Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of G...

Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage

There are 3876 comments on the EDGE story from Jun 15, 2014, titled Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage. In it, EDGE reports that:

For foes of same-sex marriage, their losing streak keeps growing. Some sense a lost cause, others vow to fight on.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#1241 Jul 2, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, gay marriage is here. Hurray! Lets move on to others suffering the same injustice, polygamists. They are not just not allowed to marry, they can go to prison for marrying! It's not right.
It's you prerogative to be an activist for polygamy if you choose to. However, as I said, it's not the topic here. perhaps you can find a thread about polygamy or start one if that's the topic you prefer to discuss.

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#1245 Jul 2, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Your demostrating you have no f-ing clue because it is a state issue which the states have the right to ban gay marriages or any type of marriage they choose for the Citizens of their state which does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment since it affects everybody in the state including heterosexuals who cannot go out and marry someone the same sex too if they decide too 20 years later.
I understand... you're very angry and bitter because of this losing streak you're on. You may want to seek therapy or medication or something, because just getting this upset and bitching is not good for your health.

The momentum is now such that you are basically swimming upstream with one hand tied behind your back, and all of your interpretations of cases and the Constitution are pointless.

I never understood why some people are SO very passionate about who OTHER people want to get married to. It seems they are STARTING with an unhealthy obsession with trying to control how OTHER people live their lives. I just can't relate to the concept of getting all angry and upset about who complete strangers want to marry. It's NUTS.

OTOH... it's perfectly understandable that people get angry and upset when complete strangers are telling them that they cannot marry the person they want to... simply because these complete strangers have an irrational contempt or hatred of people who happen to be attracted to the same sex. It's NUTS.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#1246 Jul 2, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>That is right everybody is treated equal just like if the state bans gay marriage it affects everybody in the state including Heterosexuals who are also banned from gay marriage too which is why the 14th equal protection clause has not been violated and just think for years because of the flaw in the 14th amendment that the Bill of Rights under the US Constituiton did not pretain to the states and states were allowed to restrict those rights as they choosed until the SCOTUS started using the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights down to the state and local levels of government which is why for years the Liberals claimed that the 2nd Amendment did not pretain to the states which they were right to say until June 28, 2010 when the SCOTUS Incorporated the 2nd amendment down to the State and Local Governments.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
LMMFAO! You have a hilariously incorrect idea of what "equal" means if you think that laws banning same sex marriage affect everyone equally, including heterosexuals.. It's one of the most asinine "arguments" I've heard. Or perhaps you don't know what "heterosexual" means?

It's like saying that a law against saying Catholic prayers is "equal" for everyone because it affects everyone "equally" including non Catholics. Obviously. non Catholics aren't going to give a damn about not saying Catholic prayers, but Catholics sure will.

And such a law makes as much sense as not allowing consenting adults who happen to possess the same genitalia to get married to each other.

The question is, why the hell do you give a damn who complete strangers get married to? I assume you don't believe I should have any right to tell you who you can and cannot get married to, so why the hell should you get to tell me?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1251 Jul 2, 2014
Poncho wrote:
<quoted text>
.........
Man_?
Women_?
Freak_?
Human.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#1252 Jul 2, 2014
Kasper wrote:
RoseButtHo do you get a nickel every time you post "rational argument"? You about wore it out. You are so boring..........
Well, then Hammer/Kasper and whatever other names you use as you follow me around not only replying to my posts, but starting threads about me, feel free to find something on the internet you find interesting and quit fixating on me.
Kasper

New York, NY

#1253 Jul 2, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, then Hammer/Kasper and whatever other names you use as you follow me around not only replying to my posts, but starting threads about me, feel free to find something on the internet you find interesting and quit fixating on me.
No i will not stop. I do not like you, you are funky. When you vanish from the forum then i will stop . Until then nappy STFUPOS

Judged:

14

14

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#1254 Jul 3, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The same cannot be said for you. BTW, your post here is off topic and nothing more than a childish insult. Grow up.
Worn you down to this kind of drivel have we? You even forgot to mention the children in your post. Well, sort of anyway.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1255 Jul 3, 2014
Wondering wrote:
The same cannot be said for you. BTW, your post here is off topic and nothing more than a childish insult. Grow up.
Would you like to offer a post that has any relevance, Wondering? Or have you finally produced enough grey matter to understand that the headline says it all, and attempting to make an argument will merely result in a rebuttal that will make you look more foolish?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1256 Jul 3, 2014
Tre H wrote:
<quoted text>
It's you prerogative to be an activist for polygamy if you choose to. However, as I said, it's not the topic here. perhaps you can find a thread about polygamy or start one if that's the topic you prefer to discuss.
Perhaps. Or perhaps you could just skip my posts and not take the time to bother to respond? Yeah, that would work better because censorship sucks, don't you agree?

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1257 Jul 3, 2014
Poof1 wrote:
<quoted text>I like living in your head.
Pay your damn rent you deadbeat CREEP! Damn squatters. GET A JOB!

