Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Required]

http://englishrussia.com/2011/05/14/explore-t...

[Largelanguage]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL! You are calling someone else ugly!? Damn, you hardly look human.
And I do fear that I'd risk my life if I put a pic of my face up, because fundies are violent, hateful and racist. That doesn't mean they are the only people who ever commit violent crimes. Now go back to typing "pants down" into search engines.

Not sure your loved? You love being loved, is that why you say you love men? What a self absorbed women!

[Largelanguage]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah he's stubborn. He's also a dishonest little sh!t. That's the part I don't like most.
And he's from Modesto. A dusty little sh!thole in the San Joaquin Valley. Let me sum up it's description by saying if you wanted to give California an enema, Modesto is where you'd stick the hose!

You're a child, accept it.

[Big D]

WHY VOTE wrote:

Ok, I don't really care if same sex people get married or are together in any capacity. I am for equal rights BUT.......... I am very annoyed that peoples votes don't mean anything anymore. What happened to a majority vote rules? What happened to the peoples voice?
My stance on this has nothing to do with same sex couples. This is just the latest thing a court has overturned or blocked that THE PEOPLE voted for. Look at AZ., look back at prop. 187 which would have saved is billions in illegal immigrant funding. The people of the USA are trying to make changes to better our country and the few judges are effectively disenfranchising us.
Again this is not directed at same sex couples it is major frustration over the majority loosing there voice.
WHY VOTE????

That isn’t the problem, you would indeed hope that votes didn’t count if the majority of brown eyed people put up a ballot and passed a proposition to deny blue eyed people the vote

Such a measure would be deemed unconstitutional, and rightly so.

The problem is that we allow unconstitutional measures to be voted on in the first place.

How out of state interests and strong arm their own flocks to come up with loads of cash to fund an unconstitutional measure. That is what we need to fix

[Frankie Rizzo]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
You're a child, accept it.

OK!

[Jane Dodo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you mean like just now, when I showed Chongo to be a liar, when I proved that her side is just as, if not more, dangerous than the heterosexuals that she reviles, as per the case in point ? Re: a heterosexual woman being murdered by a transgender man, who is obviously mixed up, as can be told by the mere fact that he dresses in drag, when he is a man ? Oh, I thought that was what you meant....No, I didn't do any lying, I don't need to. Go back to "lubs me some Betty White", it was more your speed.....

Drunk posting, again?

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
It is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights.
If traditional marriage is defined as the union of two people of opposite gender, and if the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices, then the number requirement (two and only two), is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

Thanks for repeating your ignorance of logic, but I don't expect much from you. If gender is arbitrary then number is arbitrary???? LMFAO@you I guess you think that is logical because you made it up, eh? You have no proof that one must follow the other, and you have no examples of where that has EVER taken place. JESUS TAP-DANCING CHRIST!

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
Drunk posting, again?

That "Lubs me some Betty White" of yours was very CRINGEWORTHY!

You were sucking up to Rose_NoHo adding a nice touch to the cringe!

So. Why do you feel poly MARRIAGE doesn't deserve the same consideration as SAME SEX MARRIAGE?

P.S. The answer is not polygamy should be illegal because it's illegal. You've already said that 20 times. It's stupid.

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
OK!

You just wish you were a child!

( I wish I was one too )

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for repeating your ignorance of logic, but I don't expect much from you. If gender is arbitrary then number is arbitrary????

Yes. It's arbitrary, discriminatory and an indefensible denial of individual choice just like gender.

Instead of implying "It's not! you're dumb!" tell us why it is not, Miss Thing.

[Big D]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for repeating your ignorance of logic, but I don't expect much from you. If gender is arbitrary then number is arbitrary???? LMFAO@you I guess you think that is logical because you made it up, eh? You have no proof that one must follow the other, and you have no examples of where that has EVER taken place. JESUS TAP-DANCING CHRIST!

There is simply no call for it, just one nut on an internet forum.

There is no pending legislation on it, there is no case before the supreme court, there is no large group protesting for it.

There is nothing on the news about it other than small clans of them being arrested for other crimes. Nearly all the adherents of it today are religious cults, which are in rapid decline.

Don’t let him bother you with it, it is nothing, and it is going nowhere.

[Rush]

Jesus tap-dances?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
There is simply no call for it, just one nut on an internet forum.
There is no pending legislation on it, there is no case before the supreme court, there is no large group protesting for it.
There is nothing on the news about it other than small clans of them being arrested for other crimes. Nearly all the adherents of it today are religious cults, which are in rapid decline.
Don’t let him bother you with it, it is nothing, and it is going nowhere.

The good old "there aren't enough people involved to give them equal rights" argument.

With the "there are no cases before SCOTUS presently so it's OK to deny equal rights" argument thrown in for good measure.

You, jackass, are a hypocrite.

Hope that helps!

Priceless!

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. It's arbitrary, discriminatory and an indefensible denial of individual choice just like gender.
Instead of implying "It's not! you're dumb!" tell us why it is not, Miss Thing.

Really?. Do you think there is some kind of universal law that says if one part is arbitrary, all parts are arbitrary????? That is a textbook definition of a composition fallacy. Do you know what happens when you use a fallacy to make a point? Here's a clue: you failed to prove your point.

[Jane Dodo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
There is simply no call for it, just one nut on an internet forum.
There is no pending legislation on it, there is no case before the supreme court, there is no large group protesting for it.
There is nothing on the news about it other than small clans of them being arrested for other crimes. Nearly all the adherents of it today are religious cults, which are in rapid decline.
Don’t let him bother you with it, it is nothing, and it is going nowhere.

lol.... I'm not bothered by him. I think he's hilarious!

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
The good old "there aren't enough people involved to give them equal rights" argument.
With the "there are no cases before SCOTUS presently so it's OK to deny equal rights" argument thrown in for good measure.
You, jackass, are a hypocrite.
Hope that helps!
Priceless!

Exactly where are polygamists granted "equal rights," except in your mind?

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
The good old "there aren't enough people involved to give them equal rights" argument.
With the "there are no cases before SCOTUS presently so it's OK to deny equal rights" argument thrown in for good measure.
You, jackass, are a hypocrite.
Hope that helps!
Priceless!

Tell you what, let me read the text of the case you are bringing to the supreme court and I will weigh in on it.

Or heck, the case you are bringing to any state legislature?

Or Ballot measure

do you have that? Or are you a long nut on an internet forum?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
There is simply no call for it, just one nut on an internet forum.
There is no pending legislation on it, there is no case before the supreme court, there is no large group protesting for it.
There is nothing on the news about it other than small clans of them being arrested for other crimes. Nearly all the adherents of it today are religious cults, which are in rapid decline.
Don’t let him bother you with it, it is nothing, and it is going nowhere.

Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

Let's replace "gays and lesbians" with "polyamorists" and see how it looks-

Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against polyamorists, including: polyamorists do not have intimate relationships similar to monogamous people; polyamorists are not as good as homosexuals; and poly relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

Do you agree with that?

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. It's arbitrary, discriminatory and an indefensible denial of individual choice just like gender.
Instead of implying "It's not! you're dumb!" tell us why it is not, Miss Thing.

Look up the word arbitrary, dipshit.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly where are polygamists granted "equal rights," except in your mind?

They are NOT granted equal rights Miss Thing. That is what I am trying to get into your thick head!

You are such a dummy!