Homosexual marriage is legal

Homosexual marriage is legal

There are 2468 comments on the www.examiner.com story from Jun 27, 2013, titled Homosexual marriage is legal. In it, www.examiner.com reports that:

In a 5-4 decision, which, did not surprise anyone, the Supreme Court demonstrated once again that the federal high court is willing to impose by judicial edict what the voters of the individual States in the majority of States have refused to do: allow the marriage of homosexuals ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.examiner.com.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2052 Sep 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Man does not equal woman.
I realize that this is too simple for you to grasp.
What's good for the gay goose is good for the poly gander.
True. Glad you know your real place in life.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#2053 Sep 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Man does not equal woman.
I realize that this is too simple for you to grasp.
What's good for the gay goose is good for the poly gander.
I suppose you THINK that mess means something.... As if.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2054 Sep 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
True. Glad you know your real place in life.
LOL I do. Yeah yeah, who's gonna open the pickel jars for you?

Rose Feratu says polygamy shouldn't be allowed because three does not equal two.

That's just like saying same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because man does not equal woman.

Rose Feratu is a hypocrite. And a big dummy.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2055 Sep 6, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you THINK that mess means something.... As if.
Yes. It means you are a hypocrite.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#2056 Sep 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL I do. Yeah yeah, who's gonna open the pickel jars for you?
Rose Feratu says polygamy shouldn't be allowed because three does not equal two.
That's just like saying same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because man does not equal woman.
Rose Feratu is a hypocrite. And a big dummy.
Where did you learn logic, IDIOT University?

three does not equal two means three does not equal two. It has NOTHING

NOTHING

to do with gender, so your stupid analogy FAILS on the most elementary level. Of course, I don't expect you to understand. You've been squawking about polygamy forever. It's a big, fat red herring.... a chance for you to shoot off your mouth and look stupid. Evidently, you like that.

If you think that makes me a hypocrite, go ahead. Think whatever blows your skirt up. You will anyway. You FUX News types aren't concerned with reality or facts. In your world, a person who chooses blueberry pie over apple pie would be a pie hypocrite.... hardly the correct usage of the word, but I digress.....
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#2057 Sep 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. It means you are a hypocrite.
No it doesn't. It means I understand simple arithmetic, something that continues to elude you.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2058 Sep 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL I do. Yeah yeah, who's gonna open the pickel jars for you?
Rose Feratu says polygamy shouldn't be allowed because three does not equal two.
That's just like saying same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because man does not equal woman.
Rose Feratu is a hypocrite. And a big dummy.
If it won't open, I just use a bigger hammer. Polygamy? That's what traditional marriage is all about. Read your Bible. If your brother dies, you gotta marry his ugly wife and support her along with all the mug-rats. Makes no difference if you are married or not.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2059 Sep 6, 2013
... like George Carlin. Just don't sit too close.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2060 Sep 6, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you learn logic, IDIOT University?
three does not equal two means three does not equal two. It has NOTHING
NOTHING
to do with gender, so your stupid analogy FAILS on the most elementary level. Of course, I don't expect you to understand. You've been squawking about polygamy forever. It's a big, fat red herring.... a chance for you to shoot off your mouth and look stupid. Evidently, you like that.
If you think that makes me a hypocrite, go ahead. Think whatever blows your skirt up. You will anyway. You FUX News types aren't concerned with reality or facts. In your world, a person who chooses blueberry pie over apple pie would be a pie hypocrite.... hardly the correct usage of the word, but I digress.....
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

What harm would a marriage of three consenting adult men cause you?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2061 Sep 6, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't. It means I understand simple arithmetic, something that continues to elude you.
I understand simple biology. Nana Nana Nana! Male and female.

The bottom line is I support marriage equality and you do not.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#2062 Sep 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
Um..... since when did heterosexuals stop getting married? Geez, pal.... OF COURSE heterosexuality is still legally, morally and socially relevant. Are you nuts or just weak-minded?

Monogamy? WTF? Did you mean fidelity? Three people can agree to exclusivity.... who cares? Certainly not me. But if you want to argue "equal protection," three does not equal two. It would be a GREATER protection of the law.

No wonder our country is fucked. Lunatics like you are on the loose, babbling incoherently and INCORRECTLY about constitutional protections.

