Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I was just laughing at him complaining about the link, it worked for me, maybe he is computer challenged.
There is a special living facility for the computer impaired

More lies, from Big Deceitful.

[Rose_NoHo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh Rose...I didn't say they wouldn't.

Then, um, so what?

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Karma is a_______ wrote:

<quoted text>
Not really sure what you mean by "all marriage equality" there Frankie boy but I hazard to guess you mean
1. Marrying children
2. Marrying blood relatives, i.e. mom & son, father & daughter, brother & sister.
3. Marrying your pet.
4. polygamy
First you are using the slippery slope fallacy. But just to answer your stupidity.
1. There is thing called AGE OF CONSENT. Children can not give their consent to sex and marriage. ergo it will remain illegal.
CASED CLOSED
2. Therre are health issues with marrying close relatives, which is why it is illegal. You can easily see what happens by studying British and Russian royalty in the 1600-1800's, particularly the Tsar family, you will notice the high rate of hemophilia. And that was with cousins marrying cousins. No telling what would have happened between direct family members...well I take that back...you are a prime example.
3. Besides from the obvious health issues, animals can not give their consent to marriage....so it would be rape.
4. marriage above all else is a social contract. Inheritances, medical decisions, etc are all part of that contract. With polygamy, the lines of who gets what, who makes what decisions are blurred and lead to legal battles. Does one of the wives who is not the mother of one of the children in the marriage get to make medical decisions for that child is a prime example of why polygamy is illegal.
These are all rational, logical reasons why the slippery slope fallacy is moot. However, judging by your previous posts, intelligent logical debate is not your forte. Debating with a wall has better results.

Just to clarify,#1 and #3 are your additions. As for #2, there is no risk of developing hemophilia by marrying your close/blood relatives. As we have been told that procreation is not a valid marriage point, there is no basis for worrying about children of these marriages. Slippery slope #1...
As for #4, these are issues that can be covered by a contract, so this is slippery slope #2...
Don't be so stupid, next time, if you can help it....

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Karma is a_______ wrote:

<quoted text>
are these rhetoric questions, or do you want answers?

You mean "rhetorical", not "rhetoric", and you meant to type "borne out", not "bore out"....No answers required.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

The dummy Jizzybird's thread he made for me-
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TUNATFE41...

Yeah, I caught the subsequent one that he had to create, after the fact. The original one that he listed didn't work.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, I caught the subsequent one that he had to create, after the fact. The original one that he listed didn't work.

He has trouble posting links due to the fact that he is stupid.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
How silly. there is no list, else you'd be on it.

It's an imaginary list.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
You are spinning. The number is 41. Not 32. Actually, you are not spinning, you are flat out lying.

Big D is an unabashed liar. If you call him on it, he'll accuse you of lying.

I call it Big D's Liar Straw Man. He attempts to get you to defend yourself to take the attention away from his lies. Of course it only works for so long.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>About to change? Really? What State is about to legalize polygamous marriage?

Are you now going to try and tell us polygamy will never, ever be legalized Miss Thing? Remember not long ago that's what they said about gay marriage?

Why are you a hypocrite?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
You're getting to resemble Chongo, with the made up bullshit.

Rose_NoHo is of course his hero, like all the dumbasses.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, you sure fooled us all, with that list.

It's an imaginary list. It's in Jizzybirds head only. But he thinks we can see it too. And he thinks we don't know he's a liar.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
More lies, from Big Deceitful.

Big D has rightfully gotten quite a reputation as the liar he is.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean "rhetorical", not "rhetoric", and you meant to type "borne out", not "bore out"....No answers required.

"Karma_____" is quick to point out other's mistakes in grammar, making his own mistakes as he does it! Priceless!

[Pietro Armando]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Polygamists already have marriage equality.

They do? How so?

[Pietro Armando]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, they do, Bigfoot. If a polygamist walks into the JP and asks to marry more than one person, they will be told the same thing anybody else is told.

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? So that restriction should be maintained, but not the opposite sex restriction?

That's equal. Should people be allowed to marry more than one person? Well, that's not really the topic here, why not start a forum and talk about it? Oh, yeah, you don't really give a damn about polygamy, you are just against gay marriage, but can't come up with a good argument against it, so you try to cloud the issue by bringing up polygamy.(Notice, I'm not taking a stand on polygamy.)

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.

Why is the opposite sex requirement, discriminatory, but not the one spouse at a time?

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?

[Pannicked]

Panicked LAPD Fire 60+ Rounds at Women in Manhunt for Rogue Cop.

[Pietro Armando]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>HEY stupid, reproduction is not a requirement in marriage.

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.

[Pietro Armando]

"...a few scattered examples of recognized ss relationships,...."

[Neil Andblowme]

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.

...and? Were you making a point? Do you think if gay couples marry, opposite sex couples will stop having babies? Will they stop enjoying the benefits of marriage?

[Neil Andblowme]

Execute All Crooked Cops wrote:

blah, blah, blah

Honey, that shit closes out of town.