Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Pietro Armando]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I don’t have any problem with those pairings, or SSM parings raising children either ( I know of several )
I do wonder if we should look into our allowing religious fundamentalists to raise children, that is a rather hateful environment.

The poses the question of how is "religious fundamentalism" defined. Any abuse regardless of the source has to be dealt with.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
That is what I keep telling him, get the signatures and put it on the ballot.( but he really doesn’t want to do that )
It isn’t going to be a serious discussion worth anything at all until he does that. Nothing before the courts right now will have any effect on it whatsoever
Just a diversionary tactic ( that continues to fail miserably )

You can write an essay about equal protection without gathering signatures. You can post about it without gathering signatures.

And you can use diversionary tactics like calling my posts diversionary tactics too!

But you cannot avoid revealing your hypocrisy.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a dead link. Learn how to post a link you dopey obsessed cyberstalking creep!
You can write an essay without taking it to SCOTUS jackass. You can post about equal protection without being off topic dummy. And censorship sucks. And you're just an angry fool.
Hope that helps!

One more time, I do not have a problem with poly. Got it? Hey your thread does exist

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You can write an essay about equal protection without gathering signatures. You can post about it without gathering signatures.
And you can use diversionary tactics like calling my posts diversionary tactics too!
But you cannot avoid revealing your hypocrisy.

You can ( and do )post all day long, but it won’t do your pet obsession any good at all, you certainly are not changing anyone’s opinion.

The only thing that will do it any good is for you to get the signatures needed for a proposition and put it on a ballot, that will elicit a response from the general public.

And then you can work from there, right not you are not at step one yet, you are just using it as a way to attack those that are for same sex marriage ( which so far has been your only point )

[Big D]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>One more time, I do not have a problem with poly. Got it? Hey your thread does exist

Neither do I, but he will pretend you do as that is the only way to attack you with it, which is his only point.

[Big D]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
The poses the question of how is "religious fundamentalism" defined. Any abuse regardless of the source has to be dealt with.

I agree

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
You can ( and do )post all day long, but it won’t do your pet obsession any good at all, you certainly are not changing anyone’s opinion.
The only thing that will do it any good is for you to get the signatures needed for a proposition and put it on a ballot, that will elicit a response from the general public.
And then you can work from there, right not you are not at step one yet, you are just using it as a way to attack those that are for same sex marriage ( which so far has been your only point )

Why do you refuse to discuss equal protection of the law?

Do I tell you you cannot support equal protection for same sex without gathering signatures?

Please educate yourself. Do you agree the government was right in denying these parents equal protection of the law? Why?

Why is it OK to deny them the same equal protection that same sex marriage gets?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree

That's right. There are laws against all the crimes you ignorantly accuse polygamists of, no need to make their marriage a crime. Prosecute criminals to the full extent of the law NO MATTER what type of marriage they are in.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Neither do I, but he will pretend you do as that is the only way to attack you with it, which is his only point.

I must have missed all his support for equal protection, perhaps you could give me a post number?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>One more time, I do not have a problem with poly. Got it? Hey your thread does exist

Where in that post did I say you did?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Neither do I, but he will pretend you do as that is the only way to attack you with it, which is his only point.

You "don't have a problem with it", but you say everyone else does because polygamists are child rapists, welfare cheats and all around bad actors!

Priceless!

[SeaQuesters]

Just who are the SeaQuesters?

They are a small group of ultra-nutty GOP, Republican

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You "don't have a problem with it", but you say everyone else does because polygamists are child rapists, welfare cheats and all around bad actors!
Priceless!

You aren’t bright enough to comprehend the truth of that, but others here are.

Right now the public face of polygamy is indeed child molesters and welfare cheats.

You need to change that

I would vote in favor of polygamy if it came up because I don’t see a valid reason to specifically disallow it. But that vote is not pending, and will not be coming up until you change the face of the most public supporters of it.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
You aren’t bright enough to comprehend the truth of that, but others here are.
Right now the public face of polygamy is indeed child molesters and welfare cheats.
You need to change that
I would vote in favor of polygamy if it came up because I don’t see a valid reason to specifically disallow it. But that vote is not pending, and will not be coming up until you change the face of the most public supporters of it.

Right. Same as it was for same sex marriage. I'm old enough to remember when people said the same ignorant and nasty things you said about poly about homosexuals.

They are known child molesters they used to say. Thankfully that has changed for them and hopefully it will change for poly too once people are educated.

When you keep saying people have a bad perception it is true. We need education to change that which I'm trying to do. But you shout me down. You say equal protection for poly is not to be discussed, only equal protection for same sex is allowed to be discussed.

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Right. Same as it was for same sex marriage. I'm old enough to remember when people said the same ignorant and nasty things you said about poly about homosexuals.
They are known child molesters they used to say. Thankfully that has changed for them and hopefully it will change for poly too once people are educated.
When you keep saying people have a bad perception it is true. We need education to change that which I'm trying to do. But you shout me down. You say equal protection for poly is not to be discussed, only equal protection for same sex is allowed to be discussed.

The difference is, those criminals are NOT the face of Same Sex marriage. And they didn’t just talk on a topix forum, they went and got the signatures and put them on ballots, and brought court cases to bear in other states and they are gaining ground more swiftly than anyone ( including themselves ) expected.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
The difference is, those criminals are NOT the face of Same Sex marriage. And they didn’t just talk on a topix forum, they went and got the signatures and put them on ballots, and brought court cases to bear in other states and they are gaining ground more swiftly than anyone ( including themselves ) expected.

There is no difference. Bad people were the face of homosexuality not very long ago, son. They showed us movies in school about staying away from evil homosexuals. Look on YouTube. They showed us their evil tactics to kidnap and molest us. And how to spot a dreaded queer. And to stay away at all costs.
In P.E. they told us to kick him in the balls and run screaming to an adult.

[Frankie Rizzo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Pietro Armando]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
You aren’t bright enough to comprehend the truth of that, but others here are.
Right now the public face of polygamy is indeed child molesters and welfare cheats.
You need to change that
I would vote in favor of polygamy if it came up because I don’t see a valid reason to specifically disallow it. But that vote is not pending, and will not be coming up until you change the face of the most public supporters of it.

That's changing. Shows like "Sister Wives", "Big Love", and "My Three Wives" are illustrating a different polygamy, plural marriage among consenting adults.

[Jazybird58]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
That's changing. Shows like "Sister Wives", "Big Love", and "My Three Wives" are illustrating a different polygamy, plural marriage among consenting adults.

Wonderfull, now all that need be done is get the laws changed. Cool, huh, why not start a petition on your home town. Great job.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Right. Same as it was for same sex marriage. I'm old enough to remember when people said the same ignorant and nasty things you said about poly about homosexuals.
They are known child molesters they used to say. Thankfully that has changed for them and hopefully it will change for poly too once people are educated.
When you keep saying people have a bad perception it is true. We need education to change that which I'm trying to do. But you shout me down. You say equal protection for poly is not to be discussed, only equal protection for same sex is allowed to be discussed.

Hire a lawyer and go for it