Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments (Page 7,800)

Showing posts 155,981 - 156,000 of199,067
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178875
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Gawd are you stoopid. I never said the Judges decision had any thing to do with polygamy. I will run it past Big D, I think you full O shiet
I thought you did. It's hard to tell when you just post dopey ad hominem and references to asshat polls. So you are now saying it won't have any effect at all?

It seems to me just common sense that it will make it easier for people to accept poly when they accept same sex marriage. It seems keeping same sex marriage banned will make it more likely poly stays banned too.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178876
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You say it will have no effect whatsoever but then you say it will make things worse for polygamy. Which is it?
Well Frankiee, caught you in some more bullshiet HUH....

Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be hard to do. If you had had paid attention you would have seen. You are not here very often. And when you are you just post ad hominem.
Janey-Doody is adamant the judges decision had absolutely no effect on polygamy. You and Big D I think believe it does bode well for poly (I'm not sure though because you mostly just post dopey ad hominem) Also Rock Hudson believes it bodes well for poly. For just a few examples.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178877
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Was this not your post Frankie boy???
"Frankie RIzzo wrote:
Anything but substance eh, jackass? When you're done with your petty personal attacks about "obsession" and such other stupidity perhaps you'll finally get on topic?
Don't you agree that the judge overturning California's ban on same-sex marriage bodes well for all marriage equality?
The question is not off topic. But I bet your response will be."
Is that not a question near the end?? Oh and speaking of ad hominem attacks, you seem to be the master.
so it is obvious that since you can't address the logical answer, attacked the messenger.
BTW I'm betting you're a big Frankie Goes to Hollywood fan. Probably a Village People, Wham and George Michael fan too
Frankie boy isn't it about time for you to exit the closet? Embrace your sexuality, boy
A question in a discussion is to lead to further discussion, not just to answer.

No. I am not gay. And I consider anyone who uses gay as an insult even if they are gay themselves is stupid. There is nothing wrong with being gay. If I was I'd be proud.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178878
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am of course talking about consenting committed adults, so scratch the first 3 items of your stupid list.
Modern science has debunked the myth about close relatives procreating and health issues, keep up!
And besides procreation has nothing to do with marriage right? Right.
How would a loving commited marriage of three men harm you?
The slippery slope is real, but not a reason to deny equal rights to same sex or poly marriages.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf
If by modern science you mean the Bible and the story of Sodom & Gorrmorah and Lot and his daughters then yes the myth of marrying close relatives has been debunked

However, if you are talking about modern medical science, no it hasn't. There are plenty of case studies that bore this out. It actually played a role in the science of genelogy. Any college biology course covers this topic, which explains why you don't have a clue

http://www.hemophilia.org/NHFWeb/MainPgs/Main...

http://www.slideshare.net/ensteve/4-haemophil...

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178879
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you did. It's hard to tell when you just post dopey ad hominem and references to asshat polls. So you are now saying it won't have any effect at all?
It seems to me just common sense that it will make it easier for people to accept poly when they accept same sex marriage. It seems keeping same sex marriage banned will make it more likely poly stays banned too.
No fluck stick I said I don't care if you want to have 5 wives or marry your brother. I never agreed with your silly arse. Gawd your stooopid
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178880
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That has been achieved already, many times over, and not just by me, there are a lot of folks that have done that.
You are free to discuss equal rights all you want, just expect me to pounce when you tell others to stay on topic... cause it is fun.
You want the answer again?
It will have no effect on it whatsoever.
Any positive push by the allowing of gay marriage will be and already has been offset by the lessening of tolerance for fanatical religious fundamentalism and cult groups. Along with their decline goes the interest in your obsession as well.
We've already been through this. What makes you think I need your permission to discuss the topic or anything else?

You seriously don't think removing the ban on gay marriage will make it easier to remove the ban on polygamy some day?

By what logic do you insist that there will be no effect?

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178881
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am of course talking about consenting committed adults, so scratch the first 3 items of your stupid list.
Modern science has debunked the myth about close relatives procreating and health issues, keep up!
And besides procreation has nothing to do with marriage right? Right.
How would a loving commited marriage of three men harm you?
The slippery slope is real, but not a reason to deny equal rights to same sex or poly marriages.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf
I answered your question but I guess you have ADD

4. marriage above all else is a social contract. Inheritances, medical decisions, etc are all part of that contract. With polygamy, the lines of who gets what, who makes what decisions are blurred and lead to legal battles. Does one of the wives who is not the mother of one of the children in the marriage get to make medical decisions for that child is a prime example of why polygamy is illegal.
These are all rational, logical reasons why the slippery slope fallacy is moot. However, judging by your previous posts, intelligent logical debate is not your forte. Debating with a wall has better results.

same sex marriage and polygamy are two separate issues. and comparing them as equal is a fallacy..something you seem to use quite frequently.

as I said marriage is a social contract. Polygamy, besides a host of problems it raises, legal issues is the biggest.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178882
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>No fluck stick I said I don't care if you want to have 5 wives or marry your brother. I never agreed with your silly arse. Gawd your stooopid
I don't want five wives or to marry my brother. I want to discuss equal rights.

