Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Back at you. Is there a single rational interest served by denying bisexuals the right to marry/marry?

They already may marry the opposite sex partner of their choosing. Similarly I would support their being able to marry the same sex partner of their choosing. If you are hinting at polygamy, I have already addressed that time and time again. Polygamy seeks inherently greater protection of the law for three or more persons to marry.

Now, would you care to answer the initial question that you just side stepped?

Can you indicate a single rational interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry?
I don't think you can.

Rational Adult wrote:

<quoted text>It depend, Hitler was gay, but he wanted to find a gay gene so it could be extracted from him and he sought to exterminate gays from earth, because he saw gays as a disease. Is that what you meant?

Oh yeah.... that makes sense.......... NOT.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Back at you. Is there a single rational interest served by denying bisexuals the right to marry/marry?

Yes, of course. Equal protection of the law, the operative word being "equal" 2 does not equal 3. 3>2 not equal. So I guess the rational interest served would be first grade arithmetic.

Mona Lott wrote:

So I guess the rational interest served would be first grade arithmetic.

Or just basic counting.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are hinting at polygamy, I have already addressed that time and time again. Polygamy seeks inherently greater protection of the law for three or more persons to marry.

Not hinting, I was pretty direct.

So what is the 'inherently greater protection' you refer to?

Second, why should greater protection override the right to marry.

Third, marriage will always provide greater protection than gay couples could get. Marriage involves natural children, gay couples never will.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, of course. Equal protection of the law, the operative word being "equal" 2 does not equal 3. 3>2 not equal. So I guess the rational interest served would be first grade arithmetic.

You prove yourself to be a idiot over and over.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, of course. Equal protection of the law, the operative word being "equal" 2 does not equal 3. 3>2 not equal. So I guess the rational interest served would be first grade arithmetic.

Ignorant bigoted people against same sex marriage say "One man and one woman does not equal one man and one man or one woman and one woman".

Ignorant bigoted people against polygamy say "2 does not equal 3".

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You prove yourself to be a idiot over and over.

You disagree with 1st Grade arithmetic, do ya?

Frank RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Ignorant bigoted people against same sex marriage say "One man and one woman does not equal one man and one man or one woman and one woman".
Ignorant bigoted people against polygamy say "2 does not equal 3".

Two doesn't equal three, silly.

Gee whiz..... all these math challenged peeps..... who knew?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Not hinting, I was pretty direct.
So what is the 'inherently greater protection' you refer to?
Second, why should greater protection override the right to marry.
Third, marriage will always provide greater protection than gay couples could get. Marriage involves natural children, gay couples never will.

"natural children" have no different protection than "adopted children," so your point is bogus. But you know that already. For some strange reason you have a need to feel "better than" adopted families.

The Corbomite Maneuver wrote:

<quoted text>You are strange indeed.

As is yourself. However, being a Romney Mormon, I would have your baby also, if you would have me.

Obama bin laden would support Beastiality to win in November. And that's the truth!!!! Phfffft

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Two doesn't equal three, silly.
Gee whiz..... all these math challenged peeps..... who knew?

Ignorant bigoted people against polygamy say "Two doesn't equal three, silly.
Gee whiz..... all these math challenged peeps..... who knew?"

Ignorant bigoted people against same sex marriage say "A man and a man or a woman and a woman does not equal a man and a woman.
Gee whiz all these people who can't tell a man from a woman, who knew?"

Frank RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Ignorant bigoted people against polygamy say "Two doesn't equal three, silly.
Gee whiz..... all these math challenged peeps..... who knew?"
Ignorant bigoted people against same sex marriage say "A man and a man or a woman and a woman does not equal a man and a woman.
Gee whiz all these people who can't tell a man from a woman, who knew?"

Two DOESN'T equal three. Call me ignorant all you want. One thing I'm NOT ignorant about is math.

The Corbomite Maneuver wrote:

<quoted text>Oh! I got it. You're a troll. Sorry to interrupt you. Now go away and go fu€k yourself.

No, I'm not a troll. Just a horny Romney Republican looking for love wherever I can find it. So, if you want a baby with pure conservative GOP DNA, I'm your man!

P.S. I swallow in the first date!

VOTE ROMNEY IN NOVEMBER! HE'LL SHIVER YOUR TIMBERS!

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Two DOESN'T equal three. Call me ignorant all you want. One thing I'm NOT ignorant about is math.

"Two doesn't equal three." That's your whole argument against polygamy?

What possible harm would three consenting adults marriage cause you?

The Corbomite Maneuver wrote:

<quoted text>Where did you see this crap? From a tabloid? Bullshit! Cite your sources. And The Daily Mail or The Daily Sketch don't count.

No sources needed, you sock freak imposter. You gay freaks did not need a source for 14 years when you lied and called the Matthew Shepard robbery murder by his gay lover a hate crime by a straight, so go pound sand or yourself whichever is closest to the ground.

The Corbomite Maneuver wrote:

<quoted text>You are strange indeed.

You are gay indeed. Sorry, same thing as strange.

The Corbomite Maneuver wrote:

<quoted text>Oh! I got it. You're a troll. Sorry to interrupt you. Now go away and go fu€k yourself.

Rose T-H, that is your dad's job, stop trying to trade up.

Frank RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
"Two doesn't equal three." That's your whole argument against polygamy?
What possible harm would three consenting adults marriage cause you?

The state has an interest in polygamy, when it is one man and two women. They can not justify making the man pay child support to the other mom is he is willing to live with, support, marry and keep the child from being a bastard. There is no legal state interest in same sex marriage, it actually undermines all children and their biological mom-dad parenting.