Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh huh.
<quoted text>
The discussion will be completely intelligent once you are no longer part of its equation.

Oh I bet! YUK!YUK!YUK!

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
So it would seem; unless, of course, you are capable of indicating some logical link between gay marriage and polygamy. You have not done so thus far.

Nor did the people who tried this argument as a way of denying inter-racial couples from marriage. Because there is no link anywhere other than in their heads.

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-...

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh huh.
<quoted text>
The discussion will be completely intelligent once you are no longer part of its equation.

Well yeah, duh. That's what I'm here for, and you should be too, to exchange opinions. Seems you are only here for anger, bigotry and hate.

Why can't you rationally discuss marriage equality with me without anger and hate? Why is even mentioning group marriage forbidden? No knowledge or subject should be censored unless you're lying about your motives.

Enrico Salvatore Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong, they are both facts. But "feel free to try again". YUK!YUK!YUK!

Sorry, Charlie, polygamy has no bearing upon the topic at hand. If you think it does, then you are dimmer than I have given you credit for.

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>

<quoted text>

<quoted text> The discussion will be completely intelligent once you have been removed from its equation.

Now you're starting to sound like Tony Soprano too. YUK!YUK!YUK!

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
The Advocate featured an article on gay polygamy sorry you missed it, perhaps the Advocate is banned in Georgia? YUK!YUK!YUK!

More than likely I skipped over it since, unlike you, I have no vested interest in that institution. If I did, I would be posting on strings that have something to do with it.

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Franky, is everyone invited to your pity party?

Nope. Not you or Dan. I don't want to be looking over my shoulder all night! YUK!YUK!YUK!

And it's Enrico to you, punk. YUK!YUK!YUK!

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, Charlie, polygamy has no bearing upon the topic at hand. If you think it does, then you are dimmer than I have given you credit for.

Of course it does. They're both marriage. If you don't know that you're dimmer than someone who thinks some marriages don't deserve equal protection.

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
The Advocate featured an article on gay polygamy sorry you missed it, perhaps the Advocate is banned in Georgia? YUK!YUK!YUK!

I am glad to see you exposing NARTH as the genesis of your bigotry though. Good job champ!

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
More than likely I skipped over it since, unlike you, I have no vested interest in that institution. If I did, I would be posting on strings that have something to do with it.

If you had to have a vested interest in something in order to be allowed to discuss it, there wouldn't be much discussion going on and everyone would be ignorant.

Do you have a college degree? Did you have a vested interest in every subject you studied? Imagine if we put your rules in effect, we couldn't even have education. What a world Jonah1 would have if he were king! Would be dumb. And stifling.

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I am glad to see you exposing NARTH as the genesis of your bigotry though. Good job champ!

Nothing gets by you eh?

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
And your opposition to polygamy makes you appear to be a hypocrite.

Franky, again you mention this "opposition". Where was this opposition stated? What post Franky?

Oh, that's right, it was NEVER stated. Not once. You just like to lie. Thanks for demonstrating that so clearly.

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Nor does being an angry young jerk.

Awwwww. Poor Franky's bullshyt is exposed and he becomes a widdle iddle cry baby!!!

Enrico Salvatore Rizzo wrote:

Of course it does. They're both marriage. If you don't know that you're dimmer than someone who thinks some marriages don't deserve equal protection.

They are inherently unequal. 3 or more is greater than two.

Sorry you can't count.

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I am glad to see you exposing NARTH as the genesis of your bigotry though. Good job champ!

It was certainly an article in the Advocate and a legitimate one on gay polygamy. Political types deemed it too provocative and possible ammunition against same sex marriage so quashed it. True fact.

The point is there are gay polygamists out there, but it shouldn't matter what their sexuality is for marriage, right?....Right?

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Franky, again you mention this "opposition". Where was this opposition stated? What post Franky?
Oh, that's right, it was NEVER stated. Not once. You just like to lie. Thanks for demonstrating that so clearly.

If you don't like the word "opposition" how about "hostility"?

Enrico Salvatore Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
I did read that whole paragraph. Lovely string of bigotry there.

There was no bigotry demonstrated there. You might want to invest in a dictionary, because it obvious you are using words that you don't know the meaning of or how to properly employ them.

Enrico Salvatore Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
But what does it have to do with the topic?

The topic of the string, or the topic you keep wishing it was about? You'll need to clarify.

Enrico Salvatore Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't complain when someone unleashes a similar paragraph of hate and bigotry against same sex marriage. If you do, you are a hypocrite.

If someone unleases a paragraph of hate and bigotry I'll address it with specifics and actual data, rather than with red herring NARTH nonsense like you Franky. And doing so will not make me a hypocrite. Obviously that another word you will need to look up when you buy your dictionary.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
They are inherently unequal. 3 or more is greater than two.
Sorry you can't count.

Ah yes your old "you can't count" ad hominen.

Not really worthy of response. It's dumb, you know I can count. And if I really couldn't does that make me unworthy of marriage equality?

Enrico Salvatore Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong, they are both facts. But "feel free to try again". YUK!YUK!YUK!

Uh huh. They are about as "factual" as the imaginary threats you keep crying about.

Enrico Salvatore Rizzo wrote:

It was certainly an article in the Advocate and a legitimate one on gay polygamy. Political types deemed it too provocative and possible ammunition against same sex marriage so quashed it. True fact.
The point is there are gay polygamists out there, but it shouldn't matter what their sexuality is for marriage, right?....Right?

Of course, allowing same sex marriage has no affect upon existing laws barring polygamy, whether heterosexual or homosexual.