Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Frankie RIzzo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
"Marriage Equality" is dependent on petitions signed in shopping malls?

Typical of ignorant bigots, Big D And Janey-Doody are often grasping at straws.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text> They aren't going to actually DO anything. They're just here to derail the forum and all their bluster is merely attention seeking behavior. They'd never get up from their computer and actually DO something.

Nope. Big D can discuss space travel without actually doing it. You can discuss drag comedy without actually doing it (properly!). And I can discuss polygamy without taking it to SCOTUS. Or to the "Mall".

You are acting so stupid because you are trying to avoid revealing your hypocrisy. Big D isn't even bothering to hide his. You shouldn't either. Come clean! Let it all out!

[Neil Andblowme]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
"Marriage Equality" is dependent on petitions signed in shopping malls?

I know you wish to hijack the thread with the use of the term "marriage equality." Unfortunately for you, this forum is about overturning Prop 8. So why don't you ask the sponsors of Prop 8 your question about petitions?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>I know you wish to hijack the thread with the use of the term "marriage equality." Unfortunately for you, this forum is about overturning Prop 8. So why don't you ask the sponsors of Prop 8 your question about petitions?

For chrissakes you can talk about same sex marriage without asking the sponsors of prop 8 questions, so can he.

Why don't you spin around three times whistling Dixie? Or better yet, Neil Andblowme!

YUK!YUK!YUK! What a jerk!

[Pietro Armando]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>I know you wish to hijack the thread with the use of the term "marriage equality." Unfortunately for you, this forum is about overturning Prop 8. So why don't you ask the sponsors of Prop 8 your question about petitions?

Is it arrogance or naiveté? What you think don't anyone else is going to apply language, "marriage equality", from the SSM movement for their own cause? Every victory for SSM, is a victory for plural marriage. We both know it. Why fight it? Deny it all you want, but we both know its true. Just as Kody Brown and the Missuses Brown. You must cringe every time they give an interview expressing support for SSM.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>I know you wish to hijack the thread with the use of the term "marriage equality." Unfortunately for you, this forum is about overturning Prop 8. So why don't you ask the sponsors of Prop 8 your question about petitions?

Any opinion other than yours and that dopey Big D is "hijacking this thread"?

[Rose_NoHo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>Because they think it's cute and that it lets them off the hook for not having a real answer.

Makes sense.

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

Same sex marriage causes harm with a new standard of gender segregation where before, California's marriage law was always integrated, allowing marriage of one man and one woman, for gender diversity.
If you love integration and diversity; keep marriage male female, like it was for mom and dad.

When will the forced marriages between members of pro sports teams start? After all gay marriages are legal in several states and countries. You said there will be forced marriages in pro sports teams, and prison rape will become legal. Do you have a timeline?

[Rose_NoHo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not offer an opinion now?
<quoted text>
Why are you afraid to even offer an opinion. Why shouldn't "marriage equality" include plural marriage?

Everybody already has marriage equality when it comes to plural marriages.

[Pietro Armando]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...

[Pietro Armando]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Everybody already has marriage equality when it comes to plural marriages.

Noooooooo they don't Rosie. Explain why an intimate emotional sexual relationship between two men/women should be called "marriage", but an intimate emotional sexual relationship a man/woman has with more than one woman/man should not?

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm trying to discuss marriage equality. Too bad if other forms of marriage besides monogamous make you uncomfortable. This is a discussion forum not subject to your censorship.
You and Big D don't get all bent out of shape when someone mentions opposite sex marriage. Why do you do so when someone mentions poly marriage?
You cannot censor poly away. Don't try, just grin and bear it. Like the bigots against same sex have learned to do.

Wow you are winning votes now. You still don't get what this thread is about.

[Rose_NoHo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Noooooooo they don't Rosie.

Yes, they do. Everyone is treated equally when it comes to plural marriage.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Explain why an intimate emotional sexual relationship between two men/women should be called "marriage", but an intimate emotional sexual relationship a man/woman has with more than one woman/man should not?

Straw man.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Everybody already has marriage equality when it comes to plural marriages.

You mean that same kind of equality homosexuals have where they can marry the one opposite sex partner of their choice?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, they do. Everyone is treated equally when it comes to plural marriage.
<quoted text>
Straw man.

Polygamy is not a straw man, it's a marriage worthy of the same consideration and respect as same sex marriage.

You believe it isn't?

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Polygamy is not a straw man, it's a marriage worthy of the same consideration and respect as same sex marriage.
You believe it isn't?

Stuck on stoopid again?

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Wow you are winning votes now. You still don't get what this thread is about.

Wow you are really arguing brilliantly now Fruitcake! Real proud of you.

Go start another troll thread, You're an idiot with no argument.

Hope that helped!

[Frankie RIzzo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Noooooooo they don't Rosie. Explain why an intimate emotional sexual relationship between two men/women should be called "marriage", but an intimate emotional sexual relationship a man/woman has with more than one woman/man should not?

Because it's off topic. And it's a straw man and a red herring, silly!

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Stuck on stoopid again?
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Yes we know, stupid.

Don't you agree that the judge overturning California's ban on same-sex marriage bodes well for polygamy?

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow you are really arguing brilliantly now Fruitcake! Real proud of you.
Go start another troll thread, You're an idiot with no argument.
Hope that helped!

Keep posting, your vote total climbs every day.