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1258 Jul 3, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you like to offer a post that has any relevance, Wondering?
You first.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1259 Jul 3, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You first.
lides thinks calling everyone "idiot" has relevance.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#1263 Jul 3, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>...Or perhaps you could just skip my posts and not take the time to bother to respond?......
You may have noticed that that's what most of the rest of us do, Tre. Why not take his advice?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1265 Jul 3, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You may have noticed that that's what most of the rest of us do, Tre. Why not take his advice?
Why not take my advice, if my posts bother you so much why not just ignore them instead of wasting your time whining about them? Why is polygamy a forbidden subject? Who died and put you in charge of Topix?

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#1266 Jul 3, 2014
Kasper wrote:
<quoted text>
No i will not stop. I do not like you,...
You've got a serious crush on me. That's why you follow me around, yanking my virtual pony tails.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#1267 Jul 3, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not take my advice, if my posts bother you so much why not just ignore them instead of wasting your time whining about them? Why is polygamy a forbidden subject? Who died and put you in charge of Topix?
LOL!! Your posts don't bother me at all. Why would I be bothered by off-topic posts from someone that refuses to engage in a discussion. You're just wasting your time and making yourself look foolish. All I'm doing is standing back and watching the show.

Case-in-point, your continued insistence that we've told you that polygamy is a forbidden subject. It's not. It's off-topic, but it's certainly not forbidden. And if you were actually willing to discuss it, instead of simply telling us all how we're telling you that you're not allowed to, we might discuss it with you. There isn't much else going on in this thread, is there?

But you don't want to do that, do you? You just keep whining and crying that none of us are for marriage equality because we're not also fully supportive of polygamy. Yet, when we ask you to support your claim or give us something to discuss, you simply repeat what a bunch of meanies we all are because we don't support marriage equality and we won't let you discuss polygamy.

Discuss away!! I've tried to engage you on the subject several times now, but you simply come back with how I don't support marriage equality. That's not discussing. That's NOT discussing.

YOU.... DO.... NOT.... WANT... TO.... DISCUSS.... POLYGAMY. If you did, you would, but you don't. So quit trying to put your inability to discuss the subject onto us. It's your issue, not ours.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1268 Jul 3, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>They are going to reaffirm baker v nelson since it is a state right issue and not a federal issue and if congress wanted to they could ban gay marriage just like congress banned polygamy marriage then its a federal issue.
Nope. Baker was not ruled on by SCOTUS; it was rejected and remanded back to the State.

You keep trying to use a State case to claim Federal Precedent and it doesn't work that way dear. It's just like a racist citing laws that gave them permission to discriminate.

Did it ever occur to you that you are basically trying to use cases that have been overturned to back your legal claim?

LMAO!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1269 Jul 3, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!! Your posts don't bother me at all. Why would I be bothered by off-topic posts from someone that refuses to engage in a discussion. You're just wasting your time and making yourself look foolish. All I'm doing is standing back and watching the show.
Case-in-point, your continued insistence that we've told you that polygamy is a forbidden subject. It's not. It's off-topic, but it's certainly not forbidden. And if you were actually willing to discuss it, instead of simply telling us all how we're telling you that you're not allowed to, we might discuss it with you. There isn't much else going on in this thread, is there?
But you don't want to do that, do you? You just keep whining and crying that none of us are for marriage equality because we're not also fully supportive of polygamy. Yet, when we ask you to support your claim or give us something to discuss, you simply repeat what a bunch of meanies we all are because we don't support marriage equality and we won't let you discuss polygamy.
Discuss away!! I've tried to engage you on the subject several times now, but you simply come back with how I don't support marriage equality. That's not discussing. That's NOT discussing.
YOU.... DO.... NOT.... WANT... TO.... DISCUSS.... POLYGAMY. If you did, you would, but you don't. So quit trying to put your inability to discuss the subject onto us. It's your issue, not ours.
"LOL!! Your posts don't bother me at all...."

(350 word angry essay explaining why they don't bother you deleted for brevity)...

Too funny! Ah good times.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1270 Jul 3, 2014
No religion, society, or group or person has a right to order a person or even use coercion to enforce how many people he / she may love, with how many people he / she may have concurrent sexual relationships and with whom and with how many people he / she creates a family.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1271 Jul 3, 2014
19th Century Reynolds is still in effect and indeed the modern court cites it as authority. In it we are given the reason for the laws against polygamy- Moral disapproval.

“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”

Moral disapproval is no longer a valid reason to deny marriage equality in the 21st century.

Marriage. There is no one right way.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 hr No Surprise 4,329
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) 3 hr alsabaak 126
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 3 hr WasteWater 36,032
News Christine Wicker: Learning to Talk About God an... (Sep '10) 5 hr Joy to the World 29
News Bollywood in Taipei 6 hr TW_sugar_daddio 2
News No monopolies on bigotry in election lead-up Sat Paddling has its ... 4
News Slovenians vote in gay marriage referendum (Dec '15) Fri saharali 6
More from around the web