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.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#361 Sep 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Great argument you have there fruitloops.
Hey, YOU'RE the one PANTING to start a harem. NOT me.

Is Mrs. Rizzo on board with this also? Nice wife, but she puts up with YOU, she is eligible for sainthood.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#362 Sep 16, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, YOU'RE the one PANTING to start a harem. NOT me.
Is Mrs. Rizzo on board with this also? Nice wife, but she puts up with YOU, she is eligible for sainthood.
I don't want a harem, I simply want to discuss marriage equality without your fear, censorship and dopey ad hominem.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#363 Sep 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop whining about abuse. I am not abusing you.
Your reaction to making polygamy legal is the same reaction some people have to making SSM legal. You scream bloody murder when they say SSM shouldn't be allowed. But you do the same thing against poly marriage.
But what puts the icing on the fruitcake is your attitude that polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it's not same sex marriage. It's "different".
The whining continues to come from you, when confronted with the reality that only 2=2, and something else is something else.

You are advocating for removal of different restrictions, which would alter the laws of marriage and change the structure of society for everyone, while removing the gender restriction does none of that. Entirely different cannot be considered equal.

Denial does not change the fact you continue to rely on abuse to make your case, rather than focusing on why we should change the laws that determine what marriage is for couples, and why we should change the structure of society.

While I and others have shown why treating the marriages of same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not change the laws or structure of society for couples, and why the gender restriction is irrational, your presentation relies on abusive name calling, pejorative terminology, and denial of reality.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#364 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

Denial does not change the fact you continue to rely on abuse to make your case
At least I have a case.

I "abuse" you whine about it. Like I said before, fun to watch you try to justify your bigotry. Carry on.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#365 Sep 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want a harem, I simply want to discuss marriage equality without your fear, censorship and dopey ad hominem.
Please state ONE time I have tried to censor you or said that you should NOT be allowed to have 12 vaginas running free in your household.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#366 Sep 16, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Please state ONE time I have tried to censor you or said that you should NOT be allowed to have 12 vaginas running free in your household.
Relax fruitloops. Your smarmy answer says it all. You don't try to censor me, you try to ridicule me.

I don't want 12 vaginas running free in my house, I simply want to discuss marriage equality with out your ridicule. Either you have an argument against poly marriage or you don't. Your jokes about it aren't funny anyway. Get an argument troll.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#367 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The whining continues to come from you, when confronted with the reality that only 2=2, and something else is something else.
You are advocating for removal of different restrictions, which would alter the laws of marriage and change the structure of society for everyone, while removing the gender restriction does none of that. Entirely different cannot be considered equal.
Denial does not change the fact you continue to rely on abuse to make your case, rather than focusing on why we should change the laws that determine what marriage is for couples, and why we should change the structure of society.
While I and others have shown why treating the marriages of same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not change the laws or structure of society for couples, and why the gender restriction is irrational, your presentation relies on abusive name calling, pejorative terminology, and denial of reality.
Let's sum up your arguments so far against marriage equality for polygamists:

It's not same sex marriage so it shouldn't be allowed.
It's "different" than same sex marriage so it shouldn't be allowed.
It would be too complicated, so screw 'em, they don't need equality.

Any more?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#368 Sep 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
At least I have a case.
I "abuse" you whine about it. Like I said before, fun to watch you try to justify your bigotry. Carry on.
And once again, the abuse and whining comes from you. I simply point out your tactics rely on pejoratives and abuse, rather than a rational discussion of the merits. You continue to prove my assertions.

You continue to fail to show removing the number restriction does not change the laws and social structure currently in effect, because you can't. Removing the number restriction still changes the laws and social structure for everyone, while treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not alter the laws or social structure.

