archaic beliefs and ideals (i.e., Christians). It is only a matter of time that this will all be moot. They're queer, they're here, get used to it.

Hence the length of this thread. It is driven by Bible thumpers and trolls. The crowd that "gets it" is just responding by trying to point out the obvios that you've summed up so nicely. I guess we'll both burn in hell for this, eh?

RANT wrote:

<quoted text>
Existing right????? ssm was never and i mean never intended in any way at all by anyone ever that was not even a thought. gays never had the right ot marry. Are all Californions gay oh thats right the state as a whole voted agianst ssm.

You do know that citizens can not vote laws that violated existing laws into being?

And that marriage equality is law in many civilized countries?

LOL, you probably can't find Dubai on a world map either...

In other words YOU don't know a flucking thing about any number of issues and are basing your comment on crap you read on some nutty conservative website.

In the future you can avoid sounding an ignorant hillbilly spewing propaganda by educating yourself. Please do so before posting again. THANKS so much!

Super Mex wrote:

<quoted text>
Legal Mexicans can and will vote this piece of white/black trailer trash out of the whitehouse, loser!

The only legal Mexians who would brave the migra to go and vote are in Lompoc, San Quentin or Chino. They can't vote either.

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry to inform you that being a Christian doesn't make us perfect, we have opinions like anyone else.

Tell me something I don't know. Problem is that you Xtians are always hiding behind the same dogma and when cornered, always resort to the proverbial "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."

Well woopty F___ng Doo. I suppose it's a great thing for us Jews that we only have to atone our sins once a year, and you Xtians have to do it a whole lot more often.

Guess we know who "sins" more.

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Why does it matter to you? When there are many verses in the Bible about supporting Israel, what do you think it means? LOL...

The question is not what I think it means. I know what it means. YOu should ask yourself if you think you know what it means.

If you can't answer, then maybe you can just admit that all you do to "support" or "protect" Israel is close your eyes and say a couple of vain words and hope Jeebus hears you.

Phelanite wrote:

<quoted text>
The reason it is an 'important' issue is because there are many people with archaic beliefs and ideals (i.e., Christians). It is only a matter of time that this will all be moot. They're queer, they're here, get used to it.

I would say its christian fundamentalists or christian literalists who are archaic in their belief and/or ideals. There are many christians who don't believe that gays and lesbians should be discriminated against.

Brian_G wrote:

Its good to be able to read. Then you could read law and precedent and almost always be right. Does that explain why so many religious groups have such wonderful schools?

WONDERFUL religious schools? Seriously? Our Christian Madrasa's? Schools where children are indoctrinated into multi generational ignorance? Where hate, fear and judgment of other religions is spoon feed? Where free though and self expression (along with evolution) is denied?

OMG Brian, sometimes you are so flucking funny.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
You probably feel that the rights of Black Americans should have been put to a vote as well, right? or the rights of women to vote, right?
What happens when the vote is won at the ballot box in Washington and Maine this year?

I will accept the vote of the people, it won't change how I feel. what about you? I am willing to bet the gay pride community will continue to force it into the ground if the issue doesn't go their way.

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely the courts should be deciding this issue because their rationale , unlike that of the "American people," is not steeped in bias, rather, it's based on constitutional law, and they've cited precedent in support of their decision. It is wholly irresponsible and unethical to allow people such as you to decide whether or not a US citizen, who happens to be gay or lesbian, can have the same opportunity to marry the person he/she chooses.
It may be temporary, but the trend is leaning toward it being permanent. Enjoy your prejudice while you can, it'll soon be gone.

Listen to yourself, you are no less predjudice than I. I do beleive you and your gay community are affraid that this issue would never come to a vote by the people knowing it would never pass. So you enjoy your gay marriage while you can, it can soon be disolved as well.

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all I'm not saying gays are pedophiles. I didn't use the word "little boys" so when you bring up "little girls" you deal in misdirection.
Secondly, as we see in Massachusetts the gay male opinion of male prostitution is entirely different from the hetero males opinion of female prostitution. No mainstream non-profit would ever carry ads for a female escort service, but in Massachusetts one of the largest youth health agencies (Cambridge Cares About AIDS) carries male escort services ads, such as "Rent-A-Boy."
Did you miss this or are you pretending you missed it?
Obviously, gays see nothing wrong with promoting "Rent-A-Boy" on a non-profit youth agency site. If fact, they cite the same logic as you do: "If there's nothing wrong with girl escort services, why is there something wrong with boy escort services?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
This, however, is not the question at all. The question is "What in the hell is Rent-A-Boy doing on the Cambridge Cares About AIDS youth agency site?"
http://www.ccaa.org/pump.html
Would it be too much to ask you to answer that?

I didn't miss it. My firm blocks that kind of webpage, including youtube and I only saw the website now.

"Obviously, gays see nothing wrong with promoting "Rent-A-Boy" on a non-profit youth agency site."

I'm not one to speculate, so as far as your statement above, I say it behooves you not to jump to conclusions which you can't back up.
You're not privy of the contractual reasons, if any, of why such link is on a ccaa website. And speculating about it only makes you look more prejudicial in your own mythical beliefs.

