Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Jane Dodo]

Randy Hudson wrote:

They are not to be allowed to call it a marriage, any more than being religious makes one a priest...

Where have you been for the last eight years?

Where the hell did you learn to make analogies?... from Jane Dough? LMFAO@you

[Randy Hudson]

heartandmind wrote:

<quoted text>
the more important question is : why are you here, in a thread regarding same sex marriage?
another question :
why don't you start a movement on your own to get polygamy legalized? go ahead - hire an attorney and take it to court. we'll read all about it in the news. i look forward to reading about the arguments presented in court. good luck.

Why are YOU here ? Let me guess, this is the part where you make your presence in here sound moral and upright, while attempting to make his presence sound invalid ? Yeah, we've heard that one before....

[Rose_NoHo]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Plenty! Revelation will tell you! Read it yourself this time!

OK, so you can't tell me a buy-bull prophesy that has come true.

[Randy Hudson]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>No. I mean like three does not equal two.

Do you mean "like that", or do you mean "that" ?

[Rose_NoHo]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Which day does it say then? Gen 1:3 Do you read the bible? Do you actually have one?

It says that god said, "Let there be light". Then in the next couple of verses, there was night and day. Then plants. Night and day and plants before there is a sun (somewhere around Genesis 1:16). Absurd.

[Rose_NoHo]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
He wasn't able to see the entire earth from a mountain! It was metaphorical! You don't understand its meaning!

So, it's not all literally true? Fine.
I just don't get why so many Christians insist everything in the buy-bull is literally true when so much of it is clearly absurd.

[Randy Hudson]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
This thread is about Prop 8. What does Prop 8 have to do with polygamy?

It refused to allow any marriage, except between man and woman. Thus excluding polygamy, as it did SSM. Any argument that defends SSM must also defend polygamy, for the exact same reasons, freedom of choice. Silly, that was easy. Go apply some make-up and think of yourself as normal. LOL As if you can...

[Randy Hudson]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
That lame-ass excuse again?...yawn... It was laughable the first time you posted it, now it's just boring.

No, it is not bopring. It is a valid question. Answer it, as you expect your questions to be answered.

[MarginsCall]

Workers broke into the Kurdish center in Paris after seeing bloodstains at the door.

One of the three activists killed execution-style was a founder of the PKK rebel group.

[Jane Dodo]

Randy Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct your posts all you want to, It doesn't matter what the gays want, they may not appropriate a title that is not their due. They covet something that they do not rate. Period. And I am waiting for the SCOTUS to hand down the ruling that states that they have no authority to legislate marriage, as we already know. California will reinstate the ban on SSM, as the majority of its population wishes. And then, other states will follow suit.

hahahahaha
ahhahahaahah
ahahahahahahha

You're really quite clueless, aren't you?

[Jane Dodo]

Randy Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you mean "like that", or do you mean "that" ?

Three does not equal two.

Are you arithmetically challenged?

[Rose_NoHo]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
We know Rose don't we? I think in her ignorance she actually thought the Roman catholics were there at the time, and probably assumed in her ignorance they did wipe the romans out! And yes, the saxons were the ones who defeated the romans!

Man up. I didn't say anything about the Roman Catholics and the fall of Rome. They weren't around at the time.

[Jane Dodo]

Randy Hudson wrote:

<quoted text> It refused to allow any marriage, except between man and woman. Thus excluding polygamy, as it did SSM. Any argument that defends SSM must also defend polygamy, for the exact same reasons, freedom of choice. Silly, that was easy. Go apply some make-up and think of yourself as normal. LOL As if you can...

hahahahaha
hahahahaha
ahahahahah

Did you learn THAT from Jane Dough, too?

So if Prop 8 is overturned, does that mean polygamy will be legal in California? Of course not. It's a completely seperate issue. Prop 8 has NOTHING to do with polygamy.

[Jane Dodo]

Randy Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it is not bopring. It is a valid question. Answer it, as you expect your questions to be answered.

Really?

What's the question?

[WasteWater]

Is this thread done yet?

[Jane Dodo]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Child, child, child.
Can a judge overrule reality? Commonsense?
You have no answer for two simple assertions;
1. The government has NO interest in protecting or supporting a friendship.
2. It is unconstitutional bias to selectively support friendships.
Moreover, you deny the most basic roots of marriage. A cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Snicker.

Unconstitutional, eh? Your self delusion is growing daily...

[Randy Hudson]

CrimeDNA wrote:

I wonder how many crooked politicans will be caught witht his new push to collect DNA samples.
DNA is the 21st century fingerprint, the database collection can be done in a way that protects privacy but also protects people from violent criminals.
Lets start with the current city council members of Glendora, California first.

Non sequitur. The presence of a DNA sample does not prevent crime, it is to be used for tracking, after the fact. No protection there. And, if misused, can be used for framing innocent people.

[Randy Hudson]

Mikey DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Three women are all deeply committed to each other. On what grounds do you dismiss their union as a "red herring" or "a straw man" rather than authentic love and self-expression?
On what grounds do you insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?

Mike !! Don't do this !1 You are daring dopey old Chongo to invent another stupid, self-named law. You and I both know that Chongo hates everything. I do not know what caused it to be an omniphobe. I only know that it hates the world that has obviously shunned it. Hates Christians, hates heterosexuals, hates the government. Just a dissatisfied anarchist....But you are inviting a new set of "Chongo-laws"...

[Randy Hudson]

WhooGos wrote:

Just more blogger snot from out of towners.

And when, exactly, did you arbitrarily decide the you are not the out-of-towner ? Idiot. Since this forum is being used to scorn Christians and the government, and The U.S.A in general, we are all involved. Shut the hell up.

[Randy Hudson]

heartandmind wrote:

<quoted text>
how can you tell if i'm a hypocrite if i haven't printed or typed one single word about polygamy in this thread that pertains to same sex marriage?
when you start a thread about polygamy then we can discuss it.
until then, you know nothing of my opinion about that topic.
so, why are you here in this thread about same sex marriage trying to go off topic and discuss another topic?

You are sincerely confused. The issue is being used to rewrite the Constitution, so we must include all forms of freedom of choice. This includes, but is not limited to, polygamy.