Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
I highly doubt that I am the first, and the internet is the only place- you have been called a moron.
That is probably why you get so upset about it.

You can't argue against my arguments, so you'll just call me names.

[Mike DiRucci]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Get a room.

Get a job.

[Mike DiRucci]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
akpilot's only tactic - post his stupid list and avoid dealing with my argument.

That'd be #2.

[Mike DiRucci]

Dan C wrote:

<quoted text>
Looks like there's a shift taking place.
"One in five surveyed admitted to changing their view on same-sex marriage in the last few years, as President Barack Obama said he did earlier this year."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-pl...

Boring.

[Bruno]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't be so stupid. Training is not "union dependent", that is to say, that training happens with, or without, union presence. Dumbass. Any boss that wishes to have a job performed, correctly, will provide training. Idiot. Are you seriously purporting that the only reason a boss provides training is because the union showed up and demanded it ? Schmuck. Get real. I have enough backbone to stand on my own, and get what I want, without the presence of a crowd of thugs, standing behind me. You really are stupid, you know that ? I do not "do without', as you have claimed, and I have myself to thank for that, not your mafia-backed gang of cut-throats. Chicken-shyte. If you were a real man, you'd have enough backbone to walk in to any man's office, or woman's, for that matter, and speak clearly, and achieve your goals. Are you afraid to make eye contact with someone ? Putz. Go ahead and pay your dues, junior, as any coward does, who needs to belong to a large group, in order to be heard. Don't try to understand me, as comprehension of a real man is plainly beyond your grasp. F**K the unions.

lol ... you clearly are the idiot, my union teaches a skill, we are not cut-throats, we are on the top of our game that is why th employer pays us what we are worth. Our lowest pay scale is $37 hr. and we have the best medical and pension around, go choke on y our bosses manhood you little scab

[Bruno]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
It's funny that you "small government" con dumb think government should be in charge of enforcing traditions. Do you think someone who gives a couple something made of china instead of cotton for their second anniversary should go to jail?
BTW, unless a non consenting party is involve, and act can't be immoral. So, unless someone is forced into a gay marriage, it can't be immoral.

WTF? here have some bananas

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
I told you that the nonsense in your head was no substitute for actual proof. You cannot show me saying that I approve of it. Men and women do have equal rights to marry.

Just not true.
If a man walks into the JP and asks to marry a woman, he'll be told "yes", if a woman does the same thing, she'll be told "no".
Has nothing to do with sexual behavior. The JP won't even ask.
"Yes" != "no".

R Hudson wrote:

Neither gender has a sanction against their right to marry. Women are as free to marry, as men are.

Blacks and whites were both free to marry before Loving v VA. But still laws against inter-racial marriage violated the 14th Amendment.

R Hudson wrote:

And homosexuality is behavioral, not orientation.

Are you straight?

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
1) Marriage is a public act. We do have equal rights. Women and men are able to marry. Inter-racial marriage is allowed. Any person of
legal age and competence is allowed to marry.

Not an equal right.

R Hudson wrote:

2) Homosexuality is defined as sexual relations between same sex couples, not anal sex.

Tell KiMare that.

R Hudson wrote:

And your made up "fun fact" about hetero couples engaging in more anal sex than gay couples is a lie.

Really? What percentage of the population is made up of gay males?

R Hudson wrote:

3) Because same-sex couples cannot create a child-producing combination by themselves, their relationship is a recreational activity more like tennis than like marriage.

Feel the same way about heterosexual couples who can't or choose not to reproduce?

R Hudson wrote:

4) We think that you WERE aborted.

Looks like they got your face with the abortion scalpel, bigfoot!

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
1) No, Loving v VA was about ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States, not gay marriage. Stop tactic #2'ing, right now.

Loving v VA was a case about equal rights WRT marriage.

R Hudson wrote:

2) We object to the misuse of the word to define anyone who opposes the
legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot.