Do you want to marry a man? If not why are you arguing for same sex marriage?

Don't be so stupid.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178883
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You say it will have no effect whatsoever but then you say it will make things worse for polygamy. Which is it?
Of course you donít understand "no effect whatsoever" the net positive push is equaled by the negative push.

It doesnít matter that you didnít comprehend what I said, others here will.

Not that it will matter, no one other than you gives a crap about it.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178884
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
A question in a discussion is to lead to further discussion, not just to answer.
No. I am not gay. And I consider anyone who uses gay as an insult even if they are gay themselves is stupid. There is nothing wrong with being gay. If I was I'd be proud.
so if it was a rhetoric question, why did you chastise those who you felt didn't answer it????

C'mon Frankie boy, try and get your story straight.

BTW Why are you filled with so much anger?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178885
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Frankiee, caught you in some more bullshiet HUH....
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be hard to do. If you had had paid attention you would have seen. You are not here very often. And when you are you just post ad hominem.
Janey-Doody is adamant the judges decision had absolutely no effect on polygamy. You and Big D I think believe it does bode well for poly (I'm not sure though because you mostly just post dopey ad hominem) Also Rock Hudson believes it bodes well for poly. For just a few examples.
I thought you said it would be good for poly. Must have been someone else. So sue me.

You really believe it will not have even a tiny effect?

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178886
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
We've already been through this. What makes you think I need your permission to discuss the topic or anything else?
You seriously don't think removing the ban on gay marriage will make it easier to remove the ban on polygamy some day?
By what logic do you insist that there will be no effect?
are these rhetoric questions, or do you want answers?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178887
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want five wives or to marry my brother. I want to discuss equal rights.
Do you want to marry a man? If not why are you arguing for same sex marriage?
Don't be so stupid.
I want you to bring your wife on so we can discuss it with her.

of course you are not actually interested yourself, the slippery slope argument is only made by people trying to influence others to their position.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178888
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want five wives or to marry my brother. I want to discuss equal rights.
Do you want to marry a man? If not why are you arguing for same sex marriage?
Don't be so stupid.
again are these rhetorical questions, or are you really interested in answers. Please indicate if your questions are genuine or rhetorical
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178889
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
I answered your question but I guess you have ADD
4. marriage above all else is a social contract. Inheritances, medical decisions, etc are all part of that contract. With polygamy, the lines of who gets what, who makes what decisions are blurred and lead to legal battles. Does one of the wives who is not the mother of one of the children in the marriage get to make medical decisions for that child is a prime example of why polygamy is illegal.
These are all rational, logical reasons why the slippery slope fallacy is moot. However, judging by your previous posts, intelligent logical debate is not your forte. Debating with a wall has better results.
same sex marriage and polygamy are two separate issues. and comparing them as equal is a fallacy..something you seem to use quite frequently.
as I said marriage is a social contract. Polygamy, besides a host of problems it raises, legal issues is the biggest.
The "we should not allow equal rights for poly because it would be complicated" argument.

Heard it. It's bogus. We can work it out. Complexity is no reason to deny equality.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178890
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
We've already been through this. What makes you think I need your permission to discuss the topic or anything else?
You seriously don't think removing the ban on gay marriage will make it easier to remove the ban on polygamy some day?
By what logic do you insist that there will be no effect?
my bad, rhetorical
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178891
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
are these rhetoric questions, or do you want answers?
He has been given answers, he wants a public display of the "slipery slope" argument you so clearly pointed out.

he will not discuss same sex marrage in any way at all, he is 100% focused on poly, and no matter how many times that tactic fails him, he keeps at it.

I think we are looking at a learning disorder
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178892
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
I answered your question but I guess you have ADD
4. marriage above all else is a social contract. Inheritances, medical decisions, etc are all part of that contract. With polygamy, the lines of who gets what, who makes what decisions are blurred and lead to legal battles. Does one of the wives who is not the mother of one of the children in the marriage get to make medical decisions for that child is a prime example of why polygamy is illegal.
These are all rational, logical reasons why the slippery slope fallacy is moot. However, judging by your previous posts, intelligent logical debate is not your forte. Debating with a wall has better results.
same sex marriage and polygamy are two separate issues. and comparing them as equal is a fallacy..something you seem to use quite frequently.
as I said marriage is a social contract. Polygamy, besides a host of problems it raises, legal issues is the biggest.
The slippery slope is not a fallacy. It is real. If you were better educated and smarter, you would explain how it is real but inconsequential and not a reason to deny rights. You can change people's opinions for the better much quicker if you don't bullshit them.

I support marriage equality. Do you?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178893
Feb 8, 2013
 
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178894
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
my bad, rhetorical
Elmont sucks! Yuck! Too far from the water. Too Queensy. As in the borough.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 155,981 - 156,000 of199,067
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
Davenport Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Davenport Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Davenport People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••