Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
I doubt you need one either way.

Telling me my D cups are so firm I don't need a bra...
You're another idiot who needs to work on his insults.

[Rose_NoHo]

akaidiot wrote:

<quoted text>
I love how someone who screams,"I don't give a damn what a bunch of racist white people wrote about the meaning of the Constitution over 200 years ago" now has the nerve to ask someone, "Why are you against the Constitution."
Thanks for the laugh dimwit.

Writing *about the meaning* of the Constitution and the Constitution are two different things. Thanks for the laugh, idiot. Also, the 14th Amendment wasn't around for them to write about over 200 years ago. LOLSER!

And you've yet to come up with a rational argument against ga marriage.

More laughs!

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
You're claiming you do have to be able to procreate in order to marry?

I'll wait while you cite the specific post where I made that statement.

but we all know, this is simply more of your rhetorical nonsense.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Telling me my D cups are so firm I don't need a bra...
You're another idiot who needs to work on his insults.

If that is how you comprehended that post, you truly are a giant among the mindless.

[Rose_NoHo]

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
You have bigger issues if you want to Fk the majority of a population.

OK, just the cute ones.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>

What pisses you off is that gay marriage has now been passed by popular vote, and you are on the losing side. Well, you are a loser.

That's interesting, considering I have voted against a state constitutional amendment which would limit marriage to one man and one woman.

Tell me again what I have lost?

[Fred]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>Telling me my D cups are so firm I don't need a bra...
You're another idiot who needs to work on his insults.

Unless you have D cups on your balls, you're Sh!t out of luck. Queers don't need bras. Get a life queer

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Writing *about the meaning* of the Constitution and the Constitution are two different things. Thanks for the laugh, idiot. Also, the 14th Amendment wasn't around for them to write about over 200 years ago. LOLSER!
And you've yet to come up with a rational argument against ga marriage.
More laughs!

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

You do realize the opinions of those whom drafted and ratified said Constitution and its subsequent Amendment's are the only opinions which matter don't you?

BTW, your ignorance of the 14th Amendment shows that you haven't read the opinion of those whom drafted and ratified said Amendment either. You wouldn't like what you read, and like everything else that runs counter to your little fantasy world you dismiss it as irrelevant.

Go get an education Rose, then we can talk. Until then your irrational retorts are all we will be graced with, and they are becoming quite repetitive as you are obviously running out of material.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>

And you've yet to come up with a rational argument against ga marriage.

Why would I present a rational argument against Georgia marriage?

Do you have something against GA Rose?

[Rose_NoHo]

akaidiot wrote:

<quoted text>
That's interesting, considering I have voted against a state constitutional amendment which would limit marriage to one man and one woman.

Yeah, right. And that's why you attack people in favor of gay marriage, and tea bag those against it.

akaidiot wrote:

Tell me again what I have lost?

I said you are on the losing side.

[Rose_NoHo]

akaidiot wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll wait while you cite the specific post where I made that statement.
but we all know, this is simply more of your rhetorical nonsense.

Not my fault you can't remember your posts.
But, I said you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry. You claimed that I disagree with the courts. That implies you're saying the courts say you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
If that is how you comprehended that post, you truly are a giant among the mindless.

Well, dummy, I have D cup breasts, you said I didn't need a bra...
Those would be some firm a$$ puppies! Telling a woman she has big, firm boobs isn't much of an insult. Now, are you going to really twist the knife and tell me I'm beautiful?

[Rose_NoHo]

akaidiot wrote:

<quoted text>
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
You do realize the opinions of those whom drafted and ratified said Constitution and its subsequent Amendment's are the only opinions which matter don't you?

LOL. Actually, the don't matter at all. They are worm poop now, and have been for centuries. Things have changed. Slavery is no longer allowed, 13th Amendment. Women can vote, 19th Amendment.

akaidiot wrote:

BTW, your ignorance of the 14th Amendment shows that you haven't read the opinion of those whom drafted and ratified said Amendment either. You wouldn't like what you read, and like everything else that runs counter to your little fantasy world you dismiss it as irrelevant.

Wonder how they would have felt about Loving v VA.
Doesn't matter, what mattered was how the Supreme Court felt about it in 1967.

akaidiot wrote:

Go get an education Rose, then we can talk. Until then your irrational retorts are all we will be graced with, and they are becoming quite repetitive as you are obviously running out of material.

LOL. Look who is talking!
Check your watch, it's the 21st Century.

[Xavier Breath]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Its been said that marriage developed as a means of dealing with the products, children, of the make female union. If human reproduction wasn't sexual, why would it matter who married who? Why prohibit siblings from marrying? Why does it matter to the state that men marry men/women marry women?

You didn't answer my question. Do you think reproduction is the ONE and ONLY State interest in marriage?

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, right. And that's why you attack people in favor of gay marriage, and tea bag those against it.
<quoted text>
I said you are on the losing side.

I don't attack anyone for their position on gay marriage.

I know that you feel attacked because I point out your ignorance, but that has nothing to do with your position on this issue.

In fact, it is the side of me that is in favor of same sex marriage that wishes you would shut up, you certainly aren't helping the cause with your ignorant nonsense.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Not my fault you can't remember your posts.
But, I said you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry. You claimed that I disagree with the courts. That implies you're saying the courts say you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.

That is your answer to your inability to back up your accusations with actual fact?

You really are a mental midget, I wouldn't be surprised if you have a post it note on your monitor reminding yourself to breath.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL. Actually, the don't matter at all. They are worm poop now, and have been for centuries. Things have changed. Slavery is no longer allowed, 13th Amendment. Women can vote, 19th Amendment.

You're right, when I want to understand the meaning of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment I should come to Rose for an explanation and not Jacob Howard, Lyman Trumbull, John Bingham, Thaddeus Stevens, Henry Deming, Benjamin G. Brown, Ignatius Donnelly etc..

My guess- you have never heard of any of those people.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>

Wonder how they would have felt about Loving v VA.
Doesn't matter, what mattered was how the Supreme Court felt about it in 1967.

Perhaps if you took the time to educate yourself you might know how many of them would have felt.

"It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!"-- James Madison

"The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind."-- George Mason

"There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery]."-- George Washington

"Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States ... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in ... abhorrence."-- John Adams

"It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."--John Jay

Now educate yourself so you can stop looking so damn stupid.

[commonpeeps]

Robsan5 wrote:

<quoted text>
Rose, why do you have a woman's name when everyone knows you a gay man?
Robert

Does that mean moho is gay even after the operation?

[Robsan5]

commonpeeps wrote:

<quoted text>Does that mean moho is gay even after the operation?

Absolutely

Robert