Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Living in close confinement with members of your own sex is stressful enough, do you really want this shame on our bravest volunteers?
Do you have something against the people who defend our freedom?

You hate women, we get that.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
You hate women, we get that.

You hate everyone, we get that.

[Wooden]

The panel is still out

[KiMare]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
You hate women, we get that.

I am amazed that you can post stupid hate comments with nothing of beneficial substance ever.

How do you do that so perfectly???

Ho, Ho, Ho.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>LOL I gave the voters 4 options, what can I say but your asshattedness is well known.

Aw shuddup you dopeyass cyberstalking creep!

YUK!YUK!YUK! Jizzybird. What a jackass!

[Rose_NoHo]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
The verdict has been in for a long time. The Regnerus study only confirmed it. Nature established the ideal ions ago.

Why does a self described monster mutation bring up nature?
LOL!

KiMare wrote:

A father, mother and their biological children. Default situations dramatically increase the negatives for everyone.

Really?

KiMare wrote:

And gay couples with children rank last. After single parents.
Hardly a reason to smile...
Smirk.

Do you think you should have been aborted?
Why won't you answer the question?

[Rose_NoHo]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
No it doesn't.
You have one mother. That is simply a scientific fact.
Children have one father and one mother. That's it.

What if you were the parent, you monster mutation?
LOL!

[Rose_NoHo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
What legitimate practical logical comparisons could be made? What family structure can be compared to children born to, and raised by, their own biological parents in a low conflict stable marital home? A SSC, male or female, raising a child from birth, are still two men
or two women.(snip)

Can't slip anything past you.

[Rose_NoHo]

Robsan5 wrote:

<quoted text>
You are a pathetic excuse for, one of our own. You're what most people would actually call a fagg@t. Get a grip, idiot
Robert

Sounds like you want to get a grip on Jazybird, IYKWIM.

[KiMare]

Amazing, there you go again!

Perfect stupid hate!

Ho, Ho, Ho.

[Quest]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
....
Moreover, if you remove the element of procreation, you dumb down marriage to just a friendship. Hardly a cause for government interest, let alone selective discrimination.
Smile.

Allowing gay couples to marry will "remove the element of procreation" from marriage?

How? In what way?

No state in the country bans people who cannot procreate at all, or couples who cannot procreate together, from legally marrying.

Remember, logic is your friend.

Can you prove that allowing gay folks to marry will stop straight people (or gay people) from procreating or raising children?

If not, then you will have a hard time showing how a gay couple marrying "removes procreation" from marriage.

[Rose_NoHo]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
No.
This is one of many;
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.
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 is simply silly.

You are so dumb, you can't make up a decent analogy.
You are trying to make an analogy to the definition of marriage. But you fail because unlike the ability to bear apples is pretty much the definition of an apple tree, the ability to reproduce isn't part of the definition of marriage. LOL!

KiMare wrote:

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples do not just fail in the primary essence of marriage, out of all relationships, they are the oxymoron of marriage.

You don't know what the word "oxymoron" means! Damn, this is funny.

KiMare wrote:

Moreover, if you remove the element of procreation, you dumb down marriage to just a friendship. Hardly a cause for government interest, let alone selective discrimination.
Smile.

Stupid, allowing gay marriage won't remove the element of procreation, people will still procreate. Once and a while there will be a monster mutation. Do you think those mutations should be aborted?

LOL!

[Frankie Rizzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so dumb, you can't make up a decent analogy.
You are trying to make an analogy to the definition of marriage. But you fail because unlike the ability to bear apples is pretty much the definition of an apple tree, the ability to reproduce isn't part of the definition of marriage. LOL!
<quoted text>
You don't know what the word "oxymoron" means! Damn, this is funny.
<quoted text>
Stupid, allowing gay marriage won't remove the element of procreation, people will still procreate. Once and a while there will be a monster mutation. Do you think those mutations should be aborted?
LOL!

You call him dumb? You think polygamy is a fish!

[Rose_NoHo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Is there really a reason to think otherwise? What adult, who was raised by his/her own married biological parents in a stable home, looks back and thinks, "Gee, I wish Mom and divorced and I was raised by....."?(snip)

Any adult raised by you.

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
....
Moreover, if you remove the element of procreation, you dumb down marriage to just a friendship. Hardly a cause for government interest, let alone selective discrimination.
Smile.

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Allowing gay couples to marry will "remove the element of procreation" from marriage?
How? In what way?
No state in the country bans people who cannot procreate at all, or couples who cannot procreate together, from legally marrying.
Remember, logic is your friend.
Can you prove that allowing gay folks to marry will stop straight people (or gay people) from procreating or raising children?
If not, then you will have a hard time showing how a gay couple marrying "removes procreation" from marriage.

First, there is no procreation in gay relationships. Zero.

Second, gays are the ones attempting the 'removing' of procreation form marriage. I'm removing nothing. Remember the desolate walnut tree hanging apples on itself claiming to be an apple tree?

I doubt if you ever met logic...

Smirk.

[KiMare]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so dumb, you can't make up a decent analogy.
You are trying to make an analogy to the definition of marriage. LOL!

You are so dumb, you can't understand a decent analogy.

I'm not making an 'analogy to the definition of marriage', I'm mocking the claim that children are not a part of marriage.

Everyone but you knows that...

Smirk.

[Jazybird58]

I have not posted in 12 hours, Frankie has brought up me 3 times. In
your head rent free.

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
We were talking about parameters.
Smirk.

Damn. I thought you were still talking about perimeters and I was ready too chime in.

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
....
Moreover, if you remove the element of procreation, you dumb down marriage to just a friendship.

No, you're the only one dumbing down relationships. And you simply don't have the power to do that to others.

Have you smelled down here lately? we're a bit rank.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie Rizzo 268 85%
Largelanguage 26 8%
KiMare 13 4%
Pietro Armando 5 1%
Current Total 312
Go Frankie go