You are still stuck with different restrictions. Claiming to have a case, fails to provide one.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#369 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And once again, the abuse and whining comes from you. I simply point out your tactics rely on pejoratives and abuse, rather than a rational discussion of the merits. You continue to prove my assertions.
You continue to fail to show removing the number restriction does not change the laws and social structure currently in effect, because you can't. Removing the number restriction still changes the laws and social structure for everyone, while treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not alter the laws or social structure.
You are still stuck with different restrictions. Claiming to have a case, fails to provide one.
And once again the whining about supposed "abuse" comes from you.

You continue to fail to present any credible argument against polygamy. Your "it would be too complicated, so screw em" won't hold up in court. Neither will "it shouldn't be allowed because it's not same sex marriage."

Same sex marriage required some altering of the social structure too. That argument is ridiculous. Any social change alters the social structure you flipping moron!

Hope that helps.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#370 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And once again, the abuse and whining comes from you. I simply point out your tactics rely on pejoratives and abuse, rather than a rational discussion of the merits. You continue to prove my assertions.
You continue to fail to show removing the number restriction does not change the laws and social structure currently in effect, because you can't. Removing the number restriction still changes the laws and social structure for everyone, while treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not alter the laws or social structure.
You are still stuck with different restrictions. Claiming to have a case, fails to provide one.
My case is simple. Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage.

You continue to fail to prove it does not.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#371 Sep 16, 2013
Polygamists are "not yet equal" too. But "Not Yet Equal" only seems to be concerned with his own equality, which is not equal at all.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#372 Sep 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
And once again the whining about supposed "abuse" comes from you.
You continue to fail to present any credible argument against polygamy. Your "it would be too complicated, so screw em" won't hold up in court. Neither will "it shouldn't be allowed because it's not same sex marriage."
Same sex marriage required some altering of the social structure too. That argument is ridiculous. Any social change alters the social structure you flipping moron!
Hope that helps.
You continue to demonstrate my point.

You fail to show removing the number restriction does not change the laws and social structure currently in effect, because you can't.

Removing the number restriction still changes the body of laws and social structure for everyone, while treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not alter the laws in effect for couples, or the social structure.

You are still stuck with the fact the restrictions for which you advocate, are different restrictions.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#373 Sep 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax fruitloops. Your smarmy answer says it all. You don't try to censor me, you try to ridicule me.
I don't want 12 vaginas running free in my house, I simply want to discuss marriage equality with out your ridicule. Either you have an argument against poly marriage or you don't. Your jokes about it aren't funny anyway. Get an argument troll.
is this suddenly "Debate Class 1-A"? I don't want to do anything like that. WHEN do I ever get into huge ponderous debates on here anyway? I like to point out you guys' and your HUGE egos and low sense of humor and once in a while some of your pals' rank hypocrisy. I must admit, you may be tiresome, but you sure ain't no HYPOCRITE.

One thing about conservatives, they HATE anyone poking fun at them. taking yourself too seriously is really boring for the rest of us. Now to quote a FAMOUS scholar..."yukyukyukyuk! "

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#374 Sep 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Polygamists are "not yet equal" too. But "Not Yet Equal" only seems to be concerned with his own equality, which is not equal at all.
You're wrong, and your only argument for polygamy is "you gays can get married; why not us polygamists?" You've been given several sound reasons why the number restriction should remain. Still, if you want polygamy so badly, take it to the court system. You certainly aren't going to convince us, and we're not the ones you need to convince anyway.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#375 Sep 16, 2013
Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong, and your only argument for polygamy is "you gays can get married; why not us polygamists?" You've been given several sound reasons why the number restriction should remain. Still, if you want polygamy so badly, take it to the court system. You certainly aren't going to convince us, and we're not the ones you need to convince anyway.
They are not sound reasons, they are ignorance and bigotry just like you used to hear against SSM, and now you're doing it. Nice!

You are a hypocrite. Your "sound reasons" are bullsh!t.