Here is something my Dad always says: "You run YOUR railroad and I'll run mine." Stop being such a putz and shut the fuck up about things you obviously don't understand. One Sarah Palin in this country is enough.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#2063 Sep 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand simple biology. Nana Nana Nana! Male and female.
The bottom line is I support marriage equality and you do not.
Equality??????

Evidently that concept escapes you. Three does not EQUAL two.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2064 Sep 7, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Um..... since when did heterosexuals stop getting married? Geez, pal.... OF COURSE heterosexuality is still legally, morally and socially relevant. Are you nuts or just weak-minded?
Monogamy? WTF? Did you mean fidelity? Three people can agree to exclusivity.... who cares? Certainly not me. But if you want to argue "equal protection," three does not equal two. It would be a GREATER protection of the law.
No wonder our country is fucked. Lunatics like you are on the loose, babbling incoherently and INCORRECTLY about constitutional protections.
Here is something my Dad always says: "You run YOUR railroad and I'll run mine." Stop being such a putz and shut the fuck up about things you obviously don't understand. One Sarah Palin in this country is enough.
Oh I understand it. It's a simple concept really. You get angry when polygamy is mentioned because you are a hypocrite and know it.

I will not STFU. I have the same right to be here that you do. You know, equal.

Your anger speaks volumes.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2065 Sep 7, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>Equality??????
Evidently that concept escapes you. Three does not EQUAL two.
Man does not equal woman.

If we can discard the gender part of "one man one woman" we can discard the number part too. Evidently that concept escapes you.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#2066 Sep 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Man does not equal woman.
If we can discard the gender part of "one man one woman" we can discard the number part too. Evidently that concept escapes you.
Um.... says who? What rule of logic backs that up.... oh... there isn't one because it's a logical FALLACY. Geezz, you really are dumber than dirt.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#2067 Sep 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I understand it. It's a simple concept really. You get angry when polygamy is mentioned because you are a hypocrite and know it.
I will not STFU. I have the same right to be here that you do. You know, equal.
Your anger speaks volumes.
Angry?

ahahahah
ahhaahhahaha
ahhahahaahah

Yeah, stupid people make me angry.... SO angry I get a good belly laugh from reading your ill-conceived, spurious posts.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2068 Sep 7, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>Um.... says who? What rule of logic backs that up.... oh... there isn't one because it's a logical FALLACY. Geezz, you really are dumber than dirt.
Who is dumber? You who tries to make the case that it's OK to drop the gender requirement but not the number requirement and who has no justification for that hypocrisy beyond childish ad hominem?

Or me who believes equal protection extends to everyone?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2069 Sep 7, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Angry?
ahahahah
ahhaahhahaha
ahhahahaahah
Yeah, stupid people make me angry.... SO angry I get a good belly laugh from reading your ill-conceived, spurious posts.
Right. You are angry. Very obviously. It's anger at yourself for being a hypocrite that you are projecting on me.

Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage. Prove it doesn't. Skip the angry ad hominem bullsh!t.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2070 Sep 7, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>Um.... says who? What rule of logic backs that up.... oh... there isn't one because it's a logical FALLACY. Geezz, you really are dumber than dirt.
When several states have already abandoned the notion that heterosexual marriage is essential for social stability, I fail to see your logic in insisting that monogamy still is.

Tell me your logic, this is not kindergarten. Dumber than dirt means nothing. It just shows your frustration at your own bigotry.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#2071 Sep 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is dumber? You who tries to make the case that it's OK to drop the gender requirement but not the number requirement and who has no justification for that hypocrisy beyond childish ad hominem?
Or me who believes equal protection extends to everyone?
No justification? Hello.......... where's YOUR justification? There isn't any. It just sounds good to you because you are stupid.
So one requirement is changed and EVERTHING is up for grabs, eh? Where did you learn logic.... oh wait.... it's obvious you didn't.

Equal protection???? again three DOES NOT equal two.

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Gay cake' appeal decided 17 min power 20
News Landlord Caught Having Sex In Tenants's Bed 1 hr Dr Wu 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr patrol 4,677
News 'Sausage Party': Orgy Of Upset From French Cath... 8 hr Newt G s Next Wife 1
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) Thu hatem 245
News Man who was shot dead by police after 'running ... Thu Ben Ghazi 1
News Utah denies it has anti-gay school laws Thu Toby Stoner 4
More from around the web