Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Brian_G]

If you love diversity and hate segregation; keep marriage one man and one woman.

[KiMare]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't seem to know what "default" means, stupid. And gay people have other options. And, stupid, anal sex isn't inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

1. It means 'another option', but includes the element of 'fault' in it.

2. Where did I say gays didn't have other default options. Or anyone for that matter. What I did say, is the that the union of body, mind and spirit by marriage can only be imitated by gays by default.

3. Intercourse violates sphincter muscles. Eat sh/t and die if it is so healthy, otherwise sit on it!

Ho, Ho, Ho.

[Quest]

Brian_G wrote:

If you love diversity and hate segregation; keep marriage one man and one woman.

This is the type of line of thinking that happens when someone finally gives up. They KNOW there is no rational argument against same sex marriage, and admit it, but they just can't stop posting.

It's sad, really. But kind of funny, too. They are proposing that the government interfere with marriage choices to an unprecedented and unsustainable level.

They are demanding "diversity" inside of each marriage, so they must also require different religions and races to be present inside each marriage. It's not just gender that receives government protection against segregation and discrimination.

Can you imagine the tax dollars and levels of governmental interference in personal lives required to implement their ideas?

[Dusty Mangina]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>

This is a perfectly good marriage equality thread. If you are truly interested in MARRIAGE EQUALITY. And not more of the same. Equality for approved groups only.
Your attempts at censorship suck.

Silly me, I thought the thread was entitled "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage". Mea culpa.

Your attempts at diversionary tactics suck.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
Silly me, I thought the thread was entitled "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage". Mea culpa.
Your attempts at diversionary tactics suck.

That's what they all say, poly isn't marriage equality because the judge didn't mention it.

But striking down prop 8, which mandates that marriage is between one man and a one woman, also strikes down that pesky "one" thing along with that pesky "man woman" thing. Glad it makes you mad, hypocrite! But you can't have one without the other and have equality.

Marriage equality is for everyone, not just people you approve of.

[Rainbow]

And why doesn't the little pea brained GOP, Republican and tea party idiots go fly kites.

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Eat sh/t and die if it is so healthy, otherwise sit on it!
Ho, Ho, Ho.

Careful, your sock puppet is showing.

[KiMare]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
This is the type of line of thinking that happens when someone finally gives up. They KNOW there is no rational argument against same sex marriage, and admit it, but they just can't stop posting.
It's sad, really. But kind of funny, too. They are proposing that the government interfere with marriage choices to an unprecedented and unsustainable level.
They are demanding "diversity" inside of each marriage, so they must also require different religions and races to be present inside each marriage. It's not just gender that receives government protection against segregation and discrimination.
Can you imagine the tax dollars and levels of governmental interference in personal lives required to implement their ideas?

Hardly, it is in fact carrying the context of gender, rather than illogically embracing every other aspect of marriage.

The fact is, marriage has always been the reunion of genders into a genderless being. In fact, it harkens back to the very roots of life; simple, genderless life forms.

Gay couples, on the other hand, are simply duplicate unions. Always only half of what a heterosexual couple equates to.

Smile.

[aLeppoo]

What took you clown "out of towners" post-toasties so long to make a come back?

[Xavier Breath]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

The subject is marriage equality, why does that upset you so much if it includes ALL MARRIAGES? Are you a hypocrite and you're mad at me for it? It's on you Miss Thing. Deal with it.
http://poly-nyc.com/

The subject is Prop 8, not marriage equality. You fail at reading comprehension....AGAIN.

[Xavier Breath]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
That's what they all say, poly isn't marriage equality because the judge didn't mention it.
But striking down prop 8, which mandates that marriage is between one man and a one woman, also strikes down that pesky "one" thing along with that pesky "man woman" thing. Glad it makes you mad, hypocrite! But you can't have one without the other and have equality.
Marriage equality is for everyone, not just people you approve of.

Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. It will reamin illegal after Prop 8. Striking down Prop 8 will NOT strike down bigamy laws. Prop 8 had NOTHING to do with polygamy. This thread is not about polygamy. The article in question is not about polygamy, nor does it mention polygamy. None of the judges made any ruling concerning polygamy.... they did NOT strike down that "pesky one thing."

[Xavier Breath]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Hardly, it is in fact carrying the context of gender, rather than illogically embracing every other aspect of marriage.
The fact is, marriage has always been the reunion of genders into a genderless being. In fact, it harkens back to the very roots of life; simple, genderless life forms.
Gay couples, on the other hand, are simply duplicate unions. Always only half of what a heterosexual couple equates to.
Smile.

So now two is half of two, eh? I figured out you are "unstable" but now I know you're off-the-deep-end nuts.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
The subject is Prop 8, not marriage equality. You fail at reading comprehension....AGAIN.

Yes. Prop 8 says marriage is a man and a woman. That's not fair. Not fair to homosexuals and EQUALLY unfair to polyamorists.

Striking down prop 8 strikes down the "a" part of "a" man and "a" woman as well as the "man" "woman" part.

So you see, it is very on topic. The only reason you try to spin that it's not is because you are a hypocrite. And it righfully makes you uncomfortable. That's on you Miss Thing, not me.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. It will reamin illegal after Prop 8. Striking down Prop 8 will NOT strike down bigamy laws. Prop 8 had NOTHING to do with polygamy. This thread is not about polygamy. The article in question is not about polygamy, nor does it mention polygamy. None of the judges made any ruling concerning polygamy.... they did NOT strike down that "pesky one thing."

Yes. Polygamy will still be illegal, but it will have one more restriction removed, prop 8.

Prop 8 says marriage is a man and a woman. That's not fair. Not fair to homosexuals and EQUALLY unfair to polyamorists.

Striking down prop 8 strikes down the "a" part of "a" man and "a" woman as well as the "man" "woman" part.

So you see, it is very on topic. The only reason you try to spin that it's not is because you are a hypocrite. And it righfully makes you uncomfortable. That's on you Miss Thing, not me.

[Frankie Rizzo]

http://poly-nyc.com/

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly, it is in fact carrying the context of gender, rather than illogically embracing every other aspect of marriage.
The fact is, marriage has always been the reunion of genders into a genderless being. In fact, it harkens back to the very roots of life; simple, genderless life forms.
Gay couples, on the other hand, are simply duplicate unions. Always only half of what a heterosexual couple equates to.
Smile.

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
So now two is half of two, eh? I figured out you are "unstable" but now I know you're off-the-deep-end nuts.

I accurately correct an attempt to divert from gender equality, and you turn around and do the same thing right off the bat (pun intended).

Here, let me school you;

We were not talking about numbers, we were talking about genders (See the very first sentence I posted for context). A gay couple represents half the available genders. A heterosexual couple is as diverse as gender possible. Both have two people, but one has only half the genders.

If I am unstable, what does that make you?

I have a letter certifying my sanity, this is a clear indication you need to pursue one. I can help you some more if you'd like.

Smile.

[Frankie Rizzo]

If anyone sees "Xavier Breath" stick a fork in him. I think he's done.

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

I have a letter certifying my sanity, this is a clear indication you need to pursue one. I can help you some more if you'd like.
Smile.

You claim to have 3, and you also claimed to lie to friends in order to obtain them.

Why are you so boastful about this?

Inner lesbian remembers things.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Marriage. There is no one right way.

[PooMobila]

Look another paving job over the "out of towners" stupid postings.

It's reported that the pope commissioned a two-volume, 300-page document that ended up exposing a network of gay bishops within the Vatican.