Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,159

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.

Full Story
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#178868 Feb 8, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>speaking of stupid, when your question is answered, you avoid the answer. so why bother asking it?
First of all jackass, it's a discussion not a Q and A.

Second of all give me post numbers of someone responding to me seriously without the insults and ad hominem.

I suggest you avoid the discussion to avoid revealing your hypocrisy.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#178869 Feb 8, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
The decline of religious dogma affecting the lives of Americans has had many beneficial affects
1. Birth control is available to single adults.
2. Stores can be open on Sundays.
3. Non christians children are not subjected to being ostracized in public schools during "prayers"
4. In most states Blue laws are a thing of the past.
5. Freedom of Religion has been expanded and applies to all Americans, not just Christians.
6. The religious litmus test for political candidates is on its way out the door.
Your post reminded me of something

I will never forget the couple I knew that were so upset that Obama was re-elected they mentioned that they were considering moving to Australia, I told them that was a wonderful choice, and did they know that the prime minister of Australia is openly atheist?

Jaws hit the floor, it was hilarious.

We are actually behind the world a bit in this area, but we are catching up, and wising up
Big D

Modesto, CA

#178870 Feb 8, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing is your goal is to "wipe the floor with me" and my goal is to discuss equal rights.
I suppose another of your goals is to gather a lot of fans. Don't be so proud. Most of them are dummies.
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.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#178871 Feb 8, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really sure what you mean by "all marriage equality" there Frankie boy but I hazard to guess you mean
1. Marrying children
2. Marrying blood relatives, i.e. mom & son, father & daughter, brother & sister.
3. Marrying your pet.
4. polygamy
First you are using the slippery slope fallacy. But just to answer your stupidity.
1. There is thing called AGE OF CONSENT. Children can not give their consent to sex and marriage. ergo it will remain illegal.
CASED CLOSED
2. Therre are health issues with marrying close relatives, which is why it is illegal. You can easily see what happens by studying British and Russian royalty in the 1600-1800's, particularly the Tsar family, you will notice the high rate of hemophilia. And that was with cousins marrying cousins. No telling what would have happened between direct family members...well I take that back...you are a prime example.
3. Besides from the obvious health issues, animals can not give their consent to marriage....so it would be rape.
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.
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

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#178872 Feb 8, 2013
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.
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
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#178873 Feb 8, 2013
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.
You say it will have no effect whatsoever but then you say it will make things worse for polygamy. Which is it?

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#178874 Feb 8, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all jackass, it's a discussion not a Q and A.
Second of all give me post numbers of someone responding to me seriously without the insults and ad hominem.
I suggest you avoid the discussion to avoid revealing your hypocrisy.
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
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#178875 Feb 8, 2013
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

#178876 Feb 8, 2013
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

#178877 Feb 8, 2013
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

#178878 Feb 8, 2013
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

#178879 Feb 8, 2013
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

#178880 Feb 8, 2013
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

#178881 Feb 8, 2013
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

#178882 Feb 8, 2013
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

#178883 Feb 8, 2013
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

#178884 Feb 8, 2013
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

#178885 Feb 8, 2013
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

#178886 Feb 8, 2013
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

#178887 Feb 8, 2013
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.

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.

Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
corruption with Riverside county CPS 17 min lupita garcia 4
Hemet - The worst city to live in california 19 hr Really 12
bums on bikes Thu kmnine 5
Residents Of Hemet, San Jacinto Still Cleaning ... Wed Donna knight 1
Review: Hemet Family Dentist,Dr Vimal Patel,DDS Dec 15 Michael2327 1
One of Two Suspects Arrested in Jack-in-the-Box... Dec 15 lupita garcia 8
One dead, one wounded after incident in Hemet p... (Dec '08) Dec 15 Chris 49

Hemet News Video

Hemet Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Hemet News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hemet

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:38 am PST