Mexican lawmaker asks to ban gay unions in public

Sep 4, 2013 Full story: KARE-TV Minneapolis 369

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.

Full Story

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#238 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
How does it feel to argue against marriage equality? You do it poorly. Just like those against same sex marriage do.
Again, it is not equality.

2=2, 100 does not equal 2.

The number restriction is a different restriction. Personal attacks fail to provide any rational argument.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#239 Sep 12, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep writing that, yet have NEVER offered one shred of evidence to back it up.
Hudson and den Boer suggest that societies become inherently unstable when sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females: in other words, when one-sixth of men are surplus goods on the marriage market. The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives, and 2 percent took four wives-numbers that are quite imaginable, if polygamy were legal for a while.
So much for your "so rare" theory. Why do you believe things that ARE NOT TRUE?
Very good information. Thanks. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to predict these numbers would happen. I see no reason the very rich would not have 20, 100, or more wives, just as some do today. Nice to have a few at each house.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#240 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

2 does not yet equal 1,000. It never will.
No sh!t. Can't argue with that. And this means polygamy should be illegal because....
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#241 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, it is not equality.
2=2, 100 does not equal 2.
The number restriction is a different restriction. Personal attacks fail to provide any rational argument.
Arithmetic lessons to justify your hate are more irrational than personal attacks.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#242 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good information. Thanks. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to predict these numbers would happen. I see no reason the very rich would not have 20, 100, or more wives, just as some do today. Nice to have a few at each house.
"just as some do today." And the sky hasn't fallen.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#243 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hudson and den Boer is a known fundie hate group.
Can you document that claim?

When accusing Focus on the Family, or AFA , etc. of being a well known hate group, we can provide the documentation to support that claim. With a little more effort, it is usually fairly easy to show where they are misusing data, simply making stuff up, or relying on questionable translations of religious verses.

You provide nothing to support your claims. Clearly, you have no argument on the merits. 2 still equals 2.

"Hudson and Den Boer ... argue that such surpluses of men increase the potential for internal and external violence, while diminishing the prospects for democracy. This phenomenon could destabilize the two countries, the region, and beyond." http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publicati...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#244 Sep 12, 2013
Fun to read you haters' posts arguing against marriage equality. Sounds very familiar. Like the fundies arguing against marriage equality. Except even stupider. Arithmetic lessons. Priceless.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#245 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No sh!t. Can't argue with that. And this means polygamy should be illegal because....
I'm not arguing it should be prohibited by law (illegal), but rather that it should not be recognized and supported by law. There is a difference.

The well documented, court approved reasons, demonstrate the number restriction is entirely different from the gender restriction. It cannot be rationally compared to treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect for couples.

The number restriction is a separate argument because it changes the rules, laws, relationship dynamics, and social order of the entire society for straight and gay people on a fundamental level, while allowing gay people the same rights straight couples currently enjoy does not change the rules, laws, relationship dynamics, or social order for straight people. Polygamy is neither an equal legal nor social structure. It is a change of social order to something very different.

As practiced, polygamy restricts the availability of women, denying some men the opportunity for marriage, which would have a destabilizing effect on society, whereas allowing gay people to marry under the rules currently in place, has a stabilizing effect on those relationships and society in general.

As it is usually one man and as many women as he can afford, it would result in rich men having many wives with poorer men having none, as we have documented. That also results in older men having more wives while putting pressure on women to marry younger, as is currently the practice. This dynamic limits the possibilities for women to have equal opportunities in education, employment, and status, in and outside of the relationship.

It also changes the genetic balance of the population by limiting the gene pool, which history has shown is not in the interest of survivability of the species.

Allowing gay people to marry does not limit the gene pool, but possibly expands it. Additionally, gay couples often adopt, and often take in the hard to place children that have been abused and discarded by their straight parents, which provides another stabilizing influence on society.

There are other frequently observed, increased problems with polygamy including child abuse, spousal abuse, child custody, property divisions, and inequality of relationships.

