Gay marriage

There are 61391 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Mar 28, 2013, titled Gay marriage. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6395 Oct 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly can't even explain your anal abuse defect. How in hell can you explain God?
Which is exactly what you will face.
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no abuse or defect...So on to the subject of your cults god..WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE YOUR GOD IS REAL?
There is no hell...Now it is 2013..Try to get out of the stone age.
What is it that drives a man to violate nature? To abuse the design of the body on themselves and others?

If you can explain this, THEN, you might be ready to address God.

Maybe if lids and you put your heads together, you might come up with something?

Smirk.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#6396 Oct 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly can't even explain your anal abuse defect. How in hell can you explain God?
Which is exactly what you will face.
<quoted text>
What is it that drives a man to violate nature? To abuse the design of the body on themselves and others?
If you can explain this, THEN, you might be ready to address God.
Maybe if lids and you put your heads together, you might come up with something?
Smirk.
You should maybe try it....God is not real we have covered that. So keep your fairytale myth out of it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6397 Oct 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy, by definition seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people to marry.
Learn to count.
<quoted text>
Race is not a number. Polygamy seeks greater protection of the law, which you would understand if you could count at a first grade level.
If John has three apples, and Jane has two, who has more?
Love the condescending arithmetic lesson by the way. Try it on the judge if you ever get to argue your case against marriage equality in court.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6398 Oct 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly can't even explain your anal abuse defect. How in hell can you explain God?
Which is exactly what you will face.
<quoted text>
What is it that drives a man to violate nature? To abuse the design of the body on themselves and others?
If you can explain this, THEN, you might be ready to address God.
Maybe if lids and you put your heads together, you might come up with something?
Smirk.
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
You should maybe try it....God is not real we have covered that. So keep your fairytale myth out of it.
Got you stumped, huh?

Smile.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#6399 Oct 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly can't even explain your anal abuse defect. How in hell can you explain God?
Which is exactly what you will face.
<quoted text>
What is it that drives a man to violate nature? To abuse the design of the body on themselves and others?
If you can explain this, THEN, you might be ready to address God.
Maybe if lids and you put your heads together, you might come up with something?
Smirk.
<quoted text>
Got you stumped, huh?
Smile.
God is not real so need to talk about myth lies..

Have no abuse problem or defect so just fine...

Lets talk about you hating the Constitution.....AND TELL ME WHY YOU HATE FREEDOM AND EQUALITY.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#6400 Oct 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy, by definition seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people to marry.
How? Details, I want details. That's almost as stupid as when you said that states have no interest in happy straight families because they allow divorce. You are pathetic.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#6401 Oct 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The reality remains that polygamy seeks inherently greater, not equal, protection of the law.
How? What protection? Be specific.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#6402 Oct 7, 2013
lides wrote:
You don't seem to have a valid argument for your position.
You don't seem to have a brain in your head. It's ok, God put you here to make simple people feel smart.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6403 Oct 7, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
How? What protection? Be specific.
Oh, he doesn't know. It just seems to him giving equal protection to three people is somehow unfair because three is more than two. So it's like they want to hog more than their fair share of equal protection. Sounds logical to a moron I guess.

That's why I like these silly jackasses.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6404 Oct 7, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
God is not real so need to talk about myth lies..
Have no abuse problem or defect so just fine...
Lets talk about you hating the Constitution.....AND TELL ME WHY YOU HATE FREEDOM AND EQUALITY.
If you can't explain your sexual defect, how can you even begin to assess God???

You defend a inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning act only by denial of medical and physical fact. How can you possibly condemn a God you can't see?

Get real Duh!
Huh

Faribault, MN

#6405 Oct 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't explain your sexual defect, how can you even begin to assess God???
You defend a inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning act only by denial of medical and physical fact. How can you possibly condemn a God you can't see?
Get real Duh!
FOR LAST TIME MORON....I AHVE NO DEFECT..........

Nothing harmful or unhealthy about it...

Facts all back me up..YOUR NAZI KKK MEETING LIES DONT FLY IN MODERN WORLD. Try to read and get educated..Your look like a fool lying.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6406 Oct 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
And your argument against marriage equality for people you don't like continues to be "It should be illegal because it's different".
The burden is on you power trooper. Don't demand someone prove that their marriage doesn't harm you, prove it does harm you or get over yourself and let them marry.
Your premise is wrong.
I am not arguing against marriage equality. Something entirely different is not equality.

I have no animosity toward those who want to live a different lifestyle. That is fine to the extent it doesn't harm others.

Again, because the number restriction has previously been ruled to provide a compelling, legitimate governmental protection for individual rights, number has passed the test gender continues to fail.

Therefore it is up to you to convince the judge, legislature, and executive branches to rewrite the laws of marriage for everyone in a way that favors the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. You must show why you believe the restrictions are irrational. That is what we did.

