Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201860 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193868 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
How can it prohibit something that was already against the law? That's like saying Californians passed a proposition to outlaw murder.
Many states defense of marriage acts prohibit same sex marriage which was already prohibited.

I'm sorry if you feel polyamorists are horning in on your suffering, but they are suffering exactly the same as you. And they deserve the same relief that you demand.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193869 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then should we distinguish between Catholic pedophiles and non-Catholic pedophiles? Should we distinguish football coach pedophiles and non-football coach pedophiles?
There is nothing politically correct about the current laws and medical diagnoses.
What you're suggesting is ridiculous. You know it; I know it; everybody reading your posts knows it.
Give up, hater. Go back to "church school".
I think that you insisting that pedophiles who molest only boys and never girls are not gay is ridiculous. But PC is ridiculous so that's that.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193870 May 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you distinguish pedophiles who molest only boys from those who molest only girls?
<quoted text>
Honey, why don't you simply educate me?
I'd really love to hear it from you.
All pedophiles are straight according to the PC handbook. It would be homophobic to say one was gay! But it's fine to call them all straight.

PC makes no sense, but that's the nature of it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193872 May 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There is to the boys and the girls.
And they are distinct pedophiles.
Surely it would be wise to label the gender danger a pedophile represents?
Or are you suggesting we leave a child at risk to be politically correct?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then should we distinguish between Catholic pedophiles and non-Catholic pedophiles? Should we distinguish football coach pedophiles and non-football coach pedophiles?
There is nothing politically correct about the current laws and medical diagnoses.
What you're suggesting is ridiculous. You know it; I know it; everybody reading your posts knows it.
Give up, hater. Go back to "church school".
If those designations would protect the child, yes.

But you know they don't.

You also know what I suggest does protect them, and the only reason it is not used is political correctness. To the detriment of the child.

However, more than gay pedophiles jumping for joy, the Scouts are careful about opposite gender leaders in camping situations with Scouts. A responsible recognition to the power of mating behavior. Homosexuals are exempt from that temptation and discretion?

All this is just another example of homosexuals throwing common sense and children under the bus to fulfill their fantasy and denial.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193873 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe this will help you to understand... I support marriage equality for same-gender couples and opposite-gender couples. I do not support polygamy.
Your continuous and contrived astonishment of my position on this issue does not sway me.
I'm just exposing your hypocrisy, I'm not trying to sway you.

Any astonishment is with your audacity in casually believing that polygamy doesn't deserve the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193874 May 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
All pedophiles are straight according to the PC handbook. It would be homophobic to say one was gay! But it's fine to call them all straight.
PC makes no sense, but that's the nature of it.
I'm embarrassed as a human for them trying to defend such nonsense.

I'm outraged that they are willing to put children at risk to maintain their denial.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193875 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe this will help you to understand... I support marriage equality for same-gender couples and opposite-gender couples. I do not support polygamy.
Your continuous and contrived astonishment of my position on this issue does not sway me.
Ironic isn't it, the very form of legal marriage you support other than monogamous, conjugal, husband and wife, is same sex, has opened the door to the form of marriage, polygamy, you don't support. Every victory for SSM is also a victory for the eventual legalization of plural marriage.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.

"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.

How can one prohibit polygamy between consenting adults, if marriage is a fundamental right? What state restrictions, as long as the parties are consenting adults, could ever exist?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193876 May 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironic isn't it, the very form of legal marriage you support other than monogamous, conjugal, husband and wife, is same sex, has opened the door to the form of marriage, polygamy, you don't support. Every victory for SSM is also a victory for the eventual legalization of plural marriage.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.
How can one prohibit polygamy between consenting adults, if marriage is a fundamental right? What state restrictions, as long as the parties are consenting adults, could ever exist?
That is an excellent point that cannot be stressed enough to these dumb haters, every victory for same sex marriage is a victory for polygamy.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193877 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
How can it prohibit something that was already against the law? That's like saying Californians passed a proposition to outlaw murder.
They did, they outlawed assault rifles which made murder even "MORE ILLEGAL" ( chuckle ) It used to just be illegal to murder someone with an assault rifle, but now it is even "more illegal".