These examples do not apply to the gender restriction and should help to point out why removing the number restriction is a different and separate argument. It is a different social and legal structure. Therefore, it cannot be considered equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#246 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Fun to read you haters' posts arguing against marriage equality. Sounds very familiar. Like the fundies arguing against marriage equality. Except even stupider. Arithmetic lessons. Priceless.
And yet your rebuttal relies on pejoratives and demeaning personal attacks rather than any attempt to refute the information provided, demonstrating you have no rational argument on the merits. 2 still equals 2, while 100 remains something very different from 2. It is not equality.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#247 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you document that claim?
Sure. Right after you tell me why 2 does not equal one thousand means that polygamy shouldn't be allowed.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#248 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"just as some do today." And the sky hasn't fallen.
Yet in those places where it is practiced under the law, we see the problems described and documented above. Rich men with many wives and poor men with none, gangs of young men destabilizing society, authoritarian, undemocratic social structure, etc. The documentation remains un refuted.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#249 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not arguing it should be prohibited by law (illegal), but rather that it should not be recognized and supported by law. There is a difference.
The well documented, court approved reasons, demonstrate the number restriction is entirely different from the gender restriction. It cannot be rationally compared to treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect for couples.
The number restriction is a separate argument because it changes the rules, laws, relationship dynamics, and social order of the entire society for straight and gay people on a fundamental level, while allowing gay people the same rights straight couples currently enjoy does not change the rules, laws, relationship dynamics, or social order for straight people. Polygamy is neither an equal legal nor social structure. It is a change of social order to something very different.
As practiced, polygamy restricts the availability of women, denying some men the opportunity for marriage, which would have a destabilizing effect on society, whereas allowing gay people to marry under the rules currently in place, has a stabilizing effect on those relationships and society in general.
As it is usually one man and as many women as he can afford, it would result in rich men having many wives with poorer men having none, as we have documented. That also results in older men having more wives while putting pressure on women to marry younger, as is currently the practice. This dynamic limits the possibilities for women to have equal opportunities in education, employment, and status, in and outside of the relationship.
It also changes the genetic balance of the population by limiting the gene pool, which history has shown is not in the interest of survivability of the species.
Allowing gay people to marry does not limit the gene pool, but possibly expands it. Additionally, gay couples often adopt, and often take in the hard to place children that have been abused and discarded by their straight parents, which provides another stabilizing influence on society.
There are other frequently observed, increased problems with polygamy including child abuse, spousal abuse, child custody, property divisions, and inequality of relationships.
These examples do not apply to the gender restriction and should help to point out why removing the number restriction is a different and separate argument. It is a different social and legal structure. Therefore, it cannot be considered equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.
Takes a lot of rambling sentences to try to justify denying rights doesn't it? I'm still not convinced. Try harder. I doubt you'll convince me though. I like equality.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#250 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Arithmetic lessons to justify your hate are more irrational than personal attacks.
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.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#251 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Takes a lot of rambling sentences to try to justify denying rights doesn't it? I'm still not convinced. Try harder. I doubt you'll convince me though. I like equality.
And again, your rebuttal relies on pejoratives and demeaning personal attacks rather than any attempt to refute the information provided, demonstrating you have no rational argument on the merits.

2 still equals 2, while 100 remains something very different from 2, and therefore cannot rationally be called equality.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#252 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. Right after you tell me why 2 does not equal one thousand means that polygamy shouldn't be allowed.
Who's stopping you? Go to Utah or Colorado that Oprah or "20/20" feature and join one of those weird Mormon sects and start stocking up on wives. I pity you the day they all have their period at the same time.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#253 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet in those places where it is practiced under the law, we see the problems described and documented above. Rich men with many wives and poor men with none, gangs of young men destabilizing society, authoritarian, undemocratic social structure, etc. The documentation remains un refuted.
Hypocrite.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#254 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.
I know 2 does not equal 100. It's a very dumb argument. But it's all you've got except some biased research by known hate groups. So keep running with it I guess.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#255 Sep 12, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Who's stopping you? Go to Utah or Colorado that Oprah or "20/20" feature and join one of those weird Mormon sects and start stocking up on wives. I pity you the day they all have their period at the same time.
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.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#256 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>Hypocrite.
Name calling fails to refute the information presented, demonstrating you have no argument on the merits.

Different is not equal.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#257 Sep 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know 2 does not equal 100. It's a very dumb argument. But it's all you've got except some biased research by known hate groups. So keep running with it I guess.
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.

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.

Cuauhtemoc, Mexico Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
International alert: truck stolen with highly r... (Dec '13) Dec '13 Concerned 5
Fight begins over opening up Mexico's oil monopoly (Nov '13) Nov '13 HRH 1
Bloomberg gets caught up in Mexico soda tax fight (Oct '13) Oct '13 Ol No Name 1
Dramatic video shows mass brawl between Polish ... (Aug '13) Aug '13 The Iron Francisk... 13
Fight over revered ex-president's image dominat... (Aug '13) Aug '13 Dear Governor Cuomo 1
Proper disposal of used tires: Juarez may help ... (Dec '10) Aug '11 Mr-D-ElPaso 12
Free Kicks with Joe Blog: Cuauhtemoc Is Coming!... (Mar '11) Mar '11 No Way 4

Cuauhtemoc, Mexico People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:51 am PST