Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

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.

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?

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!!!

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
No I have no case against same sex marriage. I see no harm in it and I support it.

I would disagree.

Had you had no issue against gay marriage you would have no purposely continued to argue polygamy needs to be tied in with it.

It's my opinion you've taken this stance no in the interest of polygamy but in he fervent wish gay marriage be identified with polygamy in a shock factor valuation so it will convince others to not back gay marriage.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

So you won't tell us why you didn't serve. Got it.

I'm not bragging, just stating that you are threatening an old man veteran and shame on you for doing it. And why did you do it? To get the better of me in a stupid topix thread. Pitiful. It displays your poor character very well.

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

But I don't love you Frank.

If you want to think it was a threat then do so. By all means.

Had it been an actual threat you could have taken action or the police could be involved.

I worry about that happening like I worry about being an alien spaceship though.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
I would disagree.
Had you had no issue against gay marriage you would have no purposely continued to argue polygamy needs to be tied in with it.
It's my opinion you've taken this stance no in the interest of polygamy but in he fervent wish gay marriage be identified with polygamy in a shock factor valuation so it will convince others to not back gay marriage.

Your opinion is stupid, paranoid and counterproductive.

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
So now you're going to lie and say you are not angry with me. Priceless.

Saying I'm not angry with you isn't a lie. Your constant lies don't warrant anger, they warrant pity and embarrasment for you. That's the sum of any emotional output about you on my end dearie.

Here's a clue though cupcake, one can be irritated and angry at the repetitious bullshyt your post without actually having any type of emotional response about you personally. You see Franky, I don't really give a rat's patoot about you personally. I'm only here to address the lies you post. If you are having some type of emotional response about any of the posters you are YUKing it up with, you might want to consider speaking to a professional about that.

Thanks for starting my day with a chuckle nitwit.

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
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?

Sure I do.

I feel that if we ban same sex marriage based on nothing more than disdain who's to say they couldn't move my mother from her house based on a vote given she too is a crusty old badger.

We live by one set of rules in America Frank. We allow all our citizens to hold a full set of rights, liberties and freedoms unless those said freedoms produce harm.

Gay marriage produces no harm that I have found therefore we should allow it.

Frank Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
So you won't tell us why you didn't serve. Got it.
I'm not bragging, just stating that you are threatening an old man veteran and shame on you for doing it. And why did you do it? To get the better of me in a stupid topix thread. Pitiful. It displays your poor character very well.

Didn't say I did not.

And you were bragging. otherwise I would not have known about your supposed three tours.

I wouldn't discuss character Frank.

And 'Frank Rizzo'???

Isn't that the name of the crank caller on "Beastie Boys"???