Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,368

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Full Story
ELH

Portland, OR

#145705 Jun 12, 2012
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>Good, I hope that it is reparative therapy time. Take your time. 10 years is the minimum period for a profound change.
Ten years of trolling gay websites as a self hating 'repaired' homosexual and you still have PAID sex with rent boys. You are NOT 'repaired' you are repressed.

You've been trolling here long enough, it's time to go back to looking at porn.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145706 Jun 12, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really.
There's about as many polygamists as there are albino mountain gorillas so it really doesn't come up on the Dan radar Chief.
That's true and you'll probably never have the extreme displeasure (to you as a bigot) of ever meeting one. So why such hostility towards them?

Is it the Mormon thing? Or just me? YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145707 Jun 12, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry Ace but for someone not to recognize a threat from a slice of advice doesn't impress me that they were once decorated combat veterans let alone your demeanor in here.
As it is it brings no points to you as well given we're in an anonymous format where someone can claim they're Spiderman on his day off so I'd stop with that nonsense.
Why didn't you serve? Protecting our freedom is only for suckers? You were scared? Why?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#145708 Jun 12, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Marriage is a evolutionary, historical, religious and cultural identity that defines a unique and important relationship like no other.
That relationship harbors the fruit of humanity and the reunion of genders. No other relationship does so. Not a single one.
To impose a imposter relationship that does none of the above is nothing more than denial.
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes marriage is so great then why do the half of them fail? I guess there are plenty of heterosexual 'imposter' relationships...better get ORGANIZE to STOP the REAL threat to our most 'sacred' relationship.
And YOU sure are a "expert" on marriage. Are you married yourself? Ever been married? Engaged? Gone steady?
LOL, I didn't think so! But I have notices that the biggest loud mouths often lack personal experience. I guess it's easier d to spend 24/7 defending marriage and family when you don't have either. So don't let being clueless prevent you from ranting your OP{INION over and over and over and over...
First, none of your ad hominem attack against me changes the reality of what I posted, does it?

Second, get your facts right. Half of marriages don't fail.

Third, I have been married for nearly 37 years. Two sons, and over ten foster children over the years. My professional career has focused on family, including foster, adoption, and yes divorce.

You have no argument about what I posted, because there is no argument against reality.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145709 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
I have never said that polygamy seeks greater protection. I said your statement that it does is ridiculous and I repeat it now.
You have conceded that three or more is greater than two. One only needs be able to count in order to see that polygamists seek greater protection of the law for three or more persons.

Would you care to answer whether you are actually making a legitimate argument for polygamy, or if you are just foolish enough to think that you have a valid argument against gay marriage here?
Frank Rizzo wrote:
What inept argument is that?
Why, polygamy, of course.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
Of course I never said polygamy seeks greater protection because it doesn't. And I certainly didn't "admit" it. Dishonest much?
Why is it that people who make this argument cannot count?
Frank Rizzo wrote:
Eskimos, being a race of a few thousand people, have the SAME protection as Asians, a race of many million people.
And your point is what, exactly? The constitution guarantees equal protection of the law for all persons.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
Just like a 2 person marriage and a 3 person marriage have the SAME protection. A poly marriage doesn't "seek greater protection" it seeks equal protection you moron.
3>2, it is not equal to two.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
My argument for polygamy is there is no valid argument against it, just like my argument for same sex marriage.
The valid argument against it is that it seeks inherently greater protection of the law, of course; a fact that has been upheld, time and time again, in court.

Would you care to come back to the topic at hand and offer a valid argument on the topic?
Frank Rizzo wrote:
Oh you mean just like homosexuals right now in most states have equal protection of the law to may marry one of the opposite sex just like everyone else.
Of course, this is merely another logical fallacy. There is no rational basis to limit the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman, thereby expressly abridging the rights of same sex couples unconstitutionally.

Read the 14th Amendment.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
If it's wrong for homosexuals, why isn't its wrong for polyamorists?
Well, let us think about this a moment. Homosexuals seek equal protection of the law to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing, which is equal to marriage as allowed in every state in the union. Those seeking polygamy seek greater protection for three or more people, which is not allowed in any state of the union.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145710 Jun 12, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry Ace but for someone not to recognize a threat from a slice of advice doesn't impress me that they were once decorated combat veterans let alone your demeanor in here.
As it is it brings no points to you as well given we're in an anonymous format where someone can claim they're Spiderman on his day off so I'd stop with that nonsense.
That's what Tony Soprano would often say, It's not a threat! It's "advice".

