That's it I quit
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#217 Jan 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
YUK!YUK!YUK! Ah good times!~Whoop!~Whoop!
Who ya talking to, Frankie?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#218 Jan 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Like rebut my argument in favor of marriage equality for poly. You can't handle my arguments so you fake laugh "Ahahaha...on and on like a babbling fool, and then call that winning.
GET AN ARGUMENT.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/...

It's all spelled out for you there.

When I say I was "winning" Charlie Sheen? OBVIOUSLY polygamy is the loser.... it is illegal, and for good reason.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#219 Jan 23, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Who ya talking to, Frankie?
Anyone who wants to listen, and you stepped right up, so I have an audience of at least one. Too bad it's just the thread idiot.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#220 Jan 23, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/...
It's all spelled out for you there.
When I say I was "winning" Charlie Sheen? OBVIOUSLY polygamy is the loser.... it is illegal, and for good reason.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#221 Jan 23, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
When I say I was "winning" Charlie Sheen?
Wha? You been partying like Charlie Sheen?

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#222 Jan 24, 2014
NE Jade wrote:
What in the hell are you referring with your censorship crap? Still drunk from last night? If I chose to discuss polygamy, I would find a thread with that topic. I couldn't care less about polygamy. It affects me not. What I will bring up, is that the fight to get get marriage equality is not over, at at this point in time, so might be best to continue the fight with marriage for TWO consenting adults. Mudding the water will only slow down the process. Someday down the road, polygamists can make their case. What you want to do is derail the topic and make the marriage thread all center on you. I have yet to see any polygamists even posting on that thread. There. That is as much about polygamy as I care to post about. To me it is a lot like the topic of abortion. I will never have an abortion, so I don't discus it. I will probably never even think about marrying more that one guy at a time, so I'm not wasting my time discussing it. Now, Mr. Crabby pants, have a little hair of the dog and lighten up.
My point exactly. Thank you. I am a valid poster who wants to discuss the issues and you are a TROLL!
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#223 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who wants to listen, and you stepped right up, so I have an audience of at least one. Too bad it's just the thread idiot.
Too bad you're a clueless mofo. Criticize other posters for the same thing you do, and you call me an idiot?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#224 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad you're a clueless mofo. Criticize other posters for the same thing you do, and you call me an idiot?
Get an argument. Sure your panties are all wadded up your nasty crack, not my problem fruitloops. You need an argument besides calling me "mofo" dummy.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#225 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Get an argument. Sure your panties are all wadded up your nasty crack, not my problem fruitloops. You need an argument besides calling me "mofo" dummy.
http://lawzilla.com/content/polygamy.html

What about the Defense of Marriage Act of Proposition 22 and Proposition 8?
The California Defense of Marriage Act aka Proposition 22 enacted Family Code Section 308.5 which provides: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"

That statute was ruled unconstitutional in a gay-marriage ruling by the California Supreme Court.

However, the California public then voted for Proposition 8, which placed in the same language in the California constitution (as compared to a statute in Proposition 22) and thus overruled the California Supreme Court. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

That language does not prohibit plural marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#226 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
http://lawzilla.com/content/polygamy.html
What about the Defense of Marriage Act of Proposition 22 and Proposition 8?
The California Defense of Marriage Act aka Proposition 22 enacted Family Code Section 308.5 which provides: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
That statute was ruled unconstitutional in a gay-marriage ruling by the California Supreme Court.
However, the California public then voted for Proposition 8, which placed in the same language in the California constitution (as compared to a statute in Proposition 22) and thus overruled the California Supreme Court. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
That language does not prohibit plural marriage.
Sure it does. "Marriage in California is A man and A woman" means exactly what it says. Are two or more women "A" woman? You're so silly!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#227 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad you're a clueless mofo.
YUK!YUK!YUK! Ah good times!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
http://lawzilla.com/content/polygamy.html
What about the Defense of Marriage Act of Proposition 22 and Proposition 8?
The California Defense of Marriage Act aka Proposition 22 enacted Family Code Section 308.5 which provides: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
That statute was ruled unconstitutional in a gay-marriage ruling by the California Supreme Court.
However, the California public then voted for Proposition 8, which placed in the same language in the California constitution (as compared to a statute in Proposition 22) and thus overruled the California Supreme Court. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
That language does not prohibit plural marriage.
I have made a handy reference guide for you hope it helps you avoid future confusion-