For all you and I know, there could be an advertising contract involved for that link to be placed in the ccaa.org website.

Bottom line, my answer to your question is I don't know. And to expand on it, neither do you.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>The electorate, the democratic process, self government lost - the side of government oppression won. It will increase court traffic, pay off lawyers and crony pals. New government marriage law from court mandate.
It's not right, no matter who you are.

Using that logic it also lost when it allowed women the right to vote
Not near as much if people weren't trying to deny others the same rights as they enjoy.
It is never right to deny someone the same right as you have, no matter who you are.

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, I see -- it boils down to how two judges interpret the law: if they decide Prop 8 is Unconstitutional, the people who support Prop 8 are stupid.
What happens when SCOTUS decides 5-2 in favor of Prop 8?
Who will you be calling "stupid" then, Sue -- the LGBT community, the two judges, or the gay hair-stylists you work with in that beauty salon in the Bronx?

You speak as if you already know what the outcome will be. Care to pass the crystal ball? I'd like to know if the world will really end on 12/21/12.

Thanks!

Look, fact is that IF SCOTUS hears the appeal, it is more likely than not to uphold the 9th's affirmation and once and for all put some finality to the issue by instructing the nation to disregard Baker v. Nelson.

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
I would say its christian fundamentalists or christian literalists who are archaic in their belief and/or ideals. There are many christians who don't believe that gays and lesbians should be discriminated against.

I did overgeneralize. Well said.

windsome wisdom of ELH wrote:

LOL, you do love reveling in your own idiocy don't you?
<quoted text>
Um...Like so many of your idiotic "example", this is just another desperate attempt to make the faulty information you base your reality on make sense.
The fact is that if some one who has attained the age of majority (for example an 18 year old male) has sex with someone who is underage (a 15 year old female) AND a third party (the minors parents) REPORT it. The 18 year old would be charged with RAPE not pedophilia. That's because sex sex between willing teenagers/young adults is not pedophilia, Pedophilia is RAPE or molestation of a CHILD or (more likely) a series of children by a sexual PREDATOR,.
And BTW, no matter how much shite you toss hoping that some of it will stick an "argument" based on faulty logic will always end in a FALSE conclusion.

First of all, you moron, no one has ever been charged with pedophilia, because that's a clinical condition, not a statutory law.

The violation of laws pedophiles are charge with are child sexual abuse or molestation, child exploitation, child pornography, incest, kidnapping, statutory rape, or the prostitution of minors -- the very crimes you stupidly use in your example as charges that are not pedophilia charges.

The bottom line is, when an adult has sex with a person under the age of consent our legal system lists him as a "pedophile."
It doesn't matter if he's 18 and his girlfriend a day shy of 18, if he's convicted of having sex with her, he goes down in the books as a pedophile.

You may be familiar with the program "To Catch a Predator." All of the dudes roped-in were branded pedophiles, sent to jail, and assigned the same restrictions all clinical pedophiles are -- no access to children, reporting to local authorities when moving into their neighborhoods, pedophile therapy, restricted access to their own children or grandchildren, etc.

Our legal system does not make the distinction you moronically posit above.

Hans Feldmeier, an 87-year-old man from Germany, has kept for the past 64 years.

In 1948 when the U.S. was in the middle of an aid program to help rebuild Germany after World War II. Feldmeier decided to save the lard tin for emergencies.

He took it to food safety experts in Germany, who ultimately deemed the 64-year-old can edible for human consumption. The food safety team did not return the lard to Feldmeier. They did return the red, white, and blue can.

Would you taste the contents of a 64-year-old can of lard?

^This thread is now about food preservatives.

No, I would not taste the contents of a 64 year old can of anything. I would, however, eat a 64 year old Twinkie.

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
I must say, Joe, the quote you give us directly above reads like something someone of your backwoods education would propose.
Earlier I made the point homosexuality is a scientific nomenclature while pedophilia a legal one. I thought this observation rather insightful; no matter, its cleverness went right over your head, Joe.
In the state of Massachusetts the age of consent is 16; in New York 18; in Somalia, 12. Obviously, the science involved in each is scant. Meanwhile, male-to-male sex is called homosexuality at each location and that's because we're talking about a biological phenomena that's replicable and discrete.
You LGBT fellows seek to change this. You want us to throw out the scientific component and keep the legal one. You want this because your agenda posits no homosexual has ever molested a child.
And, here, I'll pause, Joe, to give you a time to catch up ...

Actually that was written by professionals in the field of pedophilia.
I've seen you make a lot of claims, most backed up by nothing but your obsessed opinions. So why don't yopu provide something that will back up your claim that pedophilia is a only a legal term and that homosexuality is only a scientific term.
Because male on male is a homosexual act, doesn't mean having sex with a child is a homosexual act, that is a pedophilia act.
Like my article says, comparing the two is usually done by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Homosexual do molest children, just like heterosexuals, but those that do, are called pedophilies.
You don't have to pause, I'll be around to lap you again anyway.
Biological phenomena, and replicable, and discrete, what a crook. Baffle them with BS doesn't work.