Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201846 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145711 Jun 12, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You have conceded that three or more is greater than two. One only needs be able to count in order to see that polygamists seek greater protection of the law for three or more persons.
Would you care to answer whether you are actually making a legitimate argument for polygamy, or if you are just foolish enough to think that you have a valid argument against gay marriage here?
<quoted text>
Why, polygamy, of course.
<quoted text>
Why is it that people who make this argument cannot count?
<quoted text>
And your point is what, exactly? The constitution guarantees equal protection of the law for all persons.
<quoted text>
3>2, it is not equal to two.
<quoted text>
The valid argument against it is that it seeks inherently greater protection of the law, of course; a fact that has been upheld, time and time again, in court.
Would you care to come back to the topic at hand and offer a valid argument on the topic?
<quoted text>
Of course, this is merely another logical fallacy. There is no rational basis to limit the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman, thereby expressly abridging the rights of same sex couples unconstitutionally.
Read the 14th Amendment.
<quoted text>
Well, let us think about this a moment. Homosexuals seek equal protection of the law to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing, which is equal to marriage as allowed in every state in the union. Those seeking polygamy seek greater protection for three or more people, which is not allowed in any state of the union.
You're a real riot! What ridiculous nonsense.

A 3 person marriage seeks the SAME protection as a 2 person marriage, nothing more. Get it? Got it? Good.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145712 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
You repeatedly threaten me because you get frustrated and angry when you cannot effectively rebut my posts.
Actually, often your posts rebut themselves since they fail to rise to the level of having a rational basis.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145713 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
You're a real riot! What ridiculous nonsense.
A 3 person marriage seeks the SAME protection as a 2 person marriage, nothing more. Get it? Got it? Good.
I don't know that I can help you. If you are incapable of counting beyond two, then that is your own deficiency. Ann intelligent person could understand that 3 or more is inherently greater than two, and that polygamists seek greater protection of the law for three or more persons.

Do you legitimately mean to make a case for polygamy, or are you actually dim enough to think this is a valid argument against same sex marriage?
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145715 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's true and you'll probably never have the extreme displeasure (to you as a bigot) of ever meeting one. So why such hostility towards them?
Is it the Mormon thing? Or just me? YUK!YUK!YUK!
Just you.

Because I've never shown hostility towards polygamists. It would make about as much sense as me showing hostility towards Casper the Friendly Ghost moron due to the fact neither is in my world.

LOL!!!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145716 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't you serve? Protecting our freedom is only for suckers? You were scared? Why?
As it is you failed to convince me you did so I need not answer.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145717 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what Tony Soprano would often say, It's not a threat! It's "advice".
So you love me so much you're giving me advice on how to avoid getting beaten with a baseball bat by you? No one really believes that Dan. You repeatedly threaten me because you get frustrated and angry when you cannot effectively rebut my posts.
What does it say about you, keyboard tough guy?
Of course.

What else happens in your world?
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145718 Jun 12, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know that I can help you. If you are incapable of counting beyond two, then that is your own deficiency. Ann intelligent person could understand that 3 or more is inherently greater than two, and that polygamists seek greater protection of the law for three or more persons.
Do you legitimately mean to make a case for polygamy, or are you actually dim enough to think this is a valid argument against same sex marriage?
No I have no case against same sex marriage. I see no harm in it and I support it.

I get this over and over, accusations that I am against same sex marriage. It's irrational. Why would I support polygamy but not same sex marriage? I'll answer for you- You're paranoid and you are afraid I'm pulling the slippery slope argument. That argument has little merit. Right? Right. It's easily countered. Perhaps you should do that instead of irrationally avoiding it with your "greater protection" nonsense.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145719 Jun 12, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
As it is you failed to convince me you did so I need not answer.
I'm not trying to convince you. Just saying you are threatening to beat up an old veteran, maybe shame you a little bit, tough guy. But I guess you have no shame.

Answer my question, why didn't you serve?
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145720 Jun 12, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, often your posts rebut themselves since they fail to rise to the level of having a rational basis.
To him they do.

Frank's spin is that if you cannot back polygamy then you in turn cannot back gay marriage given both are outside the traditional 2 party opposite sexed traditional form of marriage. If you back one and not the other you then are hypocritical.

Given his credence on this matter amounts to a warm bowl of shit since he has no direct interest in polygamy and has yet to address those that banned it, the government, let alone he has no real interest in either - polygamy or gay marriage - from my take he's just some lonely MoFo looking for a little internet attention in my book anyway.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145721 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
No I have no case against same sex marriage. I see no harm in it and I support it.
I get this over and over, accusations that I am against same sex marriage. It's irrational. Why would I support polygamy but not same sex marriage?
Well, the two really have nothing to do with one another. One seeks equal protection of the law for two consenting adults to marry, while the other seeks greater protection for three or more.

Regardless of that fact, it has no bearing upon the topic at hand.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
I'll answer for you- You're paranoid and you are afraid I'm pulling the slippery slope argument.
Not at all. However, I may have been confused by the fact that you are making an argument that has no bearing upon the topic at hand.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
That argument has little merit. Right? Right. It's easily countered. Perhaps you should do that instead of irrationally avoiding it with your "greater protection" nonsense.
No, that is just a matter of simple counting. 3>2. What is more, it has absolutely no bearing upon the topic at hand. Thanks for clarifying that you are simply off topic.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145722 Jun 12, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course.
What else happens in your world?
You expect anyone to believe you are giving me advice on how to avoid getting beaten with a baseball bat by you in my house because you love me?