Man singular
Men plural

Woman singular
Women plural

a man = one man
men = more than one man

a woman = one woman
women = more than one woman

Hope it helps! Good luck.
Scuzzy

Dallas, TX

#229 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have made a handy reference guide for you hope it helps you avoid future confusion-
Man singular
Men plural
Woman singular
Women plural
a man = one man
men = more than one man
a woman = one woman
women = more than one woman
Hope it helps! Good luck.
This is a singular interesting post of the first order, but far beyond the kin of most of the gaybobs who tr0ll this forum, so a reasonable prudent person of the hetero-normal persuasion will have problems deciphering its meaning.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#230 Jan 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does. "Marriage in California is A man and A woman" means exactly what it says. Are two or more women "A" woman? You're so silly!
No, it doesn't. You think it does, but you are wrong.

You live in California. When Prop 8 was on the ballot, what did it say?

Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; originally titled the "California Marriage Protection Act") was a California ballot proposition that changed the California Constitution to add a new section 7.5 to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Hmmm..... didn't say anything about polygamy, did it?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#231 Jan 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have made a handy reference guide for you hope it helps you avoid future confusion-
Man singular
Men plural
Woman singular
Women plural
a man = one man
men = more than one man
a woman = one woman
women = more than one woman
Hope it helps! Good luck.
Perhaps you should forward your "handy reference guide" to the Court. No court has ever ruled that Prop 8 had any affect on polygamy.
Of course we all know that YOU know better than the Courts.... you have more training and experience than any silly federal judge. Why, all you need do is speak it and it becomes true. No need for facts or proof..... just your usual ignorant spin.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#232 Jan 25, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. You think it does, but you are wrong.
You live in California. When Prop 8 was on the ballot, what did it say?
Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; originally titled the "California Marriage Protection Act") was a California ballot proposition that changed the California Constitution to add a new section 7.5 to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Hmmm..... didn't say anything about polygamy, did it?
YES, IT DID-

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

I have made a handy reference guide for you hope it helps you avoid future confusion-
Man singular AS IN ONE
Men plural
Woman singular AS IN ONE
Women plural
a man = one man ONE
men = more than one man
a woman = one woman ONE
women = more than one woman
Hope it helps! Good luck.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#233 Jan 25, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should forward your "handy reference guide" to the Court. No court has ever ruled that Prop 8 had any affect on polygamy.
Of course we all know that YOU know better than the Courts.... you have more training and experience than any silly federal judge. Why, all you need do is speak it and it becomes true. No need for facts or proof..... just your usual ignorant spin.
It's a simple concept really, "a man and a woman only" means ONE of each only. No spin applied, that's your schtick.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#234 Jan 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a simple concept really, "a man and a woman only" means ONE of each only. No spin applied, that's your schtick.
That's what YOU say, however, no court has agreed with you.

That language does NOT prohibit polygamy. What about a man, a woman, and another woman? That satisfies a man and a woman.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#235 Jan 25, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what YOU say, however, no court has agreed with you.
That language does NOT prohibit polygamy. What about a man, a woman, and another woman? That satisfies a man and a woman.
What about a gay man and a straight woman? That satisfies a man and a woman.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#236 Jan 25, 2014
Straight Sh00ter wrote:
I'm sick and tired of certain people in this forum saying mean things about my wife. It's all fun and games, until it gets personal, so that's it. I quit.
Bye.
Here's quarter. Call someone who cares.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Men Kissing to Fight Anti-Gay HateBy Samant... 5 min NE Jade 6
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 8 min defintion for idiots 14,997
News Austin Loses 'A Safe Space for Gay Men to Go Ha... 8 min NE Jade 2
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 18 min Shirvell s Shrivel 215
News Star Trek Discovery needs to push boundaries wi... 33 min Shirvell s Shrivel 14
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 51 min TomInElPaso 38,648
News Clooney's restraining order 57 min Here is what I 30
More from around the web