Homosexual marriage is legal

Jun 27, 2013 | Posted by: Joe DeCaro | Full story: www.examiner.com

In a 5-4 decision, which, did not surprise anyone, the Supreme Court demonstrated once again that the federal high court is willing to impose by judicial edict what the voters of the individual States in the majority of States have refused to do: allow the marriage of homosexuals ...

Comments (Page 107)

Showing posts 2,121 - 2,140 of2,471
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2429
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

10

9

9

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And still, a different set of laws, relationships, and social structure for everyone. Different is still not equal.
Making one type of marriage legal and keeping another type illegal is certainly not equal.

Marriage. There is no one right way.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2430
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Making one type of marriage legal and keeping another type illegal is certainly not equal.
Marriage. There is no one right way.
And still, a different set of laws, relationships, and social structure for everyone. Different is still not equal.

Your argument for "one type" is separate and different from treating same sex couple marriages equally under the laws currently in effect for opposite sex couples.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2431
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>It does make sense that properly and distinctively labeled containers of HIV infected blood could be useful in saving lives of other HIV infected people. Such blood may even have antibodies that inhibit HIV. I do agree that anybody with multiple sex partners presents a high risk and not only for HIV.
My friend. I knew that about you but I am glad you said so here so others can see that even straight good Christians like yourself see the silliness of such a ban.

The solution isn't a ban on donating. Simply test every donation.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2432
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

The Florida Gator wrote:
<quoted text>
HIV blood is NEVER used in blood transfusions, even if the patient is HIV positive. The only exceptions are 1. If no reg. blood is available and the HIV patient's life is in danger, and a HIV donor agrees to donate. 2. If the patient's condition deteriorates into full blown AIDS and there's a big shortage in blood, to help sustain the patient, they would allow it. I would have thought you would have known these things since.......
I do know. That's why you're wrong.

Oh and it isn't the HIV+ person that has to consent. It's the one getting the blood. And that only applies to consenting to blood from a gay man or lesbian. I know of no country right now that allows HIV+ blood to be used even if the receiver is HIV+, though Israel successfully did a transplant between two HIV+ people for a kidney. The ban will die just like the State Constitutional Amendments that ban SSM.

Yes I do know because I am HIV+. Just as I know the facts about being gay that you deny.

Oh and I appreciate your interest in me but as I told you before:

I'm NOT your type. I'm NOT inflatable!

Troll on BUTTPLUG!

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2434
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

The Florida Gator wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Hey fagg@t, I know you have AIDS. That's why I said you should know. You do have to have a donor to give, dumb fk, before you have the contaminated blood. You twist and talk in circles trying to make it seem like I don't know what I'm talking about. But you know different. Go take your meds and STFU.
It is illegal in every country I know of for an HIV+ person to donate blood under any circumstances.

Care to provide a link that says a person can legally consent to becoming HIV+ through a medical procedure?

You are confusing consent to accept blood from gay men with accepting HIV+ blood.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2435
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And still, a different set of laws, relationships, and social structure for everyone. Different is still not equal.
Your argument for "one type" is separate and different from treating same sex couple marriages equally under the laws currently in effect for opposite sex couples.
How does it feel to argue against someone's right to marry just because you don't approve? You are doing it rather poorly.

Polygamy shouldn't be legal because it is "different". So is same sex marriage different.

Marriage. There is no one right way. I support marriage equality. And you do not.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2436
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
How does it feel to argue against someone's right to marry just because you don't approve? You are doing it rather poorly.
Polygamy shouldn't be legal because it is "different". So is same sex marriage different.
Marriage. There is no one right way. I support marriage equality. And you do not.
When relying on insults to make your case, it helps if they are not fulfilled by your own post.

You have yet to offer a rational rebuttal to the information presented, because you have none. 2 still equals 2, while other numbers do not. Even you have started to reluctantly admit the number restriction is different than the gender restriction, and requires a different set of laws if not social structure.

Same sex marriages continue to be recognized and treated equally under the laws currently in effect for opposite sex couples in more and more jurisdictions, because they are the same under the same laws, not something different.