( I hope you realize you are arguing with someone that has no conception of what he is talking about )
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193878 May 30, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They did, they outlawed assault rifles which made murder even "MORE ILLEGAL" ( chuckle ) It used to just be illegal to murder someone with an assault rifle, but now it is even "more illegal".
( I hope you realize you are arguing with someone that has no conception of what he is talking about )
Is that why you choose not to address me directly? Or perhaps you have no argument? Is that why you are so hostile whenever I mention poly?(chuckle)
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193879 May 30, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They did, they outlawed assault rifles which made murder even "MORE ILLEGAL" ( chuckle ) It used to just be illegal to murder someone with an assault rifle, but now it is even "more illegal".
( I hope you realize you are arguing with someone that has no conception of what he is talking about )
Your jokes are stupid. But any diversion to avoid addressing the fact that I am correct, eh Big D?

I am correct. Prop 8 discriminates against polygamy as much as it does against SSM.(chuckle)

But that's your straw man argument. To avoid the real argument we were having which is that true marriage equality won't happen until polygamy is also allowed. I am also correct on that. And it makes you angry and frustrated. Deal with it.

Hope that helps!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193880 May 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that you insisting that pedophiles who molest only boys and never girls are not gay is ridiculous. But PC is ridiculous so that's that.
How about this... You go out and change all of the laws regarding pedophilia--make them determine what kind of pedophile they're dealing with. But be ready for all of the different types. There are Catholic, Baptists, Atheists, teachers, coaches, troop leaders, politicians, etc.

When it comes right down to it, would you want a man who has a history of molesting little girls working with little boys?

IMHO, if you are a pedophile, you are a pedophile. And the laws, as well as the scientists, seem to agree on that.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193881 May 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There is to the boys and the girls.
And they are distinct pedophiles.
Surely it would be wise to label the gender danger a pedophile represents?
Or are you suggesting we leave a child at risk to be politically correct?
<quoted text>
If those designations would protect the child, yes.
But you know they don't.
You also know what I suggest does protect them, and the only reason it is not used is political correctness. To the detriment of the child.
However, more than gay pedophiles jumping for joy, the Scouts are careful about opposite gender leaders in camping situations with Scouts. A responsible recognition to the power of mating behavior. Homosexuals are exempt from that temptation and discretion?
All this is just another example of homosexuals throwing common sense and children under the bus to fulfill their fantasy and denial.
Here's what I know... You seem to know an awful lot about gays and pedophiles. Why, exactly, is that?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193882 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
How about this... You go out and change all of the laws regarding pedophilia--make them determine what kind of pedophile they're dealing with. But be ready for all of the different types. There are Catholic, Baptists, Atheists, teachers, coaches, troop leaders, politicians, etc.
When it comes right down to it, would you want a man who has a history of molesting little girls working with little boys?
IMHO, if you are a pedophile, you are a pedophile. And the laws, as well as the scientists, seem to agree on that.
Sure. But men who molest only boys are gay.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193883 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what I know... You seem to know an awful lot about gays and pedophiles. Why, exactly, is that?
Ad hominem.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193885 May 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironic isn't it, the very form of legal marriage you support other than monogamous, conjugal, husband and wife, is same sex, has opened the door to the form of marriage, polygamy, you don't support. Every victory for SSM is also a victory for the eventual legalization of plural marriage.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.
How can one prohibit polygamy between consenting adults, if marriage is a fundamental right? What state restrictions, as long as the parties are consenting adults, could ever exist?
You always seem to "omit" Ted Olson's reply to the justice, so I'll help you out once again...

