Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
This is why you are stupid Rose. You seem to think that because people get sick of repeating the same thing over and over that you have somehow won the debate.
You have presented no new material, it is the same nonsense you have been posting for 3 years. I have explained to you many times why it is nonsense and you response is always the same- "whatever".
Then you wait a few days, and repost the same nonsense (see your post below) as if it is something new. Then when people get sick of your- wash, rinse, repeat- debating style you claim victory.
Seriously Rose, my 5 year old has better debating skills than you.

akpilot wrote:

When you come up with something new, let us know, until then you are nothing more than a broken record. You are boring Rose, and hardly present a challenge. For someone to debate you they don't even have to think, they simply save their previous responses and repost them to you, I doubt you would even be smart enough to realize that is what they were doing.

Judged:

6

6

6

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
If it's not taboo, why is it taking so long to resolve the issue. The gay party makes it sound like a walk in the park, comon nowwww!!

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
What was the point in this response to me?
Where did I ever say we were a "theocraty" in the post you responded to? Or did you simply feel the need to toss out a nonsense talking point you read in a blog today?
BTW, here is the post you were responding to, in case you forgot:
"It's not "my way", it's the founder's way, and that is what matters. If you don't like what the founder's provided you, they gave you a way to correct it, go read Article V of the US Constitution. "

Judged:

6

6

6

Boogle Eyed wrote:

<quoted text>
You're obviously no Constitutional scholar.
End of discussion...you're dismissed.
LOL!!!

Judged:

6

6

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
IOW, you can't counter my arguments.
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter if it's "new" or not, because it's true.
Loving v VA is an example of Federal regulation of marriage laws.
Loving v VA sites the 14th Amendment.
You can't deal with the actual content of my posts, so you call me names.

Judged:

7

6

6

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You must actually present a relevant argument, simply claiming someone is incorrect is not a debate.
You are in fact dismissed until you can do so.

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You must actually present a relevant argument, simply claiming someone is incorrect is not a debate.
You are in fact dismissed until you can do so.

Judged:

6

6

6

Boogle Eyed wrote:

<quoted text>
I've read you multiple posts regarding the Constitution.
You have a very poor habit of selectively pulling only specific aspects while ignoraing others therefore destroying what it was intent on creating as a whole.
It's my opinion and no doubt it's shared.
I have no interest in playing games with you. Had this been my choice all these debates would not take place in the anonymous internet as it breeds idiots like you who think they're pompous enough to rewrite not only our country's direction for the past 200 plus years but the Constitution itself while hiding in the shadows like perverts.
Fact is all this boils down to basics - all American citizens are due a full set of liberties and freedoms unless those freedoms or liberties pursued hold viable harm.
Gaays wishing to marry represents exactly that and as of yet no one has been able to find harm.
Now puh-lease asshat....are you going to argue we're not from a free nation?

Judged:

7

6

6

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
As much as I dsagree with Rose and her fantasy about what the Constitution means, you aren't much better.
I haven't seen you make an intelligent comment yet. Unlike those who are in favor of same sex marriage who will support those who agree with them no matter how ignorant the statement is, I am a free thinker, and you are a moron..

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Again Rose, get back to us when you have something new. We have been through the Loving case in great detail, and each and every time it is explained to you why you are wrong- with the words of the court, not mine- your response is always the same- "whatever", then you start all over again from the beginning as if somehow the result will change in your favor by ignoring the subsequent conversation.

Judged:

6

6

6

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, "sex cult."
That's all homosexuality really is.
Keep in mind even with your so-called "born this way" thesis the act of homosexual sex is choice.
The notion that it's an instinct is not supported by any science we know of and this notion is just one of the many fallacies promoted by the LGBT.

Judged:

6

6

6

Boogle Eyed wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry for the typos 'Ak pilot'.
By the way chickenshit....my name is Dan Crook. Live in Sacramento. I'm close enough I could laugh in your face.
Yours?

Judged:

6

6

6

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
We already knew.

Judged:

6

6

6

Boogle Eyed wrote:

<quoted text>

Let's hear it 'akpilot'. How does the Constitution work in a manner that supports bans against gays marrying.
Don't hide now.

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, you must actually present an argument- you fail again.

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, you must actually present an argument- you fail again.

Judged:

6

6

6

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
We already knew.

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You're an idiot, I never said the Constitution "bans" same sex marriage.
This is why having this conversation isn't worth having with idiots like you, you don't even comprehend what the argument is.