No one believes it. So what's left to believe? That it was a threat. And of course it was. You don't have any effective argument against marriage equality, you get angry and frustrated so you resort to violence. Like any common thug.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145723 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not trying to convince you. Just saying you are threatening to beat up an old veteran, maybe shame you a little bit, tough guy. But I guess you have no shame.
Answer my question, why didn't you serve?
Prove you did.

As it is I never said I did not.

This may shock the shit out of you but a lot of people in here did serve Frank. I know of a few posters you've been bantering with who did.

I don't believe a distinguished veteran would use his record in an anonymous forum as a tool like you have Frank. Sorry.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145724 Jun 12, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
To him they do.
Frank's spin is that if you cannot back polygamy then you in turn cannot back gay marriage given both are outside the traditional 2 party opposite sexed traditional form of marriage. If you back one and not the other you then are hypocritical.
Given his credence on this matter amounts to a warm bowl of shit since he has no direct interest in polygamy and has yet to address those that banned it, the government, let alone he has no real interest in either - polygamy or gay marriage - from my take he's just some lonely MoFo looking for a little internet attention in my book anyway.
You have no direct interest in same sex marriage.

You don't have to have a vested interest in a subject to discuss it. But how would you know anything about intelligent discussion?
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145725 Jun 12, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, the two really have nothing to do with one another. One seeks equal protection of the law for two consenting adults to marry, while the other seeks greater protection for three or more.
Regardless of that fact, it has no bearing upon the topic at hand.
<quoted text>
Not at all. However, I may have been confused by the fact that you are making an argument that has no bearing upon the topic at hand.
<quoted text>
No, that is just a matter of simple counting. 3>2. What is more, it has absolutely no bearing upon the topic at hand. Thanks for clarifying that you are simply off topic.
Ah, so now I'm "simply off topic".
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145726 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No I have no case against same sex marriage. I see no harm in it and I support it.
I would disagree.

Had you had no issue against gay marriage you would have no purposely continued to argue polygamy needs to be tied in with it.

It's my opinion you've taken this stance no in the interest of polygamy but in he fervent wish gay marriage be identified with polygamy in a shock factor valuation so it will convince others to not back gay marriage.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145727 Jun 12, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove you did.
As it is I never said I did not.
This may shock the shit out of you but a lot of people in here did serve Frank. I know of a few posters you've been bantering with who did.
I don't believe a distinguished veteran would use his record in an anonymous forum as a tool like you have Frank. Sorry.
So you won't tell us why you didn't serve. Got it.

I'm not bragging, just stating that you are threatening an old man veteran and shame on you for doing it. And why did you do it? To get the better of me in a stupid topix thread. Pitiful. It displays your poor character very well.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145728 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You expect anyone to believe you are giving me advice on how to avoid getting beaten with a baseball bat by you in my house because you love me?
No one believes it. So what's left to believe? That it was a threat. And of course it was. You don't have any effective argument against marriage equality, you get angry and frustrated so you resort to violence. Like any common thug.
But I don't love you Frank.

If you want to think it was a threat then do so. By all means.

Had it been an actual threat you could have taken action or the police could be involved.

I worry about that happening like I worry about being an alien spaceship though.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145729 Jun 12, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I would disagree.
Had you had no issue against gay marriage you would have no purposely continued to argue polygamy needs to be tied in with it.
It's my opinion you've taken this stance no in the interest of polygamy but in he fervent wish gay marriage be identified with polygamy in a shock factor valuation so it will convince others to not back gay marriage.
Your opinion is stupid, paranoid and counterproductive.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#145730 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you're going to lie and say you are not angry with me. Priceless.
Saying I'm not angry with you isn't a lie. Your constant lies don't warrant anger, they warrant pity and embarrasment for you. That's the sum of any emotional output about you on my end dearie.

Here's a clue though cupcake, one can be irritated and angry at the repetitious bullshyt your post without actually having any type of emotional response about you personally. You see Franky, I don't really give a rat's patoot about you personally. I'm only here to address the lies you post. If you are having some type of emotional response about any of the posters you are YUKing it up with, you might want to consider speaking to a professional about that.

Thanks for starting my day with a chuckle nitwit.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145731 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no direct interest in same sex marriage.
You don't have to have a vested interest in a subject to discuss it. But how would you know anything about intelligent discussion?
Sure I do.

I feel that if we ban same sex marriage based on nothing more than disdain who's to say they couldn't move my mother from her house based on a vote given she too is a crusty old badger.

We live by one set of rules in America Frank. We allow all our citizens to hold a full set of rights, liberties and freedoms unless those said freedoms produce harm.

Gay marriage produces no harm that I have found therefore we should allow it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cupertino Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Bushnell & Assoc - Ronald G Bushnell CPA (Feb '11) 23 hr fringe 2
News Ruckus Stock Roars On School Wi-Fi, Cable TV Fri wirelesswatch 1
27year old man sexy looking for some kinky fun ... Jul 30 JustCallMeFun 3
News Depression still a top problem in high schools Jul 29 johnjones125 3
News Contra Costa Times/Oakland Tribune editorial: M... Jul 28 Jodyshouse 1
News A Google Self-Driving Car Is Hit from Behind, L... Jul 24 glasspilot 2
News Fairfield man disputes claims in Solano restrai... Jun '15 SOLSod 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Cupertino Mortgages