So you love me so much you're giving me advice on how to avoid getting beaten with a baseball bat by you? No one really believes that Dan. You repeatedly threaten me because you get frustrated and angry when you cannot effectively rebut my posts.

What does it say about you, keyboard tough guy?
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145711 Jun 12, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You have conceded that three or more is greater than two. One only needs be able to count in order to see that polygamists seek greater protection of the law for three or more persons.
Would you care to answer whether you are actually making a legitimate argument for polygamy, or if you are just foolish enough to think that you have a valid argument against gay marriage here?
<quoted text>
Why, polygamy, of course.
<quoted text>
Why is it that people who make this argument cannot count?
<quoted text>
And your point is what, exactly? The constitution guarantees equal protection of the law for all persons.
<quoted text>
3>2, it is not equal to two.
<quoted text>
The valid argument against it is that it seeks inherently greater protection of the law, of course; a fact that has been upheld, time and time again, in court.
Would you care to come back to the topic at hand and offer a valid argument on the topic?
<quoted text>
Of course, this is merely another logical fallacy. There is no rational basis to limit the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman, thereby expressly abridging the rights of same sex couples unconstitutionally.
Read the 14th Amendment.
<quoted text>
Well, let us think about this a moment. Homosexuals seek equal protection of the law to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing, which is equal to marriage as allowed in every state in the union. Those seeking polygamy seek greater protection for three or more people, which is not allowed in any state of the union.
You're a real riot! What ridiculous nonsense.

A 3 person marriage seeks the SAME protection as a 2 person marriage, nothing more. Get it? Got it? Good.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145712 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
You repeatedly threaten me because you get frustrated and angry when you cannot effectively rebut my posts.
Actually, often your posts rebut themselves since they fail to rise to the level of having a rational basis.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145713 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
You're a real riot! What ridiculous nonsense.
A 3 person marriage seeks the SAME protection as a 2 person marriage, nothing more. Get it? Got it? Good.
I don't know that I can help you. If you are incapable of counting beyond two, then that is your own deficiency. Ann intelligent person could understand that 3 or more is inherently greater than two, and that polygamists seek greater protection of the law for three or more persons.

Do you legitimately mean to make a case for polygamy, or are you actually dim enough to think this is a valid argument against same sex marriage?
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145715 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's true and you'll probably never have the extreme displeasure (to you as a bigot) of ever meeting one. So why such hostility towards them?
Is it the Mormon thing? Or just me? YUK!YUK!YUK!
Just you.

Because I've never shown hostility towards polygamists. It would make about as much sense as me showing hostility towards Casper the Friendly Ghost moron due to the fact neither is in my world.

LOL!!!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145716 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't you serve? Protecting our freedom is only for suckers? You were scared? Why?
As it is you failed to convince me you did so I need not answer.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145717 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what Tony Soprano would often say, It's not a threat! It's "advice".
So you love me so much you're giving me advice on how to avoid getting beaten with a baseball bat by you? No one really believes that Dan. You repeatedly threaten me because you get frustrated and angry when you cannot effectively rebut my posts.
What does it say about you, keyboard tough guy?
Of course.

What else happens in your world?
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145718 Jun 12, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know that I can help you. If you are incapable of counting beyond two, then that is your own deficiency. Ann intelligent person could understand that 3 or more is inherently greater than two, and that polygamists seek greater protection of the law for three or more persons.
Do you legitimately mean to make a case for polygamy, or are you actually dim enough to think this is a valid argument against same sex marriage?
No I have no case against same sex marriage. I see no harm in it and I support it.

I get this over and over, accusations that I am against same sex marriage. It's irrational. Why would I support polygamy but not same sex marriage? I'll answer for you- You're paranoid and you are afraid I'm pulling the slippery slope argument. That argument has little merit. Right? Right. It's easily countered. Perhaps you should do that instead of irrationally avoiding it with your "greater protection" nonsense.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145719 Jun 12, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
As it is you failed to convince me you did so I need not answer.
I'm not trying to convince you. Just saying you are threatening to beat up an old veteran, maybe shame you a little bit, tough guy. But I guess you have no shame.

Answer my question, why didn't you serve?
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145720 Jun 12, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, often your posts rebut themselves since they fail to rise to the level of having a rational basis.
To him they do.

