Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Rose_NoHo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Good point.....Dusty, your response.

My response, you and your fellow troll are trying to kill the forum by flooding it with red herring posts. Guess you know there is no real argument against gay marriage, and that is why you are doing it. Your fellow troll is clearly flying under false colors, and is really against gay marriage, just like you are.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
My response, you and your fellow troll are trying to kill the forum by flooding it with red herring posts. Guess you know there is no real argument against gay marriage, and that is why you are doing it. Your fellow troll is clearly flying under false colors, and is really against gay marriage, just like you are.

Too funny!

Is that your best argument against equal rights? Anyone advocating them for groups you don't approve of is a fake?

Tell the judge. "Your honor, we should deny them rights because they're fakes, they don't really want them thy're just trying to trick us!" Hopefully he'll lock up your dumbass for contempt. Cool your jets for 30 days!

[Frankie RIzzo]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>He's a sad old man that lives in the past thinking he is smarter then everyone else. He hates to be challenged.

Boy does he! Must be rough on the grand kids.

We can only hope he doesn't teach them his hate and ignorance about a loving committed family of more than two spouses.

[Rose_NoHo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh really....you don't seem to complain for your rights when your genitals prevent u from marrying your brother, sister, mother, father, first cousin in some states? They don't matter then. What no genitsl reference in the constitution?

LOL. So desperate to talk about anything but gay marriage. Why is that?

Pietro Armando wrote:

You're a trollette...sounds like smurfette although she's much better looking. There's not one compelling argument for it.

Other than equal rights, no.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Not one compelling reason why marriage after thousands of years of human societal evolution, cross time and cross culturally, as a male female union, has to be redefined.

No reason other than equal rights.

Pietro Armando wrote:

How the heck in the name of God you say doesn't exist, did our society survive into the 21st century under the quaint notion of marriage as a union of husband and wife ORIENTATED around their sexual physical union, and the products of that union, children named Rosie?
Have men suddenly become pregnant? Women producing sperm?

Troll boy, you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Should women demand urinals in the women's bathrooms to demonstrate equality to men? Men's bathrooms demand feminine pad dispensing vending machines?

Must suck to be as stupid as you are.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
My response, you and your fellow troll are trying to kill the forum by flooding it with red herring posts. Guess you know there is no real argument against gay marriage, and that is why you are doing it. Your fellow troll is clearly flying under false colors, and is really against gay marriage, just like you are.

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?

Would you like to give us your enlightened response Miss Thing?

And don't say because it's a fish.

[Pietro Armando]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes! And soon other ships will sail too. In it's wake.
Oh that's right! Those ships are "illegal"! So that can't happen. Silly me.

You're right....the good ship Poly lop....everybody...all together now...."On the good ship Poly lop...it's a short trip to the equality shop...."

[sona]

hi friends

[Pietro Armando]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
My response, you and your fellow troll are trying to kill the forum by flooding it with red herring posts. Guess you know there is no real argument against gay marriage, and that is why you are doing it. Your fellow troll is clearly flying under false colors, and is really against gay marriage, just like you are.

Trollette

First I not "against gay marriage", if a same sex couple wish to marry so be it, they can find themselves a minister, priest, rabbi, imam, temple priestess, etc. and marry, that doesn't mean the state has to, or should, legally designate the relationship as marriage. Second I believe the state should offer some form of legal framework for SSCs or others, that doesn't require fundamentally altering the understanding of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Lastly, whine and complain all you want, but Kody and his ladies are knocking on the marriage equality clubhouse door. Are ya gonna let them in, or ignore the obvious hypocrisy in ignoring them, and their parallel quest for legal recognition?

[sona]

anybody is online now who want 2 chat wid me

[sona]

all of u sleeping

[Frankie RIzzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Troll boy, you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.

The why can't I marry my sister?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Trollette
First I not "against gay marriage", if a same sex couple wish to marry so be it, they can find themselves a minister, priest, rabbi, imam, temple priestess, etc. and marry, that doesn't mean the state has to, or should, legally designate the relationship as marriage. Second I believe the state should offer some form of legal framework for SSCs or others, that doesn't require fundamentally altering the understanding of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Lastly, whine and complain all you want, but Kody and his ladies are knocking on the marriage equality clubhouse door. Are ya gonna let them in, or ignore the obvious hypocrisy in ignoring them, and their parallel quest for legal recognition?