Hope that helps clear up any confusion.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#376 Sep 16, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>is this suddenly "Debate Class 1-A"? I don't want to do anything like that. WHEN do I ever get into huge ponderous debates on here anyway? I like to point out you guys' and your HUGE egos and low sense of humor and once in a while some of your pals' rank hypocrisy. I must admit, you may be tiresome, but you sure ain't no HYPOCRITE.
One thing about conservatives, they HATE anyone poking fun at them. taking yourself too seriously is really boring for the rest of us. Now to quote a FAMOUS scholar..."yukyukyukyuk! "
One thing about you, you have no argument so you resort to dopey ad hominem. And claim I have no sense of humor about it.

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#377 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to demonstrate my point.
You fail to show removing the number restriction does not change the laws and social structure currently in effect, because you can't.
Removing the number restriction still changes the body of laws and social structure for everyone, while treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not alter the laws in effect for couples, or the social structure.
You are still stuck with the fact the restrictions for which you advocate, are different restrictions.
You fail to show why polygamy should be illegal. Your reasons are bullsh!t. We don't deny rights because it might be complicated to grant them.(It won't be that complicated).

Your only reason seems to be that we'd have to alter a few laws. That is not a valid reason.

You whine again, you fail again! So Sorry. You lose. Insert another nickel please.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#378 Sep 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You fail to show why polygamy should be illegal. Your reasons are bullsh!t. We don't deny rights because it might be complicated to grant them.(It won't be that complicated).
Your only reason seems to be that we'd have to alter a few laws. That is not a valid reason.
You whine again, you fail again! So Sorry. You lose. Insert another nickel please.
And again, you demonstrate your argument relies on insults and pejoratives, rather than on any merits.

Removing the restrictions on incest and number, change the current legal and social structure, while removing the gender restriction does not. Sorry, but gender and incest are still a very different restrictions.

Again, you need to show how you would change the laws to accommodate groups, what the inter-relationships would meant to assets, debt, and all sorts of other things yet unknown and undetermined. You have not made your case that we should change the laws or how, regardless of how simple or complicated it might be. I don't know, and I really don't care that much, as long as you can overcome the historical problems with inequality of relationships that favor the few at the expense of everyone else. You refuse to address these concerns rationally, as is your option, but most understand abusive name calling and guilt tripping, fails to refuse the information, and fails to change the fact restrictions on gender are entirely unrelated and different from restrictions on incest and number.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#379 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And again, you demonstrate your argument relies on insults and pejoratives, rather than on any merits.
Removing the restrictions on incest and number, change the current legal and social structure, while removing the gender restriction does not. Sorry, but gender and incest are still a very different restrictions.
Again, you need to show how you would change the laws to accommodate groups, what the inter-relationships would meant to assets, debt, and all sorts of other things yet unknown and undetermined. You have not made your case that we should change the laws or how, regardless of how simple or complicated it might be. I don't know, and I really don't care that much, as long as you can overcome the historical problems with inequality of relationships that favor the few at the expense of everyone else. You refuse to address these concerns rationally, as is your option, but most understand abusive name calling and guilt tripping, fails to refuse the information, and fails to change the fact restrictions on gender are entirely unrelated and different from restrictions on incest and number.
When you want to deny someone's rights like you are doing, you don't ask them to prove why they should have those rights, you tell them why you should be allowed to deny them those rights.

So far you haven't given any valid reasons to deny good people the right to marry except your ignorance and bigotry against other people's marriages.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#380 Sep 16, 2013
Rye Whiskey. The Punch Brothers.

Rye whiskey makes my girlfriend hotter!~Whoop!

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 Yes or no? Ireland votes on whether to legalize... 34 min nhjeff 10
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 3 hr Wondering 4,351
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 7 hr Robin 32,991
News Gay marriage poll counting to start 9 hr mitt s santorum s... 2
News Royse-Hancock vows to be exchanged in Uniontown 14 hr red ranger 6
News How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... (Nov '14) 16 hr Maravilla 1,323
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 16 hr Wanderer2452 3,665
More from around the web