Frank's spin is that if you cannot back polygamy then you in turn cannot back gay marriage given both are outside the traditional 2 party opposite sexed traditional form of marriage. If you back one and not the other you then are hypocritical.

Given his credence on this matter amounts to a warm bowl of shit since he has no direct interest in polygamy and has yet to address those that banned it, the government, let alone he has no real interest in either - polygamy or gay marriage - from my take he's just some lonely MoFo looking for a little internet attention in my book anyway.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145721 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
No I have no case against same sex marriage. I see no harm in it and I support it.
I get this over and over, accusations that I am against same sex marriage. It's irrational. Why would I support polygamy but not same sex marriage?
Well, the two really have nothing to do with one another. One seeks equal protection of the law for two consenting adults to marry, while the other seeks greater protection for three or more.

Regardless of that fact, it has no bearing upon the topic at hand.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
I'll answer for you- You're paranoid and you are afraid I'm pulling the slippery slope argument.
Not at all. However, I may have been confused by the fact that you are making an argument that has no bearing upon the topic at hand.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
That argument has little merit. Right? Right. It's easily countered. Perhaps you should do that instead of irrationally avoiding it with your "greater protection" nonsense.
No, that is just a matter of simple counting. 3>2. What is more, it has absolutely no bearing upon the topic at hand. Thanks for clarifying that you are simply off topic.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145722 Jun 12, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course.
What else happens in your world?
You expect anyone to believe you are giving me advice on how to avoid getting beaten with a baseball bat by you in my house because you love me?

No one believes it. So what's left to believe? That it was a threat. And of course it was. You don't have any effective argument against marriage equality, you get angry and frustrated so you resort to violence. Like any common thug.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#145723 Jun 12, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not trying to convince you. Just saying you are threatening to beat up an old veteran, maybe shame you a little bit, tough guy. But I guess you have no shame.
Answer my question, why didn't you serve?
Prove you did.

As it is I never said I did not.

This may shock the shit out of you but a lot of people in here did serve Frank. I know of a few posters you've been bantering with who did.

I don't believe a distinguished veteran would use his record in an anonymous forum as a tool like you have Frank. Sorry.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145724 Jun 12, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
To him they do.
Frank's spin is that if you cannot back polygamy then you in turn cannot back gay marriage given both are outside the traditional 2 party opposite sexed traditional form of marriage. If you back one and not the other you then are hypocritical.
Given his credence on this matter amounts to a warm bowl of shit since he has no direct interest in polygamy and has yet to address those that banned it, the government, let alone he has no real interest in either - polygamy or gay marriage - from my take he's just some lonely MoFo looking for a little internet attention in my book anyway.
You have no direct interest in same sex marriage.

You don't have to have a vested interest in a subject to discuss it. But how would you know anything about intelligent discussion?
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145725 Jun 12, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, the two really have nothing to do with one another. One seeks equal protection of the law for two consenting adults to marry, while the other seeks greater protection for three or more.
Regardless of that fact, it has no bearing upon the topic at hand.
<quoted text>
Not at all. However, I may have been confused by the fact that you are making an argument that has no bearing upon the topic at hand.
<quoted text>
No, that is just a matter of simple counting. 3>2. What is more, it has absolutely no bearing upon the topic at hand. Thanks for clarifying that you are simply off topic.
Ah, so now I'm "simply off topic".

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.

Cupertino Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Moderators why have i been shadow banned? (Jun '14) Fri Fracking Doodooda 4
Caltrain accident Feb 25 Mary J 1
VTA seems to think El Camino Real bus riders ar... (May '12) Feb 25 Jack Offmoore 14
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... Feb 25 Etsy 63
I m housewife need home based job Feb 24 Rajveer9033383005 11
Get In THIS Bread Line, Los Gatos! Starting on ... Feb 22 Oh No You Di-nt 1
Prep results from the Friday, Feb. 20 newspaper Feb 21 toby josh 1

Cupertino News Video

Cupertino Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Cupertino People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:40 am PST

Bleacher Report 6:40AM
Fantasy Football Outlook for 49ers Stars
Bleacher Report 9:56 AM
Raiders Must Create Recreate DL by Adding Suh, Hardy
Bleacher Report 4:03 PM
Why Combine Standout Jalen Collins Is an Ideal Fit for 49ers' Secondary
NFL10:13 AM
Niners want Stevie Johnson to take pay cut
Bleacher Report10:24 AM
Report: Johnson Expected to Be Offered Pay Cut