Then quit being a hate filled bigot.

R Hudson wrote:

The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent “gay bashers” and hateful fanatics. When gays use the term, they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong. Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. homophobia is a nonsense word invented by “gay” as a rhetorical weapon against its
opponents. It lumps together all opponents as mentally-ill “gay bashers” and, in doing so, declares mainstream doctrines to be harmful and illegitimate. It is fallacious and specious. Abuse of language is a dangerous thing.
3) It is not "phobic" at all, it is sensibility. And can you define any differences between homophobic and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality?

Can you define any differences between racist and non-racist opposition to all white people?

R Hudson wrote:

4) No, it won't. Common sense will prevail.

Equality will prevail.

[Rose_NoHo]

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
WTF? here have some bananas

Bruno + R Hudson = cat fight!
LOL. It's funny to watch you two scratch at each other.
Just make sure your gel tips have finished curing first!

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
AND for Gods sake, talking about proper use of words, the word is "cited", not "sited"...fer crying out loud. Your attempt to look clever is diminished, when you misuse simpler words than any that you have seen me use.
Easy, dude, you should try to read up on "Basic English For Beginners"...

You were attacking your own post. LOL!

[WWYT club]

Keepers of the flame.

[Marram]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
If you want to put a chink in the armor of "Procreation is irrelevant in marriage" tell em you support incest marriage. Listen to the stuttering and double talk! Fun!
I do. I support all forms of marriage among consenting adults. I find some of the biggest bigots against less common forms of marriage are same sex marriage advocates. Funny that. You'd think maybe they are hypocrites.

Hypocrisy is not a valid reason to deny someone’s rights. Why don’t you make negative posts to people who only support opposite sex marriages with only two people?

[hornets0627]

Everyone seems to be moving off topic? Here's a way to get back on it!?

http://www.examiner.com/article/supreme-court...

:):)

[Mike DiRucci]

Marram wrote:

<quoted text>
Hypocrisy is not a valid reason to deny someone’s rights. Why don’t you make negative posts to people who only support opposite sex marriages with only two people?

I sometimes do. Perhaps your bias makes you miss them.

I support same sex marriage. I don't support pompous iceholes who think since they support SSM, their sh!t no longer stinks. And who think I should consider it the most important issue in our troubled world.

Good luck, hope you get to marry whoever you like. Don't shoot the messenger.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
akpilot's only tactic - post his stupid list and avoid dealing with my argument.

Once again Rose, you must present an argument if you want someone to "deal" with it.

My guess is you are simply out of ideas.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't argue against my arguments, so you'll just call me names.

Your right, since your "arguments" are simply fantasies in your own mind which others aren't privy to it is quick difficult to go against them.

How about you share with the rest of us in this forum what exactly this "argument" is that you have presented which I cannot counter?

[akpilot]

Opps, I better make that "you're" before Rose wets herself over a typo.

[akpilot]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Get a job.

She tried, but her Resume was written like her posts and she never got a call back.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Loving v VA was a case about equal rights WRT marriage.

No, it was a case about interracial marriage.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Then quit being a hate filled bigot.

Tactic #4

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Can you define any differences between racist and non-racist opposition to all white people?

WTF?
Tactic 1, I guess.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Equality will prevail.

Not until we rewrite the tax code/

Rose tactic #1- Act stupid-(not so sure it is an act)
Rose Tactic #2- Misdirect
Rose Tactic #3- Make stupid comments until opposition is tired of replying then claim victory
Rose Tactic #4- Attack the poster- scream Racist, Bigot, Homophobe
Rose Tactic #5- Act intelligent by making silly statistical references such as- Most people who have anal sex are straight-
Rose Tactic #6- Falsely accuse others of lies- when proven wrong through links to previous posts revert back to tactics 2 and 4.
Rose Tactic #7- Claim to have made an argument, then claim others can't counter the argument that doesn't actually exist.