Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[KiMare]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Next.

The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;

A apple tree bearing fruit.
A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Smirk.

[Pietro Armando]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Next.

IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE!!!!!!! Sex between men and women makes babies. Human societies throughout history have recognized this, that is why marriage is privileged over other human relationships, and it has been, except for a few scattered historical examples of recognized as relationships, a male female union of either one man one woman, or one man many women. Its simply biology.

[Rose_NoHo]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
A apple tree bearing fruit.
A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?

The fact you think you've made an apt analogy.
For one reason, walnut trees DO bear fruit, because nuts are fruits.
But even if they weren't, 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 a marriage.
Are you so stupid because your brain is made from tissue with two different types of DNA, and it just doesn't work properly?

KiMare wrote:

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smirk.

Again, stupid, the ability to bear apples is part of the definition of an apple tree, in fact, that's pretty much it, but the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of marriage.

[Rose_NoHo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE!!!!!!! Sex between men and women makes babies. Human societies throughout history have recognized this, that is why marriage is privileged over other human relationships, and it has been, except for a few scattered historical examples of recognized as relationships, a male female union of either one man one woman, or one man many women. Its simply biology.

It's a simple non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Now, try to come up with an argument against gay marriage.

[Pietro Armando]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a simple non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Now, try to come up with an argument against gay marriage.

I have no argument against a gay man marrying a gay woman. See we both support gay marriage.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a simple non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Now, try to come up with an argument against gay marriage.

No, you don't understand. Gay marriage is a simple non issue. I mean it's simply not an issue, it just isn't.

Now see how silly that sounds? But it's exactly what you say about other's rights. Dismiss them. They're "non issues"!

Tell it to the judge toots. Probably lock up your dumbass for contempt.

[Day Care]

Just look at all those LOUD, fat mouthed GOP, Republicans screaming and shouting.

Thats why these pieces of dung didn't gt elected and lost seats!

Screaming little children, them all.

[Pietro Armando]

Day Care wrote:

Just look at all those LOUD, fat mouthed GOP, Republicans screaming and shouting.
Thats why these pieces of dung didn't gt elected and lost seats!
Screaming little children, them all.

Oh and the Dems are all slim mouthed adults? Pull-eeze

[Frankie RIzzo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh and the Dems are all slim mouthed adults? Pull-eeze

In his town they are. It's those out of towners that cause all the trouble.

[Pietro Armando]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact you think you've made an apt analogy.
For one reason, walnut trees DO bear fruit, because nuts are fruits.
But even if they weren't, 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 a marriage.
Are you so stupid because your brain is made from tissue with two different types of DNA, and it just doesn't work properly?
<quoted text>
Again, stupid, the ability to bear apples is part of the definition of an apple tree, in fact, that's pretty much it, but the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of marriage.

Who, or what defines "marriage"? It seems you wish to define it as a union of "two people" regardless of gender composition, and base your concept of "equal rights", on that definition.

[KiMare]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact you think you've made an apt analogy.
For one reason, walnut trees DO bear fruit, because nuts are fruits.
But even if they weren't, 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 a marriage.
Are you so stupid because your brain is made from tissue with two different types of DNA, and it just doesn't work properly?
<quoted text>
Again, stupid, the ability to bear apples is part of the definition of an apple tree, in fact, that's pretty much it, but the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of marriage.

I know that a walnut tree normally bears walnuts. In this analogy though, like gay couples, it NEVER bears fruit. Heterosexual couples (Apple trees) most often do.

Gay couples want the fruit of a heterosexual couples (apples) so they can pretend they are just like apple trees; married and families. This is in the silly belief that other people won't notice they are barren walnut trees with apples stuck on them.

According to SCOTUS, the reason for government protection and provision of marriage is exactly because they are the natural and best source of human fruit.

Gay couples are simply one of numerous forms of friendships. If they can be equated to marriage, so can any friendship.

According to Evolution, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a desolate defect of the fundamental purpose of evolution.

It is clear that on any level considered, gay couples and marriage are vastly distinct.

Smile.

[sheesh void of hate]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh and the Dems are all slim mouthed adults? Pull-eeze

Can we agree that most, if not all, politicians are bottom feeders?

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I know that a walnut tree normally bears walnuts. In this analogy though, like gay couples, it NEVER bears fruit. Heterosexual couples (Apple trees) most often do.
Gay couples want the fruit of a heterosexual couples (apples) so they can pretend they are just like apple trees; married and families. This is in the silly belief that other people won't notice they are barren walnut trees with apples stuck on them.
According to SCOTUS, the reason for government protection and provision of marriage is exactly because they are the natural and best source of human fruit.
Gay couples are simply one of numerous forms of friendships. If they can be equated to marriage, so can any friendship.
According to Evolution, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a desolate defect of the fundamental purpose of evolution.
It is clear that on any level considered, gay couples and marriage are vastly distinct.
Smile.

Illinois legislators disagree with you. Awkward.

[Pietro Armando]

sheesh void of hate wrote:

<quoted text>
Can we agree that most, if not all, politicians are bottom feeders?

That they are, we get what we ask for.

[KiMare]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
Illinois legislators disagree with you. Awkward.

You mean the ones that bankrupted a whole state?

Really awkward...

Smirk smile.

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean the ones that bankrupted a whole state?
Really awkward...
Smirk smile.

No, the current ones. Awkward.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
That they are, we get what we ask for.

We didn't ask for them, they just rigged the game, so as to get where they wanted to be. If elections were fair, they'd be worried about doing good jobs and having to explain their actions. Which they are not concerned with...

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean the ones that bankrupted a whole state?
Really awkward...
Smirk smile.

Yes, those legislators.. The same.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
No, the current ones. Awkward.

You don't have to sign "Awkward" to all your posts, we know who you are.

[Frankie RIzzo]

I've tongued a few chocolate starfish of choice select males in my youth, but that doesn't make me gay. Just curious. Nothing wrong with experiencing various forms of sexuality.

I'm a better person for doing so.