Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Rosie....Rosie.....Rosie....pe rsonally there's no good argument for gay marriage. Frankie may feel different. But ya can't argue for "marriage equality" for those forms of marriage you like, and ignore those you don't. Plural marriage people are knocking on the rainbow clubhouse door. They want some of that "marriage equality" you keep harping about. Don't be mad cuz they want to crash the party. Kody Brown and his wives support you, can't you support them?

I cannot see how you can support one without supporting the other. And none of these clowns ever even attempt to explain it, they just straw man it or filibuster it. Dismiss is as a fish!(red herring)

You are consistent. You don't support either. I am consistent I support both. All these other jackasses support only same sex and are ignorant and bigoted about poly. They are hypocrites, plain and simple.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Too stupid to read what I wrote I see

Great argument fruitcake.

I love it. Anyone who doesn't agree with Rose_NoHo is a troll!

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you two trolls flooding the forum with posts about polygamy because you realize there isn't a good argument against gay marriage?
(One of you is clearly flying false colors, pretending to be for gay marriage.0

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?

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/15...

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?

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Too stupid to read what I wrote I see

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?

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Great argument fruitcake.

Mormon boy, I was offering a suggestion that would make poly marriage as legitimate as any other kind of marriage.

and you still scream and stamp your feet because you think you know what someone is saying while you are actually totally clueless.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Rosie....Rosie.....Rosie....pe rsonally there's no good argument for gay marriage. Frankie may feel different. But ya can't argue for "marriage equality" for those forms of marriage you like, and ignore those you don't. Plural marriage people are knocking on the rainbow clubhouse door. They want some of that "marriage equality" you keep harping about. Don't be mad cuz they want to crash the party. Kody Brown and his wives support you, can't you support them?

If these jackasses represented the gay marriage movement I would be against it! I have to keep reminding myself that they don't.

My main reason for not being against gay marriage is I see no harm in it. And I have gay friends I want to see happy.

If we allow gay marriage I don't see why we can still not allow poly marriage. So there's my position in a nutshell. I see no harm in either.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Mormon boy, I was offering a suggestion that would make poly marriage as legitimate as any other kind of marriage.
and you still scream and stamp your feet because you think you know what someone is saying while you are actually totally clueless.

"Mormon boy"? Are there Italian Mormons?

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Mormon boy...

You're a bigot. Against equal rights due to extreme ignorance.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
"Mormon boy"? Are there Italian Mormons?

I have no idea

still that idea would work

every religion could define "marriage" for their own little private cult

and the government would only recognize the contract of a civil union, which is all the government needs, the legal contract.

One church could call marriage between only a man and a woman
Another church could do same sex marriages
and even Mormon boy could have his poly marriage and call it that

and all would be recognized equally by the law governing civil unions

and they could point fingers at each other all day long calling the other heathens and it would mean absolutely nothing.

The nice part about doing it that way is that even non-relationship unions could be done. 2 older women for example not in a sexual relationship, but close friends with no family could join in such a civil contract for mutual support.

The key to this would be the government no longer recognizing the word... marriage, as any kind of legal term, the government only recognizing civil contracts.

That would solve the mess for everyone.

( granted there would be screaming from the hilltops as currently married couples would be under the same contract. But it would not harm my marriage, I don’t care what the government calls it, and I could care less what any religion calls it, we define our marriage in personal terms, and the law by the legal term )

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
"Mormon boy"? Are there Italian Mormons?

He's just mad. So mad it makes him silly-stupid.

It brings out his inner bigot nicely though.

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
He's just mad. So mad it makes him silly-stupid.
It brings out his inner bigot nicely though.

No you are just too stupid to comprehend what I am saying.

Perhaps your friend can

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no idea
still that idea would work
every religion could define "marriage" for their own little private cult
and the government would only recognize the contract of a civil union, which is all the government needs, the legal contract.
One church could call marriage between only a man and a woman
Another church could do same sex marriages
and even Mormon boy could have his poly marriage and call it that
and all would be recognized equally by the law governing civil unions
and they could point fingers at each other all day long calling the other heathens and it would mean absolutely nothing.
The nice part about doing it that way is that even non-relationship unions could be done. 2 older women for example not in a sexual relationship, but close friends with no family could join in such a civil contract for mutual support.

Same sex couples want nothing short of real marriage just like hetero couples. And I agree with them, they should have it.

So your dopey plan won't work. Hetero couples don't have to settle for civil unions and homosexual couples should not have to either. Nor should polyamorists.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
No you are just too stupid to comprehend what I am saying.
Perhaps your friend can

Is this the start of a new Big D straw man? "You're too stupid to comprehend my enlightened position Mormon boy"?

Too Funny!

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Same sex couples want nothing short of real marriage just like hetero couples. And I agree with them, they should have it.
So your dopey plan won't work. Hetero couples don't have to settle for civil unions and homosexual couples should not have to either. Nor should polyamorists.

Under what I just said, they would be 100% equal, as the government wouldn’t recognize heterosexual marriage either.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Rosie....Rosie.....Rosie....pe rsonally there's no good argument for gay marriage.

Equal rights.
No other argument is needed.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Frankie may feel different. But ya can't argue for "marriage equality" for those forms of marriage you like, and ignore those you don't. Plural marriage people are knocking on the rainbow clubhouse door. They want some of that "marriage equality" you keep harping about.

They have it. They have the same right to marry more than one person everybody else does.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Don't be mad cuz they want to crash the party. Kody Brown and his wives support you, can't you support them?

Stupid troll, equal means "the same". Everybody is treated equally, the same, when it comes to getting married to more than one spouse, so it's not an equal rights issue. Are you really so dumb you don't understand that? But everybody is not treated equally when it comes to getting married to a man (or a woman), so that is an equal rights issue.

Should everybody be able to marry more than one spouse? Well, why not start a forum and talk about it?(Notice, I'm not stating a position on polygamy, it's just a red herring in this forum.)

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>

(Notice, I'm not stating a position on polygamy, it's just a red herring in this forum.)

Exactly right, it is an argument to get people to say something that they can re-apply opposed to same sex marriage

It is an old tactic

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!