Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Snappy]

Will the pencil lipped fool from out of town who keeps posting snap-poola, shut up

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>LOl, trees to follow

Remember when they used that against same sex marriage fruitcake? You are the civil rights champion of us all, you must remember that. It was stupid then, remember? It still is.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Ever since I began researching the topic of polygamy, I have been bothered by the idea that this practice is justifiably criminalized because it is associated with the ills of child exploitation, abuse of women and children, etc.

But, within the criminal code, we have clear and specific provisions to target these offences, which are clearly harmful, and which any reasonable person considers intolerable and deserving of criminal sanction. So why does the law banning polygamy remain, a provision which, by the way, is almost never invoked and when it has been used, has led to few convictions that carried relatively minimal sentences?

If someone commits a crime, prosecute the hell out of them NO MATTER THE TYPE OF MARRIAGE THEY CHOOSE.

Perhaps I need to explain this to you clowns in simpler terms. It means we have perfectly good laws against the crimes you fear are associated with polygamy. Therefore why is polygamy illegal?

[Big D]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

Necessary repeat of disclaimer, for the dopes who forgot again-
You have to try and understand, when I talk of marriage equality, it is understood I am talking about COMMITTED CONSENSUAL ADULTS.
In every case of opposite sex, same sex, incest and poly marriage. Get it? Got it? Good!

and the decline of the influence of religion in America that made it possible.

[Big D]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
And I don't want to marry her, I just want to discuss the right to marry her. Too bad you don't understand the difference.

I dont thinkg your dog does either

[Big D]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
What I understand is that you are ignorant.
You are trying to tell me that polygamy has a bad and that is justified. Ignorance and bigotry plain and simple.

No I have been trying to tell you that it has an image problem, you don’t want to believe it.

so when you try to get your pet obsession on the ballot you will be facing a very unexpected surprise

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
So that means to you that the other few million poly marriages around the world should be made illegal?
"Cool beans" fruitcake!

Go back and read your post dummy. Why are you now talking about what is allready legal in other countries? Still deflecting?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
and the decline of the influence of religion in America that made it possible.

More people in traditional MARRIAGES are child molesters and welfare cheats than people in poly MARRIAGES by a factor of about 15,500,000 to 1.

Watch, you'll whine about the mention of poly, but not traditional marriage! Priceless.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
So that means to you that the other few million poly marriages around the world should be made illegal?
"Cool beans" fruitcake!

"it is understood I am talking about COMMITTED CONSENSUAL ADULTS.
In every case of opposite sex, same sex, incest and poly marriage. Get it"

I posted you a link, thats not the case in EVERY poly marriage. Why do you support child molestation?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Go back and read your post dummy. Why are you now talking about what is allready legal in other countries? Still deflecting?

Ever since I began researching the topic of polygamy, I have been bothered by the idea that this practice is justifiably criminalized because it is associated with the ills of child exploitation, abuse of women and children, etc.

But, within the criminal code, we have clear and specific provisions to target these offences, which are clearly harmful, and which any reasonable person considers intolerable and deserving of criminal sanction. So why does the law banning polygamy remain, a provision which, by the way, is almost never invoked and when it has been used, has led to few convictions that carried relatively minimal sentences?

If someone commits a crime, prosecute the hell out of them NO MATTER THE TYPE OF MARRIAGE THEY CHOOSE.

Perhaps I need to explain this to you clowns in simpler terms. It means we have perfectly good laws against the crimes you fear are associated with polygamy. Therefore why is polygamy illegal?

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

Ever since I began researching the topic of polygamy, I have been bothered by the idea that this practice is justifiably criminalized because it is associated with the ills of child exploitation, abuse of women and children, etc.
But, within the criminal code, we have clear and specific provisions to target these offences, which are clearly harmful, and which any reasonable person considers intolerable and deserving of criminal sanction. So why does the law banning polygamy remain, a provision which, by the way, is almost never invoked and when it has been used, has led to few convictions that carried relatively minimal sentences?
If someone commits a crime, prosecute the hell out of them NO MATTER THE TYPE OF MARRIAGE THEY CHOOSE.
Perhaps I need to explain this to you clowns in simpler terms. It means we have perfectly good laws against the crimes you fear are associated with polygamy. Therefore why is polygamy illegal?

Look up the existing laws. One more time, I nor Big D care if you want five wives, hire a lawyer and go for it. Are we clear?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
He said Dogs, I was expecting Goats as that is what the "arguments against same sex" pamphlet calls for

Remember when they used that against same sex marriage fruitcake? It was stupid then, remember? It still is.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I dont thinkg your dog does either

Remember when they used that against same sex marriage fruitcake? It was stupid then, remember? It still is.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
More people in traditional MARRIAGES are child molesters and welfare cheats than people in poly MARRIAGES by a factor of about 15,500,000 to 1.
Watch, you'll whine about the mention of poly, but not traditional marriage! Priceless.

No one is arguing that fact dummy. I cant help pervert heterosexuals. Gawddd you are stoopid. We told you its the public's perception of Poly marriage. Just like the public's perception of same sex marriage. Its up to you and those who support poly marriage to change it.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
No I have been trying to tell you that it has an image problem, you don’t want to believe it.
so when you try to get your pet obsession on the ballot you will be facing a very unexpected surprise

Yes you are trying to tell me it has an image problem. It does. But what I object to is how much of an image problem you think it has and the fact that you insist this image problem is justified. That's ignorance and bigotry plain and simple.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Ever since I began researching the topic of polygamy, I have been bothered by the idea that this practice is justifiably criminalized because it is associated with the ills of child exploitation, abuse of women and children, etc.
But, within the criminal code, we have clear and specific provisions to target these offences, which are clearly harmful, and which any reasonable person considers intolerable and deserving of criminal sanction. So why does the law banning polygamy remain, a provision which, by the way, is almost never invoked and when it has been used, has led to few convictions that carried relatively minimal sentences?
If someone commits a crime, prosecute the hell out of them NO MATTER THE TYPE OF MARRIAGE THEY CHOOSE.
Perhaps I need to explain this to you clowns in simpler terms. It means we have perfectly good laws against the crimes you fear are associated with polygamy. Therefore why is polygamy illegal?

Hey, why not keep posting the same post?

[Big D]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Remember when they used that against same sex marriage fruitcake? It was stupid then, remember? It still is.

You still are, by the playbook

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Look up the existing laws. One more time, I nor Big D care if you want five wives, hire a lawyer and go for it. Are we clear?

You can discuss Mars without going there, you can discuss equality without hiring a lawyer. This is a discussion forum jackass. DISCUSSION.

Talk about "deflection".

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Look up the existing laws. One more time, I nor Big D care if you want five wives, hire a lawyer and go for it. Are we clear?

How many times do I have to tell you dummy, I don't want five wives. I want to discuss marriage equality.

You are (supposed to be) discussing gay marriage, do you want to marry a man? If not stop discussing it!

See how silly you are?

[Frankie RIzzo]

CENSORSHIP SUCKS!

Hope that helped.