Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Wat the Tyler]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

It seems same sex marriage advocates think there is only so much marriage equality to go around. And they want all of it! Which of course is not equality at all.

Funny because bigoted people like you used to say the same thing about "interracial marriage advocates".

[Pietro Armando]

Wat the Tyler wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny because bigoted people like you used to say the same thing about "interracial marriage advocates".

And now some bigoted gay marriage advocates can say the same thing about plural marriage.

[Brian_G]

Racial differences are tiny and unimportant but gender differences are great and essential to the survival of the human race. Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for marriage as one man and one woman.

If you reject segregation, reject gender apartheid marriage; keep marriage integrated and gender diverse as male/female.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Wat the Tyler wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny because bigoted people like you used to say the same thing about "interracial marriage advocates".

Funny, I am not a bigot, but you are. I support marriage equality. Do you? Not just for people you approve of but for everyone?

Funny, I supported civil rights for interracial marriage in those days. Did you?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Wonder if that hypocrite "Big D" is going to rant against equal rights for groups he doesn't approve of again today.

Better that than those religion jags he goes on and bores us all with!

He goes on and on like some quacked out fundie on Modesto meth!

YUK!YUK!YUK! Big D(ope)!

[Frankie RIzzo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
And now some bigoted gay marriage advocates can say the same thing about plural marriage.

Some of them, like the jackass "Big D" aren't even shy about it. He says polygamists are child molesters, welfare cheats and all around scumbags!

And he thinks it's perfectly fine to believe that and still be a champion of equal rights (but only for people he likes).

[Frankie RIzzo]

I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

From a legal perspective, your soaking wet

[Pietro Armando]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>From a legal perspective, your soaking wet

How so?

[Pietro Armando]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>From a legal perspective, your soaking wet

".....monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?"

What in that statement is "soaking wet"?

[Jazybird58]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
How so?

Gawdd you people really are clueless. Do single couples have the same rights and privileges of marries couples?

How about married couples VRS Civil Unions???

Lets see if YOU can find out.

How about this. A gay couple, been together for 25 years. One is involved in a horrific auto crash, leaves him brain dead, can the other ask to have the plug pulled?????( If he is even allowed in the room)

Income tax, wills, probate, the list is quite extensive

[Neil Andblowme]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it arrogance or naiveté? What you think don't anyone else is going to apply language, "marriage equality", from the SSM movement for their own cause? Every victory for SSM, is a victory for plural marriage. We both know it. Why fight it? Deny it all you want, but we both know its true. Just as Kody Brown and the Missuses Brown. You must cringe every time they give an interview expressing support for SSM.

who?

[Neil Andblowme]

Pietro Armando wrote:

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?"

When did heterosexuals stop getting married?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>From a legal perspective, your soaking wet

From any perspective, "your" a jackass! Learn English.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Gawdd you people really are clueless. Do single couples have the same rights and privileges of marries couples?
How about married couples VRS Civil Unions???
Lets see if YOU can find out.
How about this. A gay couple, been together for 25 years. One is involved in a horrific auto crash, leaves him brain dead, can the other ask to have the plug pulled?????( If he is even allowed in the room)
Income tax, wills, probate, the list is quite extensive

Why are you whining to Pietro? He's not a hypocrite like you who supports marriage equality for only people you approve of and denies it to everyone else.

He's consistent. You're not because you are a bigot, and very stupid.

Hope that helps!

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
From any perspective, "your" a jackass! Learn English.

Learn to be a human

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
When did heterosexuals stop getting married?

They didn't. Who said they did? Boy are you dumb.

[DorN]

Straight parents do produce gay offspring.
They want their sons or daughts to be able to marry the person of their choice.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
".....monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?"
What in that statement is "soaking wet"?

Nothing. JizzyBirdy is an idiot.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>From a legal perspective, your soaking wet

Great argument you got there dummy! Take it to the judge. Tell him poly should not be allowed because he's soaking wet.