You support changing the restriction on number for the entire society, which requires an entirely different legal and social structure. Different is still not equality.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2437
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
When relying on insults to make your case, it helps if they are not fulfilled by your own post.
You have yet to offer a rational rebuttal to the information presented, because you have none. 2 still equals 2, while other numbers do not. Even you have started to reluctantly admit the number restriction is different than the gender restriction, and requires a different set of laws if not social structure.
Same sex marriages continue to be recognized and treated equally under the laws currently in effect for opposite sex couples in more and more jurisdictions, because they are the same under the same laws, not something different.
You support changing the restriction on number for the entire society, which requires an entirely different legal and social structure. Different is still not equality.
It is you who has yet not offered a rational rebuttal. It is a simple concept really. I support marriage equality and you do not.

You say poly marriage shouldn't be allowed because it's "different than same sex marriage". That is not rational.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2438
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

You do not support marriage equality. You support changing marriage and the structure of society for everyone.

The number restriction remains an entirely different set of laws social structure, while same sex couples are recognized equally under the laws currently in effect. It is irrational to suggest a different set of laws and social structure is equal. Your irrational claims to the contrary still don't change the fact that only 2 can be equal to 2.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2440
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Not Yet Equal wrote:
You do not support marriage equality. You support changing marriage and the structure of society for everyone.
The number restriction remains an entirely different set of laws social structure, while same sex couples are recognized equally under the laws currently in effect. It is irrational to suggest a different set of laws and social structure is equal. Your irrational claims to the contrary still don't change the fact that only 2 can be equal to 2.
I don't know if you know the infamous "Rose_NoHo but that's her schtick too. Polygamy should not be allowed because it's a "different issue", or sometimes she declares "Polygamy is a non issue." As if good peoples' marriages can be so easily dismissed as a "non issue".

And of course if someone says the same about sex marriage you would scream bloody murder. Classic hypocricy.

Your irrational claims still don't change the fact that two men or two women is not a man and a woman. And they don't change the fact that polygamy deserves the same respect as same sex marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2441
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Legalize polygamy! Same sex marriage is a different issue. It's a non issue. It's different. Not yet equal says.

Woops I got that backwards. But it doesn't matter. It's dumb either way.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2442
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Legalize polygamy! Same sex marriage is a different issue. It's a non issue. It's different. Not yet equal says.
Woops I got that backwards. But it doesn't matter. It's dumb either way.
Name one same sex marriage case where the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 was introduced.

Lotsa luck with that.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2443
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Name one same sex marriage case where the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 was introduced.
Lotsa luck with that.
That's your reason to deny good people marriage? Nice!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2444
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your reason to deny good people marriage? Nice!
That isn't the point. Let's see you show were the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was part of a legitimate court case involving same sex marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2445
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't the point. Let's see you show were the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was part of a legitimate court case involving same sex marriage.
Why would I want to do that?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2446
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's fun to watch you try to justify your hypocrisy. Try harder though. I am not convinced at all that someone's polygamous marriage will hurt you.
You are correct. Someone's polygamous marriage will not hurt me because they don't exist in the USA.

EZ, PZ
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2447
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

flbadcatowner wrote:
The Supreme Court did not declare that same sex marriage must be allowed by the states. It only ruled that those appealing Prop 8 did not have the standing to bring the suit. No ruling was issued on Judge Walker's decision.
Evidently, Judge Walker's decision stands.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2448
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
P.S. There is no good reason I cannot marry my sister except your ignorance and bigotry.
Really? Then why don't you marry her?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2449
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
And you love it when they deny it to people you don't like.
And then you say Frankie is the bad guy.
No. I say: Frankie is the stupid one. You fail to read let alone comprehend what I write. I have no problem with the people who wish to marry. Can you grasp that, numbnuts? My problem is with the PROVEN damage to society that results from it.

If you cannot understand that distinction, what makes you think ANYBODY believes that you are a scientist?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2450
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>It does make sense that properly and distinctively labeled containers of HIV infected blood could be useful in saving lives of other HIV infected people. Such blood may even have antibodies that inhibit HIV. I do agree that anybody with multiple sex partners presents a high risk and not only for HIV.
OMFG! Spell clueless for me.

"such blood" may even have alternate strains of HIV and would COMPOUND the syndrome.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,121 - 2,140 of2,471
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••