Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you so intent on hijacking this thread?

Asking you provocative questions about the ban on alternate forms of marriage is not "hijacking this thread".

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
OK then Your Honor, equal protection. The 14th amendment.
What a dope!
So your position is that poly should not be allowed because?

Equal protection, yes.... unless the State can show a legitimate interest in denying it. Do you think simple arithmetic might come into play when talking about equal? How is 3 equal to 2? How is 5 equal to two? How is 3 equal to 5?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
and I gave my response, take an English reading course.
I have no problem with the concept, I have a huge problem with many of the adherents of it.
I dont see any movemnet on this issue for the next couple of decades because of those adherents actions and beliefs, If even then.
I don’t think I can get any simpler than that for you, do you want me to have my 9 year old grandchild answer for you in language you will understan?
and I gave my response, take an english reading course

Most homophobes have a "huge problem" with the adherents of same sex marriage.

Your "huge problem" with the adherents of polygamy is no better.

You and Janey-Doody really ought to start that reading thread!

What a dope!

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Asking you provocative questions about the ban on alternate forms of marriage is not "hijacking this thread".

This thread is: Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Ok?

The judge did not overturn the ban on polygamy.

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go again! Start a reading comprehension thread and get a better straw man. I don't think you'll convince many people that I have poor reading skills.
Maybe break out the arithmetic one and try that again! Poly shouldn't be allowed because 3 is not equal to two!
What a dope!

Are you trying to say three is equal to two? Maybe on your planet. Is 5 equal to two? Is 5 equal to three?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>Equal protection, yes.... unless the State can show a legitimate interest in denying it. Do you think simple arithmetic might come into play when talking about equal? How is 3 equal to 2? How is 5 equal to two? How is 3 equal to 5?

The arithmetic argument against poly marriage again!(Heard it, remember dummy?).

Priceless!

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go again! Start a reading comprehension thread and get a better straw man. I don't think you'll convince many people that I have poor reading skills.

I don't need to convince anybody. It's evident from your posts that you don't understand what you read.

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Most homophobes have a "huge problem" with the adherents of same sex marriage.
Your "huge problem" with the adherents of polygamy is no better.
You and Janey-Doody really ought to start that reading thread!
What a dope!

Lean to read English.... is English you native language? Maybe I can have what I am saying translated into whatever language is used where you come from.

I don’t have a huge problem with poly marriage. I have a problem with other crimes that are nearly always associated with it. And will not tolerate many of the current adherents of it and their cruel molestation and mistreatment of their young, or the fraud they use to gain multiple government assistance checks at our expense.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
This thread is: Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage
Ok?
The judge did not overturn the ban on polygamy.

He didn't? Oh, nevermind! YUK!YUK!YUK!

Remember Gilda Radner as Emily Litella? You're a real old auntie you've probably seen her.

But seriously, don't you agree that the judge's decision is not bad for the future of legalized polygamy?

Stop with the straw man and ad hominem. Why are you so intent on hijacking this thread for you narrow purposes of cheerleading one form of marriage over another?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Lean to read English.... is English you native language? Maybe I can have what I am saying translated into whatever language is used where you come from.
I don’t have a huge problem with poly marriage. I have a problem with other crimes that are nearly always associated with it. And will not tolerate many of the current adherents of it and their cruel molestation and mistreatment of their young, or the fraud they use to gain multiple government assistance checks at our expense.

I don’t have a huge problem with same sex marriage. I have a problem with other crimes that are nearly always associated with it. And will not tolerate many of the current adherents of it and their cruel molestation and mistreatment of their young, or the fraud they use to gain multiple government assistance checks at our expense.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Lean to read English.... is English you native language? Maybe I can have what I am saying translated into whatever language is used where you come from.
I don’t have a huge problem with poly marriage. I have a problem with other crimes that are nearly always associated with it. And will not tolerate many of the current adherents of it and their cruel molestation and mistreatment of their young, or the fraud they use to gain multiple government assistance checks at our expense.

I said "Your huge problem WITH THE ADHERENTS OF POLYGAMY is no better."

Learn to read English. Perhaps it is your second language? Perhaps you are a dope? A liar?

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
He didn't? Oh, nevermind! YUK!YUK!YUK!
Remember Gilda Radner as Emily Litella? You're a real old auntie you've probably seen her.
But seriously, don't you agree that the judge's decision is not bad for the future of legalized polygamy?
Stop with the straw man and ad hominem. Why are you so intent on hijacking this thread for you narrow purposes of cheerleading one form of marriage over another?

You are hilarious!

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
I don’t have a huge problem with same sex marriage. I have a problem with other crimes that are nearly always associated with it. And will not tolerate many of the current adherents of it and their cruel molestation and mistreatment of their young, or the fraud they use to gain multiple government assistance checks at our expense.

What legally married gay couple is getting multiple government assistence checks?

You're about as bright as a black hole.

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
I don’t have a huge problem with same sex marriage. I have a problem with other crimes that are nearly always associated with it. And will not tolerate many of the current adherents of it and their cruel molestation and mistreatment of their young, or the fraud they use to gain multiple government assistance checks at our expense.

I always knew that was where you were going, and have been saying so for weeks.

Standard bait and switch tactic, all the opponents of same sex marriage use, and the funny part is the comparison they make is to religious people.

dishonest to the core

Your argument will get no where you relies

Same sex marriage is happening and will continue to happen in more and more states and countries.

Your pet issue is going exactly nowhere.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>I don't need to convince anybody. It's evident from your posts that you don't understand what you read.

Sure Miss Thing.

So, why do you think the judge's decision has absolutely no bearing on the future of legalized polygamy?

Type slowly maybe I'll understand your answer. But you have to give me an answer before I can understand it silly!

[Bruno]

Pizzo, you are a real wack job . . .

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
You are hilarious!

Thanks! You're not. Evidence your comedy career fail! Boy you were bad!

But let's get on topic, you always go off. Why do you feel the judge's decision has absolutely no relevance to the future of legalizing poly?

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure Miss Thing.
So, why do you think the judge's decision has absolutely no bearing on the future of legalized polygamy?
Type slowly maybe I'll understand your answer. But you have to give me an answer before I can understand it silly!

Because the trial testimony was about SSM and NOT poly, the ruling was about SSM, not poly, the appeal was about SSM, not poly, the appeals court ruling was about SSM and not poly. The appeal to SCOTUS is about SSM, not poly. When SCOTUS overturns Prop 8, SSM will be legal again, poly will NOT.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I always knew that was where you were going, and have been saying so for weeks.
Standard bait and switch tactic, all the opponents of same sex marriage use, and the funny part is the comparison they make is to religious people.
dishonest to the core
Your argument will get no where you relies
Same sex marriage is happening and will continue to happen in more and more states and countries.
Your pet issue is going exactly nowhere.

I am not opposed to same sex marriage. I fully support it. I have been to several gay weddings (have you?) I have friends and family that I love who are in same sex marriages. I resent your dishonest attempts to demonize me.

I am trying to discuss marriage equality. The only reason you will not engage is because you are attempting to avoid revealing your hypocrisy. And failing, I might add.

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks! You're not. Evidence your comedy career fail! Boy you were bad!
But let's get on topic, you always go off. Why do you feel the judge's decision has absolutely no relevance to the future of legalizing poly?

Maybe because there was NOTHING about polygamy in his decision..... geez.