Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,146

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.

Full Story
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179144 Feb 10, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>I would love to debate you, unfortunately you fail to meet the minimum requirements of intelligence. 60 votes and climbing, atta boy Frankieeee
It's the other way around.

And you'd lose a debate with me that is the real reason you just use ad hominem.

And of course the one arguing against equal rights (you) always loses!
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179145 Feb 10, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>I am thinking about putting in a new kitchen. After all I am in your head rent free.
Talk about off topic! But that's cool. I had my kitchen in my CA place remodeled last year. I recommend it, worth the cost, especially when you sell. You'll get your money back.

And every time you go into your new kitchen, you'll think of me! I am now in your big dopey tin foil hatted head to the point of obsession! Woo HOO!

I mean starting a troll thread because you are frustrated that you are too dumb to debate me? That's defeat, son!
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179146 Feb 10, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>I am thinking about putting in a new kitchen. After all I am in your head rent free.
Relax Fruitcake! Let's try and calm you down and get you back to the topic. Why are you against same sex marriage?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179148 Feb 10, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Keep piling on the votes flunkie
So what's your imaginary vote count at now?

My imaginary vote count is Frankie 100, Jizzy 0. Does that jive with yours? Let me know.

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#179149 Feb 10, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So what's your imaginary vote count at now?
My imaginary vote count is Frankie 100, Jizzy 0. Does that jive with yours? Let me know.
YUK!YUK!YUK!
What are we voting for?
Brief flight

Monrovia, CA

#179150 Feb 10, 2013
I've seen this headline before, 30 seconds over tokyo?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179151 Feb 10, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
What are we voting for?
It's an imaginary vote in Jazybird58's head only.

He got so frustrated because he's too stupid to debate me that he created a troll thread, complete with a fake imaginary vote count!

It kind of backfired on the dummy! Come on over and cast your imaginary vote.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TUNATFE41...
Flight times

Monrovia, CA

#179152 Feb 10, 2013
I've seen this headline before, 60 seconds over tokyo?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#179153 Feb 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the polygamist wearing a sign or a t-shirt with the word "polygamist" on it? How does the JP know? Suppose the polygamist is asking to marry another person?
That's the whole point. Polygamist or not, a person can only marry one person. Equal.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So that restriction should be maintained, but not the opposite sex restriction?
Pay attention this time, dummy. I didn't say the number restriction should or shouldn't be maintained. I'm just pointing out it's not an equal rights issue. Should the number restriction be maintained? Well, why not start a forum on polygamy and discuss that issue?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet you cannot come up with a valid reason why same sex marriage should be legalized, but not plural marriage. Too legally complex perhaps? Complexity can be overcome.
Gay marriage is an equal rights issue.
A man can marry a woman, so a woman should have that same right.
A woman can marry a man, so a man should have that same right.

Plural marriage? Why not start a forum about the topic?
Could it be you really don't give a damn about it?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why is the opposite sex requirement, discriminatory, but not the one spouse at a time?
Jesus H, take notes this time...
The opposite sex requirement gives men and women unequal rights WRT the gender of the person they can marry. The one spouse at a time requirement gives everybody the same rights WRT the number of people they can marry. That doesn't mean it's a good requirement, just not an equal rights issue.

Hey, I have an idea, why don't you start a forum and talk about the issues that would be involved in plural marriages?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do SSM advocates see the big picture? Is it possible to see beyond the rainbow colored glasses? Gay folks say change marriage for them, polygamists say change marriage for them. At what point does it no longer matter who, legally, marries who? Why bother regulate marriage at all?
Slippery slope and red herring. Slippery herring? Sounds kinda suggestive. Red slope? Not much better.

