Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Dusty Mangina]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Rose
Why not include polygamists/ plural marriage practioners in the marriage equality movement? If the objective is to "expand" who can marry, it makes sense to include plural marriage. What exactly is the issue?

Why not come up with a fresh argument that actually details why SSM should be illegal?

Kimare says SSM is here and there's nothing "y'all" can do about it.

Man up and get on with your lives (so says Kimare).

[chance47]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You are fading out.
And boring.
Must be humiliating...
Smirk smile.

... I am also correct.

[chance47]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Rose
Why not include polygamists/ plural marriage practioners in the marriage equality movement? If the objective is to "expand" who can marry, it makes sense to include plural marriage. What exactly is the issue?

I would like to understand your viewpoint on a couple items. Would you kindly please clarify:
1) Are you in favor of polygamy or against it?
2) Are you in favor of SSM or against it?
Thank you in advance.

[Frankie RIzzo]

chance47 wrote:

<quoted text>
I would like to understand your viewpoint on a couple items. Would you kindly please clarify:
1) Are you in favor of polygamy or against it?
2) Are you in favor of SSM or against it?
Thank you in advance.

I am in favor of same sex marriage and polygamy.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Imprtnrd wrote:

<quoted text>There is NO equality in a polygamy marriage. Other than that.....it's a go.

?

[Nay Nay]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>Government healthcare? What have you got against Medicare?

That I have to pay a penalty if I don't want it, mainly.

[KiMare]

chance47 wrote:

<quoted text>
... I am also correct.

In the Egyptian sense of the word...

Smile.

[Pietro Armando]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not come up with a fresh argument that actually details why SSM should be illegal?

There's no compelling need for it. Why, in the 21st century, is there a sudden need for men to "marry" men, or women to "marry" women?

Kimare says SSM is here and there's nothing "y'all" can do about it.

Maybe....maybe not. Perhaps its "growth" can be halted.

Man up and get on with your lives (so says Kimare).

Or "woman up", I suppose.

[KiMare]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not come up with a fresh argument that actually details why SSM should be illegal?
Kimare says SSM is here and there's nothing "y'all" can do about it.
Man up and get on with your lives (so says Kimare).

There is no such thing as ssm. Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay couples would only qualify as 'unmarriage'.

8000 years of human history has repeatedly affirmed that any minor rise of homosexual couple acceptance is extremely short lived. I'm betting on a repeat.

Man up and quit trying to infringe on benefits and rights of women and children!

Smirk.

[Largelanguage]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes he is using it as the standard diversionary tactic used by most opposed to same sex marriage, which is why most of us don’t believe him when he says he is for it.
No one has been able to come up with any valid reason not to allow same sex marriage, not even in court, that is why you are losing court battle after court battle.
So they go after the bait and switch diversionary tactic.
It will still fail of course, justice will win and you will lose.
It is already legal in a growing number of states and countries, you are on the wrong side of history.

Missouri put its ban back into place.

[Largelanguage]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Even funnier? The fact you think that analogy is apt.
Stupid, you don't have to be able to spawn in order to marry.
Period.
<quoted text>
Is your mutation a blunder? A defect? Should you have been aborted?
After all, you don't just say you are a mutation, but a monster mutation.
LOL!

You have to spawn and be born in order to exist, and you have to exist in order to marry.

[Quest]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
You have to spawn and be born in order to exist, and you have to exist in order to marry.

Actually, many people exist who have never spawned.

[KiMare]

Questforbrains wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, many people exist who have never spawned.

Really????!!!!

Here is school for the day;

1. Every person who exists was spawned. No exceptions.

2. Marriage is the natural and best place for humans to spawn when they are ready and if they can. That is why marriage is a unique relationship, distinct from contracts and friendships.

3. No gay couple has ever pro-spawned. Zero. Ever. Anywhere.

Smirk.

[Big D]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Ten years ago there wasn't a reality show about a polygamous family, now there's two.
Just like the Duggars begat the Bateses, the Brown family of TLC’s Sister Wives has begat the Dargers. It seems like once every TLC reality show starts to get a little stale or repetitive the producers bring in another family for their stars to hang out with. Recently, the Dargers were featured on Sister Wives as a fellow polygamous family. On the show, we met husband Joe and wives Alina, Vicki, and Valerie.
<quoted text>
So far 32 states say otherwise. Perhaps we could annex Canada, to even out the numbers for ya.
Some of the same countries that have legal ssm, also have polygamist communities. The Brits already recognize foreign poly marriages for welfare bennies. The polys are right there with ya, Big D, as in de-nigh-yal

Used to be 50, now it is 32 and droppiing

There is no way to spin that you way

[Frankie RIzzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes he is using it as the standard diversionary tactic used by most opposed to same sex marriage, which is why most of us don’t believe him when he says he is for it.
No one has been able to come up with any valid reason not to allow same sex marriage, not even in court, that is why you are losing court battle after court battle.
So they go after the bait and switch diversionary tactic.
It will still fail of course, justice will win and you will lose.
It is already legal in a growing number of states and countries, you are on the wrong side of history.

"Most of us"? Do you have a few mice in your pocket? Who is "most of us"?

What a jackass!

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
"Most of us"? Do you have a few mice in your pocket? Who is "most of us"?
What a jackass!

You just made the top ten. Congratulations.

[Big D]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
"Most of us"? Do you have a few mice in your pocket? Who is "most of us"?
What a jackass!

Yes, most of you that attack anyone that is for same sex marrage, and defend anyone that is opposed.

You wont understand what I am saying of course, dont worry nearly everyone else will.

[Jazybird58]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, most of you that attack anyone that is for same sex marrage, and defend anyone that is opposed.
You wont understand what I am saying of course, dont worry nearly everyone else will.

What up Big D? Dude you cant fix stupid.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>You just made the top ten. Congratulations.

You have a top ten list? How cute!

[Frankie RIzzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, most of you that attack anyone that is for same sex marrage, and defend anyone that is opposed.
You wont understand what I am saying of course, dont worry nearly everyone else will.

Maybe in your paranoid mind.