Kody and his wives are not really advocating marriage equality, they're just faking it to try and trick Rose_NoHo!

Too Funny!

[sheesh void of hate]

KiMare wrote:

Brian_G wrote:
If you remove gender diversity from marriage in the name of same sex marriage, to create a new standard of gender segregated marriage...
To make your government gender blind to mothers, sisters, daughters, fathers, brothers and sons;
That's on you. We naturally reject ersatz gender equality. Women in combat units is a sick joke!
<quoted text>
Really.
Please justify the discrimination of allowing homosexuals to room together in the military, but disallowing heterosexuals to do the same.
Please justify the discrimination of lowering the physical standards in the military so women can qualify for combat.
You are denial disguised as an idiot.
Smirk.

More wisdom from the forum halfwit. Brian wanders all over the place with his wit and never makes sense. Now we've got you bringing in the military standards. We're talking about access to marriage.

Can you,BTW, show proof of the housing rules allowing gays to room together but not straights?

[Frankie RIzzo]

sheesh void of hate wrote:

<quoted text>
More wisdom from the forum halfwit. Brian wanders all over the place with his wit and never makes sense. Now we've got you bringing in the military standards. We're talking about access to marriage.
Can you,BTW, show proof of the housing rules allowing gays to room together but not straights?

Traditionally men quarter with men and women with women regardless of sexual orientation in the US military.

When I was in Vietnam, I served side by side with one of the bravest men I ever met. He happened to be gay. We slept in the same compartment aboard ship. This was in the days when if someone was suspected of being gay, he disappeared. Discharged and gone and no one hardly even asked why. Many of us knew. No one said a word about it.

Barring gays from the military was always just plain stupid if you ask me. We need all the help we can get and so what if he's secretly eyeballing your willy! At least someone wants you!

[Bruno]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
The why can't I marry my sister?

You can. But first you'd have to divorce your brother, gaywad.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
spam!

Hows the vote total today numbnutz

[Rose_NoHo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Trollette
First I not "against gay marriage", if a same sex couple wish to marry so be it, they can find themselves a minister, priest, rabbi, imam, temple priestess, etc.

Why do you play games? Nobody gives a crap about that. The only issue is the legal recognition of gay marriages. You know that, why play games? Oh, yeah, games are all you got.

Pietro Armando wrote:

and marry, that doesn't mean the state has to, or should, legally designate the relationship as marriage.
Second I believe the state should offer some form of legal framework for SSCs or others, that doesn't require fundamentally altering the understanding of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

That means you're against gay marriage.
You are against equal rights.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Lastly, whine and complain all you want, but Kody and his ladies are knocking on the marriage equality clubhouse door. Are ya gonna let them in, or ignore the obvious hypocrisy in ignoring them, and their parallel quest for legal recognition?

They already have marriage equality. Whoever they are, they are treated equally when it comes to marriage.

[Brian_G]

sheesh void of hate wrote:

OMG! Does it ever say anything intelligent?

How intelligent is it for government to decide husbands and fathers are disposable and marriage can be gender segregated without harming diversity and integration? What's the point of forcing government to become gender blind and refuse to distinguish between brother and sister, mother and father or husband and wife? Same sex marriage is unintelligent.

[Pattie4s]

Look we have the same lost soles posting their out of towners horse apples, again.

[KiMare]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Traditionally men quarter with men and women with women regardless of sexual orientation in the US military.
When I was in Vietnam, I served side by side with one of the bravest men I ever met. He happened to be gay. We slept in the same compartment aboard ship. This was in the days when if someone was suspected of being gay, he disappeared. Discharged and gone and no one hardly even asked why. Many of us knew. No one said a word about it.
Barring gays from the military was always just plain stupid if you ask me. We need all the help we can get and so what if he's secretly eyeballing your willy! At least someone wants you!

Your one experience overrules all other situations?

Do you know the rape/abuse issues that have arisen since women have moved into more positions?

Do you know about the unwanted 'pillow fights' a gay Congressman conducted in the Navy?

I made no assertion anyone was not brave.

I pointed out the discrimination of orientation segregation for heterosexuals. That is simply a fact.

I pointed out the issue of sexual behavior risking military competency. That is simply a fact.

I pointed out that standards were lowered/ignored to satisfy politically 'correct' stupidity.

Thank you for your service.