Mexican lawmaker asks to ban gay unio...

Mexican lawmaker asks to ban gay unions in public

There are 369 comments on the KARE-TV Minneapolis story from Sep 4, 2013, titled Mexican lawmaker asks to ban gay unions in public. In it, KARE-TV Minneapolis reports that:

A state legislator in Mexico is causing a stir by asking authorities not to allow gay weddings in public spaces because it confuses children in a state that just approved same-sex civil unions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KARE-TV Minneapolis.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#258 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
And this means polygamy should be illegal because....
1. Keeping it illegal helps to curb man's bestial tendency to behave like a stallion collecting a herd of mares.

2. Polygamy promotes a patriarchal social system that undermines gender equality.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#259 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
No hate, just well documented facts.
Number is a different restriction from gender. Math is entirely rational. 2=2. 100 does not equal 2. Rational fact. It is your continued claim that they are equal, that is irrational.
Tell the judge. "I believe we should keep polygamy illegal because two does not equal one hundred, your honor."
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#260 Sep 12, 2013
Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Keeping it illegal helps to curb man's bestial tendency to behave like a stallion collecting a herd of mares.
2. Polygamy promotes a patriarchal social system that undermines gender equality.
Polyandry hardly undermines gender equality. It celebrates it.

I don't think anyone's marriage should be illegal.

Marriage. There is no one right way.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#261 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you continue to fail to document your claims (because you can't), while we can and have documented our assertions and well known observations. Number is different from gender.
The argument that something different is not equal, is solid. You cannot overcome the fact the restriction on number is separate and very different from the restriction on gender. 2 still equals 2. There is no way around the fact removing the number restriction changes the laws and social structure for everyone, while removing the gender restriction does not.
We cannot deny equality because granting it would be too complicated.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#262 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you continue to fail to document your claims (because you can't), while we can and have documented our assertions and well known observations. Number is different from gender.
The argument that something different is not equal, is solid. You cannot overcome the fact the restriction on number is separate and very different from the restriction on gender. 2 still equals 2. There is no way around the fact removing the number restriction changes the laws and social structure for everyone, while removing the gender restriction does not.
Same sex marriage is not different from opposite sex marriage but polygamy is?

Polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it's different from SSM. Priceless.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#263 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell the judge. "I believe we should keep polygamy illegal because two does not equal one hundred, your honor."
No judge would claim the restriction on gender and the restriction on number have any relationship to each other. He would understand removing the number restriction would require changing current law and replacing it with something entirely different. He would also understand this would change the social structure of society in ways that favor the wealthy, and disadvantage everyone else. He would already understand only 2=2.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#264 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is not different from opposite sex marriage but polygamy is?
Polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it's different from SSM. Priceless.
Marriage is the same under the same laws for opposite sex and same sex couples. Legally there is no difference in the jurisdictions that recognize them. There is only one marriage under the law.

You want to change what marriage is for everyone by removing the number requirement. That is an entirely different argument, requiring an entirely different set of laws, and social structure.

The reasons the courts have accepted for maintaining the restriction are different than the arguments used to deny marriage recognition to same sex couples under the laws currently in effect. Like them or not, you fail to refute them, but it is irrelevant as that is a different argument.

No matter how you try to re frame the argument, attempts to shame can't change the fact you have a different argument that has nothing to do with the gender restriction. Only 2 can be equal to 2.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#265 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
No judge would claim the restriction on gender and the restriction on number have any relationship to each other. He would understand removing the number restriction would require changing current law and replacing it with something entirely different. He would also understand this would change the social structure of society in ways that favor the wealthy, and disadvantage everyone else. He would already understand only 2=2.
You keep insisting polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it's not the same as same sex marriage. That is an incredibly gay centric and selfish attitude.

As if denying gay marriage matters and denying polyamorists marriage doesn't matter. Because it is "different" than same sex marriage.

The bottom line is you are a hypocrite.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#266 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is the same under the same laws for opposite sex and same sex couples. Legally there is no difference in the jurisdictions that recognize them. There is only one marriage under the law.
You want to change what marriage is for everyone by removing the number requirement. That is an entirely different argument, requiring an entirely different set of laws, and social structure.
The reasons the courts have accepted for maintaining the restriction are different than the arguments used to deny marriage recognition to same sex couples under the laws currently in effect. Like them or not, you fail to refute them, but it is irrelevant as that is a different argument.
No matter how you try to re frame the argument, attempts to shame can't change the fact you have a different argument that has nothing to do with the gender restriction. Only 2 can be equal to 2.
You are attempting to re-frame the argument to gay marriage matters and poly marriage doesn't.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#267 Sep 12, 2013
Poly shouldn't be legal because two equals two. Priceless.