Ted Olson: "Well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you -- if a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status.
It's selecting them as a class, as you described in the Romer case and as you described in the Lawrence case and in other cases."

See... Apples and oranges... Conduct vs. status...

It's so simple that even someone like you can understand.

In a few words, he put your "polygamy scare-tactic" to rest.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193886 May 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ad hominem.
No... It isn't an ad hominem. It is a legitimate point.

He is fascinated with all things gay. He has explicitly described gay male (not female) sex on multiple occasions. I would even go so far as to say that he seems to know more about gay male (not female) sex than many gay men. And he believes himself to be an expert on pedophilia.

We know he's not an attorney; so he doesn't have a great legal mind with regards to the law when it comes to pedophilia. And we know he's not a scientist or physician. We know he's not completed coursework or studied gay male behavior.

And yet he seems to know so much.

Why is that? How does an allegedly straight pastor know so much about these topics?

It would require a great deal of exploration or firsthand knowledge.

They don't teach these kinds of things when you get your bachelor's degree in religion, which is what he has.

How does he know so much?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193887 May 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There is to the boys and the girls.
And they are distinct pedophiles.
Surely it would be wise to label the gender danger a pedophile represents?
Or are you suggesting we leave a child at risk to be politically correct?
<quoted text>
If those designations would protect the child, yes.
But you know they don't.
You also know what I suggest does protect them, and the only reason it is not used is political correctness. To the detriment of the child.
However, more than gay pedophiles jumping for joy, the Scouts are careful about opposite gender leaders in camping situations with Scouts. A responsible recognition to the power of mating behavior. Homosexuals are exempt from that temptation and discretion?
All this is just another example of homosexuals throwing common sense and children under the bus to fulfill their fantasy and denial.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what I know... You seem to know an awful lot about gays and pedophiles. Why, exactly, is that?
Amazing.

You are willing to throw children under the bus with your denial. Now claim simple common sense makes me a gay pedophile.

Just plain vile.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193888 May 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
How about this... You go out and change all of the laws regarding pedophilia--make them determine what kind of pedophile they're dealing with. But be ready for all of the different types. There are Catholic, Baptists, Atheists, teachers, coaches, troop leaders, politicians, etc.
When it comes right down to it, would you want a man who has a history of molesting little girls working with little boys?
IMHO, if you are a pedophile, you are a pedophile. And the laws, as well as the scientists, seem to agree on that.
My activist days are long over. I am old and in a wheelchair. I simply want to discuss these issues, not march in the streets. I cannot. But you should be out there instead of here losing arguments with me on a silly topix thread.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#193889 May 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There is to the boys and the girls.
And they are distinct pedophiles.
Surely it would be wise to label the gender danger a pedophile represents?
Or are you suggesting we leave a child at risk to be politically correct?
<quoted text>
If those designations would protect the child, yes.
But you know they don't.
You also know what I suggest does protect them, and the only reason it is not used is political correctness. To the detriment of the child.
However, more than gay pedophiles jumping for joy, the Scouts are careful about opposite gender leaders in camping situations with Scouts. A responsible recognition to the power of mating behavior. Homosexuals are exempt from that temptation and discretion?
All this is just another example of homosexuals throwing common sense and children under the bus to fulfill their fantasy and denial.
<quoted text>
Amazing.
You are willing to throw children under the bus with your denial. Now claim simple common sense makes me a gay pedophile.
Just plain vile.
As Rose_NoHo's "Law" insists "Only morons care about children".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 15 hr dGo mnaDed lyHo i... 72,026
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Sat Trippystix 50
Where are the communal showers in Monterey? May 28 Jeremy 2
News Monterey working to prohibit alcohol, without a... May 25 DNTs 1
Review: Asian Filipino Market (Oct '12) May 20 amadeo urgonamiko 4
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) May 16 doug Gifford 1,542
News Redwood City approves highway undercrossing: Pa... May 14 Lives in Redwood ... 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages