Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Quest]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You're talking about it. You know what that means Fruitcake! According to yourself you're an anti-gay bigot.
What a dope!

Silly troll. Do you have a rational argument to present?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Silly troll. Do you have a rational argument to present?

Yes I do, glad you asked!

My rational argument is that if gender is irrelevant to marriage, number is too.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
The best you can do is argue semantics? You know exactly what is meant by the terms in the current popular usage.
Do you have some sort of logical argument, other than pretending intellectual superiority?

I do! Glad you asked.

On what grounds do you insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?

[Jane Dodo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
That is a sad attempt to generalize, pal. There is no such thing as an "anti-gay homophobe", because the term originated in psychiatric circles, used to describe self-loathing in latent homosexuals. The only homophobes are the gays who experience self-hatred and self-denial. Are they bigots ? Who's to say, as they are judging themselves ? They have that right. And to attempt to claim that there no gays, anywhere, wishing to marry children is such an unadulterated lie, that it makes you look foolish. You should stick to facts, and not make up silly little lies that can be examined and found to be false. You run the risk of appearing to be nothing short of another "JodieDoDo", or a "Chongo"... At least, you haven't slipped into "LittleBrain" territory...

A Google search that takes all of 5 seconds proves that you don't know what you are talking about. But then, that's been obvious all along.

Weinberg's term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies. He describes the concept as a medical phobia:

a phobia about homosexuals.... It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for — home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
That describes you as well! Remember when you written in your headline beneath your username? "A.K.A. Mikey Rizzo".

Yes. Of course I remember. I did that to make it clear my old profile had been disappeared like in some seedy banana republic due to my improper thoughts, but I was still the same old political criminal as when I went by Mike DiRucci.

The reason you don't get disappeared is that your posts aren't provocative, they're just dumb. In other words, you're a dope and present no threat to approved thought. And that's the same reason you get little response from me.

Hope that helps Fruitloops!

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
A Google search that takes all of 5 seconds proves that you don't know what you are talking about. But then, that's been obvious all along.
Weinberg's term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies. He describes the concept as a medical phobia:
a phobia about homosexuals.... It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for — home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.

I suspect the real reason the word "homophobia" was coined is to inflame any-gay bigots. As such using it is no better than the people it was designed to be used against. It's inflammatory. And meant to be. So be it. Don't bullsh!t us otherwise.

What's wrong with just plain "bigot"? Or maybe make up a neat sounding one that better describes the reality.

This should be good.

[Slappy Sanchez ESQ]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Homophobia is healthy.

Is A.I.D.S. a disease or a cure?

[Rush]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
How cute! Now the little boy mikey is spreading his insecurities of approval and attention onto us! He knows I'm the big bad round here, but he doesn't like it!

You think your the big bad, but you are just a speck of fly sh!t in a pile of pepper.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Hey! I'm looking for like-minded fun and exciting guys interested in exchanging nude pics. Blacks and gingers especially. Also up for nude Skype chatting.
I'm discreet and clean. Get back to me for further. I'm the real deal so don't expect to be disappointed.

[Rush]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Look child, that fastest man to run the greatest distance was man, child.

You are such a fu@king moron!

[Frankie Rizzo]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Homophobia is healthy.

No it's not. It's stupid.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Skype'd with three guys last night. Totally nude. Got to show off my new pink panties too.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
Pop, dogs, and children. Yeah, these are the thoughts of a rational man.
You are as bad as Kimare. I ought to know.

You ought to.

[Bore On]

Was the last poster a:

1.) Out of towner?

2.) A bore on?

3.) Just a out of work idiot?

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
The best you can do is argue semantics? You know exactly what is meant by the terms in the current popular usage.
Do you have some sort of logical argument, other than pretending intellectual superiority?

Yes, I do. Its current misusage is meant to demonize the anti-gay crowd, and to subjugate it. The current usage of that word is a blatant lie, it is why I take exception to it. I make no pretensions to intellectual ability, I am merely standing up as strongly, for my side, as you are, for yours. Are you expecting any less ? Yes, I have plenty of logical arguments, usually dismissed by your side, as if those arguments mean nothing. We are plagued with propaganda extolling the fact that the majority of Americans support SSM, when, in fact, we do not. I have never met anyone that actually supports it, and I travel the country in a semi, and I ask on the CB radio, I ask people that I deal with, just to see if I am missing anything. I am not. I have even seen a large number of bumper stickers that are being displayed that condemn the notion of SSM. Homosexuality is a behavioral phenomenon, defined as same-gender sexual conduct, and the idea that the institution of marriage is being appropriated by a few libertines, for the financial benefits to be had from the government, cheapens the whole definition and purpose of marriage. It makes a mockery of everything that it has represented, until now. Heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are not equal, but the SSM crowd wishes us to ignore this fact.Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human.
All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with genital deformities) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female. We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female (or vise versa) is self-evidently normal and natural. By contrast, a male-to-male or female-to-female orientation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural. For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, it would need to be rooted in its own homosexual physiology.
In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent
to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior, or behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.

So, yes I have arguments, but they are likely to be dismissed by your crowd...As if a wave of a hand can disqualify the truth.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
A Google search that takes all of 5 seconds proves that you don't know what you are talking about. But then, that's been obvious all along.
Weinberg's term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies. He describes the concept as a medical phobia:
a phobia about homosexuals.... It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for — home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.

Nice try, Purple Passion, but you left out the important part: It became an important tool AFTER it had been misappropriated by the gay and lesbian crowd. Up until then, it had been a professional term used in the exact manner I described. You are attempting to explain away the misuse of this term. You are failing. And I do know what I am talking about. This whole phenomenon is Orwellian.

[Bore On]

Was the last poster a:

1.) Out of towner?

2.) A bore on?

3.) Just a out of work idiot?

4.) Out of country poster?

5.) a non US citizen that supports the Repubicans?

6.) Married to a Republican but not a citizen?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Bore On wrote:

Was the last poster a:
1.) Out of towner?
2.) A bore on?
3.) Just a out of work idiot?
4.) Out of country poster?
5.) a non US citizen that supports the Repubicans?
6.) Married to a Republican but not a citizen?

http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2013-02-03_4016...

[Rose_NoHo]

KiMare wrote:

Here is a simple explanation of the difference;
A fruit tree bearing fruit.
A fruit tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A nut tree who never bears fruit wanting to be a fruit tree.
A nut tree hanging fruit on it's branches pretending to be a fruit tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' fruit trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call nut trees fruit trees too!
Hilarious!!!

No matter how often you post that analogy, it doesn't hold water. For a couple of reasons. One being nuts are fruits, by definition. Another being that the ability to bear fruit is part of the definition of a fruit tree, but the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of marriage.
<quoted text>

KiMare wrote:

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are the picture of defective failure. Mating behavior gone abusive with NOTHING to show for it.
Sociologist say marriage would not exist if it were not for children.

LOL, what a pointless statement.
Humanity wouldn't exist were it not for children.

KiMare wrote:

But of more importance, someone who murders their own child has no platform to claim children are not a part of marriage. You should be in jail.
Sad.

I've never murdered any child.
Why did you make that up?
LOLSER!

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Slappy Sanchez ESQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Is A.I.D.S. a disease or a cure?

I grew up in Brentwood, next door to some Sanchez's, on Claywood Drive.