Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact is your long angry rants are straw men. Designed to avoid the real argument that you have lost long ago.
You say the same dumb things over and over hoping for the desired effect that never comes.

I am not trying to avoid the real argument, about the overturn of Prop 8 in California :)

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't be so silly. This is a discussion forum.
I can discuss marriage equality for polygamists without a personal interest in a poly marriage and you can discuss same sex marriage without a personal interest in a same sex marriage.
I can discuss poly marriage without going out in the streets and campaigning, and you can discuss same sex marriage without going out in the streets and campaigning.
I am mostly the only one attempting to discuss marriage equality here. If I wasn't here this thread would be dead as a door nail.
Your attempts to censor me speak volumes. Why do you not give poly marriage the same consideration as same sex marriage?

I never said I didn’t

I’m not trying to censor you, I am just pointing out what you are doing to any newcomers so they don’t mistakenly take you as sincere, so they know you attack any supporters of SSM and are just using Poly as a way to do so.

Anyone that has been here a while already knows

[Xavier Breath]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
In the Brown lawsuit, Mr. Turley and Mr. Alba said the Brown family, members of the Apostolic United Brethren faith, has committed no crime except to live together,“motivated by their sincere religious beliefs and love for one another.”
States cannot “criminalize consensual intimate relationships, including homosexual relationships, between unmarried adults,” the lawyers wrote, citing the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
And yet Utah has a law that forbids a legally married person from “purport[ing] to marry another person or cohabit[ing] with another person,” the lawyers wrote.
With this and other anti-polygamy laws, Utah “criminalizes not just polygamous marriages, but also an array of plural intimate relationships and associations of consenting adults,” Mr. Turley and Mr. Alba wrote.

Ok....that's their argument... did the Court rule yet?

You do realize that the Brown's are NOT asking to have their marriage legally recognized, right?

[Xavier Breath]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Prop 8 being defeated is one less hurdle to overcome in the legalization of polygamy in California.
Glad that makes you so angry! It makes me happy, I like equal rights for everyone. And especially for people you don't approve of.

Was that an "ooops, I was wrong?" I didn't think so.... you don't have it in you to be honest.

p.s. your "angry" argument is a strawman.

[Xavier Breath]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I never said I didn’t
I’m not trying to censor you, I am just pointing out what you are doing to any newcomers so they don’t mistakenly take you as sincere, so they know you attack any supporters of SSM and are just using Poly as a way to do so.
Anyone that has been here a while already knows

Yep, but most have left.... looks like a few of us get some good giggles at Frankie's expense, though. And in a few months, this topic will be completely moot. So, I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts. Cheers!

[Xavier Breath]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

Glad that makes you so angry! It makes me happy, I like equal rights for everyone.

Well, aren't you the great humanitarian.....

Unfortunately, here in the USA, there is no Constitution guarantee of equal rights. The guarantee is equal protection under the law. How many times does that need to be repeated before learning occurs with you?

[Big D]

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>Ok....that's their argument... did the Court rule yet?
You do realize that the Brown's are NOT asking to have their marriage legally recognized, right?

LOL I didn’t actually look the Brown's up, that is funny, as I was saying, most of these religious poly types are NOT looking for government recognition.

That would defeat several reasons for Poly marriage, particularly with government assistance programs.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not trying to avoid the real argument, about the overturn of Prop 8 in California :)

The slippery slope argument is VERY RELEVANT to the argument for same sex marriage. I have tried many times to tell you how to deal with it eloquently and intelligently. So that maybe someone will pay attention and realize yes it is real, but it DOESN'T MATTER. I can tell you reasons it doesn't matter.

But you refuse to listen preferring to shout it down and censor it as a way of dealing with it. Your approach is stupid. No one will change their minds when you act like that. Indeed, they will dig in deeper.