That's why I like you silly jackasses!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#268 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Poly shouldn't be legal because two equals two. Priceless.
That's why I like you silly jackasses!
Again, 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. Only 2=2

You do not support marriage equality. You support changing the laws of marriage and the structure of society for everyone. Yours is a different arguement, for something different.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#269 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Polyandry hardly undermines gender equality. It celebrates it.
Polyandry would be extremely rare. Polygamy would be the norm because that is the natural inclination of hetero males. It's the reason for the rampant adultery and high divorce rate.

It's a natural urge that must be curtailed for the sake of gender equality.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#270 Sep 12, 2013
Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
Polyandry would be extremely rare. Polygamy would be the norm because that is the natural inclination of hetero males. It's the reason for the rampant adultery and high divorce rate.
It's a natural urge that must be curtailed for the sake of gender equality.
That is not a valid reason to deny equal protection of the law, and calling it not equal is bullsh!t.

You have no credible reasons for keeping polygamy illegal. Your doomsday scenarios are laughable. All you have is ignorance and bigotry. Makes you a hypocrite.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#271 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, 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. Only 2=2
You do not support marriage equality. You support changing the laws of marriage and the structure of society for everyone. Yours is a different arguement, for something different.
I support same sex marriage, polygamy, incest marriage and opposite sex marriage. You do not. I support marriage equality. You do not.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#272 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
But I don't want to enter a poly marriage. I simply want to discuss marriage equality without your fear and attempts at censorship.
I pity your husband the day you have your period.
Censorship? I don't give a flying f*ck what you say. I never report you, calm the hell down, crabby.

golly, you are NO fun at all, are you? I used to think you were humorous, but I find you just out and out mean and argumentative. Too bad. Another one lost to the dark side of crabbiness.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#273 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I support same sex marriage, polygamy, incest marriage and opposite sex marriage. You do not. I support marriage equality. You do not.
Oh, dear, cue the harps and violins. It looks like Frankie is off and running on one of his self righteous self pitying monologues.

Freaking PONDEROUS, Frankie, ponderous and ZERO fun.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#274 Sep 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I support same sex marriage, polygamy, incest marriage and opposite sex marriage.
Incest? Now you've lost all credibility.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#275 Sep 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not a valid reason to deny equal protection of the law, and calling it not equal is bullsh!t.
You're the one dropping male cow dung. Equal protection of the law? Everyone has the right to marry one person. How is that not equal?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#276 Sep 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I support same sex marriage, polygamy, incest marriage and opposite sex marriage. You do not. I support marriage equality. You do not.
And most people disagree with you, especially about the "incest marriages". And you don't really support it, either, but it's all you have to needle gay folks with.

Can you post the links to the threads on any other forums other than LGBT where you are making the case for incest and polygamy? If you are very supportive of them, I would think that you are also taking your argument to threads about heterosexuals marrying or family life as well, since they would be the ones doing it.

Post the links to your other polygamy and incest support threads.

Or admit that you only make these silly claims on gay/lesbian threads, to pester gay folks who have no interest in marrying multiples, or marrying family members.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#278 Sep 13, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Censorship? I don't give a flying f*ck what you say. I never report you, calm the hell down, crabby.
golly, you are NO fun at all, are you? I used to think you were humorous, but I find you just out and out mean and argumentative. Too bad. Another one lost to the dark side of crabbiness.
Yes. Censorship. Did I stutter? You whine when I talk about polygamy because you have no good argument for keeping it illegal except for your ignorance and bigotry.

You find me humorous when I don't make you angry. That's nice. But sometimes it's not funny anymore, eh? YUK!YUK!YUK! Suffer.

Don't shoot the messenger.

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 Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 1 min Wondering 63
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 min Wondering 10,294
News Cake fundraiser supports gay marriage as Suprem... 17 min Wondering 59
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 28 min Wondering 213
News Disgraced ex-congressman Anthony Weiner jailed ... 1 hr Chris 6
News Has Australia's support for gay marriage slippe... 6 hr Timothy 2
News Same-sex marriage protesters clash - exchange v... 22 hr Tea Bag Residue C... 4
More from around the web