Each issue can stand or fall on its own merits.
Ever consider starting a forum to talk about the issues involved in plural marriages?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179154 Feb 10, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the whole point. Polygamist or not, a person can only marry one person. Equal.
<quoted text>
Pay attention this time, dummy. I didn't say the number restriction should or shouldn't be maintained. I'm just pointing out it's not an equal rights issue. Should the number restriction be maintained? Well, why not start a forum on polygamy and discuss that issue?
<quoted text>
Gay marriage is an equal rights issue.
A man can marry a woman, so a woman should have that same right.
A woman can marry a man, so a man should have that same right.
Plural marriage? Why not start a forum about the topic?
Could it be you really don't give a damn about it?
<quoted text>
Jesus H, take notes this time...
The opposite sex requirement gives men and women unequal rights WRT the gender of the person they can marry. The one spouse at a time requirement gives everybody the same rights WRT the number of people they can marry. That doesn't mean it's a good requirement, just not an equal rights issue.
Hey, I have an idea, why don't you start a forum and talk about the issues that would be involved in plural marriages?
<quoted text>
Slippery slope and red herring. Slippery herring? Sounds kinda suggestive. Red slope? Not much better.
Each issue can stand or fall on its own merits.
Ever consider starting a forum to talk about the issues involved in plural marriages?
Denying equal rights for polyamorists is "not an equal rights issue". Priceless!

Who else's rights do you consider "not an equal rights issue"?

See if that flies in court, Miss Thing.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#179155 Feb 10, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus H, take notes this time...
?
Your gardener can multitask, how great is thou?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#179156 Feb 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE!!!!!!! Sex between men and women makes babies. Human societies throughout history have recognized this, that is why marriage is privileged over other human relationships, and it has been, except for a few scattered historical examples, a male female union of either one man one woman, or one man many women. Its simply biology.
It's a non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Next.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#179157 Feb 10, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Next.
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;

A apple tree bearing fruit.
A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Smirk.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179158 Feb 10, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Next.
IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE!!!!!!! Sex between men and women makes babies. Human societies throughout history have recognized this, that is why marriage is privileged over other human relationships, and it has been, except for a few scattered historical examples of recognized as relationships, a male female union of either one man one woman, or one man many women. Its simply biology.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#179159 Feb 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
A apple tree bearing fruit.
A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The fact you think you've made an apt analogy.
For one reason, walnut trees DO bear fruit, because nuts are fruits.
But even if they weren't, the ability to bear fruit is part of the definition of a fruit tree. But the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of a marriage.
Are you so stupid because your brain is made from tissue with two different types of DNA, and it just doesn't work properly?
KiMare wrote:
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smirk.
Again, stupid, the ability to bear apples is part of the definition of an apple tree, in fact, that's pretty much it, but the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of marriage.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#179160 Feb 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE!!!!!!! Sex between men and women makes babies. Human societies throughout history have recognized this, that is why marriage is privileged over other human relationships, and it has been, except for a few scattered historical examples of recognized as relationships, a male female union of either one man one woman, or one man many women. Its simply biology.
It's a simple non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Now, try to come up with an argument against gay marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179161 Feb 10, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a simple non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Now, try to come up with an argument against gay marriage.
I have no argument against a gay man marrying a gay woman. See we both support gay marriage.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179162 Feb 10, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a simple non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Now, try to come up with an argument against gay marriage.
No, you don't understand. Gay marriage is a simple non issue. I mean it's simply not an issue, it just isn't.

Now see how silly that sounds? But it's exactly what you say about other's rights. Dismiss them. They're "non issues"!

Tell it to the judge toots. Probably lock up your dumbass for contempt.
Day Care

Monrovia, CA

#179163 Feb 10, 2013
Just look at all those LOUD, fat mouthed GOP, Republicans screaming and shouting.

Thats why these pieces of dung didn't gt elected and lost seats!

Screaming little children, them all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179164 Feb 10, 2013
Day Care wrote:
Just look at all those LOUD, fat mouthed GOP, Republicans screaming and shouting.
Thats why these pieces of dung didn't gt elected and lost seats!
Screaming little children, them all.
Oh and the Dems are all slim mouthed adults? Pull-eeze

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.

Rancho Cucamonga Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Lesbian snapchat users? 41 min Amy 9
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Bruin For Life 28,250
West Covina K-9 Reiko returns home as police id... Wed Anonymous 1
Shooting in Cherryville!!!!! (Apr '07) Wed fat hyna 323
Pastor charged with bigamy (Apr '10) Nov 19 lavon affair 16
Four Rancho Cucamonga residents for using a wom... (Dec '09) Nov 18 revenge 34
BLACKS and MEXICANS in Rancho Cucamonga! (Sep '11) Nov 4 dogon oak 11

Rancho Cucamonga News Video

Rancho Cucamonga People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Rancho Cucamonga News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Rancho Cucamonga

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:42 pm PST