Gay people have been showing the many laws intended to punish us are unconstitutional, for decades. It has taken decades to get the Supreme Court to recognize the gender excuse violates the 5th and 14th amendment requirements of equal protections under the laws currently in effect for others.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#6407 Oct 7, 2013
fr KiMare:

>...A child is happiest with their mother and father, even if they have faults....<

Not necessarily. I was very badly abused by my mother, and would have been a LOT happier in a different home.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#6408 Oct 7, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr KiMare:
>...A child is happiest with their mother and father, even if they have faults....<
Not necessarily. I was very badly abused by my mother, and would have been a LOT happier in a different home.
I always feel bad for these children I see on sunday morning being dragged into the cult house of worship. There faces say it all..HELP ME SAVE ME FROM MY INSANE PARENTS.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6409 Oct 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your premise is wrong.
I am not arguing against marriage equality. Something entirely different is not equality.
I have no animosity toward those who want to live a different lifestyle. That is fine to the extent it doesn't harm others.
Again, because the number restriction has previously been ruled to provide a compelling, legitimate governmental protection for individual rights, number has passed the test gender continues to fail.
Therefore it is up to you to convince the judge, legislature, and executive branches to rewrite the laws of marriage for everyone in a way that favors the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. You must show why you believe the restrictions are irrational. That is what we did.
Gay people have been showing the many laws intended to punish us are unconstitutional, for decades. It has taken decades to get the Supreme Court to recognize the gender excuse violates the 5th and 14th amendment requirements of equal protections under the laws currently in effect for others.
My activist days are over. I simply want to discuss marriage equality. It seems you are saying the laws against polygamy are valid. They are not. They will not pass an unbiased court's stink test.

Anyway, all polygamists need is a sympathetic judge. As you well know.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#6410 Oct 7, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
I always feel bad for these children I see on sunday morning being dragged into the cult house of worship. There faces say it all..HELP ME SAVE ME FROM MY INSANE PARENTS.
Strange coming from a person that admires and believes in the constitution.

Have you seen these words before, Hitler Boy?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Do you understand them or are you more like lides than even I think?
Huh

Faribault, MN

#6411 Oct 7, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Strange coming from a person that admires and believes in the constitution.
Have you seen these words before, Hitler Boy?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Do you understand them or are you more like lides than even I think?
I know. The 1st amendment tells these religous thugs they cant vote away civil rights based on religion..

I understand it...Wish you Nazi Christians did...RELIGION DOES NOT RUN THIS NATION.......Sorry cant force your belief into law.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6412 Oct 7, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
I always feel bad for these children I see on sunday morning being dragged into the cult house of worship. There faces say it all..HELP ME SAVE ME FROM MY INSANE PARENTS.
When I was a kid, and this was way over 50 years ago, I had to go to church every Sunday. But not with my parents. They didn't go. Neither did all my aunts and uncles.

We kids (all my cousins, brothers and sisters) had to car pool to get to church! They rotated who would be the unlucky adult had to drop us off and pick us up. The balls on 'em, right? Forcing us to do what they didn't want to do either. But that's the way it was in those days. Do as I say, not as I do. Our way or a beating. I didn't pull that on my kids. We all skipped church and watched cartoons and wrestling. Ah good times!

Don't let em get you down kid. You got the fire. Buncha damn Nazis!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6413 Oct 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
My activist days are over. I simply want to discuss marriage equality. It seems you are saying the laws against polygamy are valid. They are not. They will not pass an unbiased court's stink test.
Anyway, all polygamists need is a sympathetic judge. As you well know.
You don't want to discuss marriage equality, but changing the laws affecting marriage to something entirely different, unknown, and unexplained. And of course, the only reason you want to discuss the number restriction is to justify keeping the gender restriction.

We have demonstrated some of the many problems historically observed when there is no restriction on number, and you have not been able to show those problems would not return. You have not attempted to address how social security, property, debt, and the over 1,138 laws that involve two people would change for groups. These are just some of the issues proponents of removing the number restriction must overcome.

One sympathetic judge isn't enough. We have been showing the gender restriction to be irrational in many courts which have been upheld by appellate courts and now by the Supreme Court. One judge isn't enough. You have to be able to do it repeatedly with arguments that withstand the continuing tests of reason, logic, and law.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6414 Oct 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
The argument for allowing polygamy has much in common with the argument for letting gays marry. If consenting adults who prefer polygamy can do everything else a husband and wife can do—have sex, live together, buy property, and bring up children jointly—why should they be prohibited from legally committing themselves to the solemn duties that attach to marriage? How is society worse off if these informal relationships are formalized and pushed toward permanence?
It does, only if one cannot count.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Learn to be able to tell a man from a woman. That's your argument, not mine. It works both ways I'm trying to make you see.
Uhm, your argument is not remotely correlative. Here's why, polygamists do seek greater protection of the law for three or more people. This involves basic counting. Same sex marriage seeks equality under the law for sam sex couples. You've yet to offer any compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

I am sorry that you are too stupid to count. That really must be a hardship for you.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Love the condescending arithmetic lesson by the way. Try it on the judge if you ever get to argue your case against marriage equality in court.
You earned the condescension... And you have failed to answer the question.

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.

San Bruno Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fulton NY.. The Thibodeau issues and Datelines ... 8 hr Diana Vickery 4
News Facebook's Oculus sharpens mobile focus with ne... 16 hr markost 3
Donald Trump for President Mon landogoshen 6
Fulton NY The DEADLY "Mother" "fired" plans lin... May 29 Diana Vickery 3
Bruce "Catelyn" Jenner: FAKE HERO May 29 Ha Ha Ha 1
News Family Of Katie Steinle Sues Immigration Offici... May 29 stupiditysanctioned 1
News College officials pursue Skyline workforce hous... May 11 Ella 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

San Bruno Mortgages