Your approach is counterproductive, achieving the opposite effect than what you hope.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text> Was that an "ooops, I was wrong?" I didn't think so.... you don't have it in you to be honest.
p.s. your "angry" argument is a strawman.

No your response is.

If the archaic federal law is repealed, as it should be because it's based on ignorance and prejudice, there will be one less hurdle to overcome in the legalization of polygamy.

California's bigamy law will be relatively easy to deal with as it's based on the federal law that will be no more.

You are nitpicking technicalities to avoid the real argument. Which is I support marriage equality and you do not.

[Xavier Breath]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

Your approach is counterproductive, achieving the opposite effect than what you hope.

If you think anybody's mind has EVER been changed by a Topix post, you are Queen Naive. Puh-leez..... a guilt trip?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, aren't you the great humanitarian.....
Unfortunately, here in the USA, there is no Constitution guarantee of equal rights. The guarantee is equal protection under the law. How many times does that need to be repeated before learning occurs with you?

There is a guarantee of equal protection of the law, Miss Thing. Even for people you don't approve of.

When the federal law aginst poly is repealed, state laws will be easy to overcome. State laws to protect public morality by prohibiting what has been regarded as immoral sexual conduct just can't stand constitutional scrutiny.

Your arguments against equal protection for polygamists are dumb and ineffective. Try a different tack maybe?

[Xavier Breath]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

California's bigamy law will be relatively easy to deal with as it's based on the federal law that will be no more.

No it isn't. Bigamy laws were on the books well before DOMA.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL I didn’t actually look the Brown's up, that is funny, as I was saying, most of these religious poly types are NOT looking for government recognition.
That would defeat several reasons for Poly marriage, particularly with government assistance programs.

As it is now, the government doesn't recognize poly so only one wife can receive benefits through her husband. The others are considered single mothers and get lots of free stuff as such. More than they would if the government recognized the wives.

So your "welfare cheat" argument is really stupid, it's caused by idiots like you and the government's dumb policies. To blame it on polygamists is ridiculous.

[Xavier Breath]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

You are nitpicking technicalities to avoid the real argument. Which is I support marriage equality and you do not.

I think you are not clear about how "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage" has nothing to do with your argument.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>If you think anybody's mind has EVER been changed by a Topix post, you are Queen Naive. Puh-leez..... a guilt trip?

More ad hominem dopiness.

Anything to avoid the slippery slope argument which is easily countered, But you are too dumb to do it.

[Xavier Breath]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

Your arguments against equal protection for polygamists are dumb and ineffective. Try a different tack maybe?

Except I haven't made any. Try a different strawman, maybe?

[Big D]

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you are not clear about how "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage" has nothing to do with your argument.

I dont think the Brown case has anything to do with Prop 8

You are right

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL I didn’t actually look the Brown's up, that is funny, as I was saying, most of these religious poly types are NOT looking for government recognition.
That would defeat several reasons for Poly marriage, particularly with government assistance programs.

HA HA! So funny! A criminal case against someone based on their choice of who to marry and love. What a riot.

Brown said "There are tens of thousands of plural families in Utah and other states. We are one of those families. We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs. While we understand that this may be a long struggle in court, it has already been a long struggle for my family and other plural families to end the stereotypes and unfair treatment given consensual polygamy. We are indebted to Professor Turley and his team for their work and dedication. Together we hope to secure equal treatment with other families in the United States.”

On 1 June 2012, the criminal case against the Browns was dropped. However the suit filed by the Browns remains active after a federal judge refused to dismiss it, saying "strategic attempt to use the mootness doctrine to evade review in this case draws into question the sincerity of [the Utah County Attorney’s] contention that prosecution of plaintiffs for violating this statute is unlikely to recur".

[Big D]

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
Except I haven't made any. Try a different strawman, maybe?

He already tired the sister argument but that didn’t go over so well

[Frankie Rizzo]

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you are not clear about how "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage" has nothing to do with your argument.

I think you are not clear on the slippery slope created by the judge's decision.