Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settl...

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

There are 929 comments on the The Washington Post story from Aug 17, 2014, titled Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

A whole lot of judges who are being asked to decide whether states may ban same-sex couples from marrying think the Supreme Court clearly gave them the answer last year: no.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#280 Aug 25, 2014
No one not the state, a religion or any of you clowns has a right to order a person or even use coercion to enforce how many people he or she may love, with how many people he or she may have concurrent sexual relationships and with whom and with how many people he or she creates a family.

It's not complicated.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#281 Aug 25, 2014
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
And your whiny post...bla bla bla...BLA!!
~smootch~
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#282 Aug 25, 2014

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#283 Aug 25, 2014
Yeah, let's see you jump up and down.

Demanding rights is good--when you put the work in to solve inherent issues. When you demand rights that aren't established and that have a load of impediments you refuse to address, you're just whining.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Demanding equal rights for LGBT = GOOD!
Demanding equal rights for poly = Jumping up and down.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#284 Aug 26, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Yeah, let's see you jump up and down.
Demanding rights is good--when you put the work in to solve inherent issues. When you demand rights that aren't established and that have a load of impediments you refuse to address, you're just whining.
<quoted text>
Demanding rights for LGBT- GOOD!
Demanding rights for others too- Whining.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#285 Aug 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Demanding equal rights for LGBT = GOOD!
Demanding equal rights for poly = Jumping up and down.
Yep! As long as you refuse to discuss the issue any further than demanding everyone agree with you, all you're doing is jumping up and down and wasting everyone's time.

Care to address any of the dozens of issues that have been brought up in (so far) useless attempts at actually DISCUSSING polygamy? Or are you just going to continue to jump up and down and demand your cookies like a three-year-old?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#286 Aug 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Why does that mean I cannot post about it?
I have no power to stop you from posting anything you want.

But wouldn't you rather make productive contributions to the conversation? Badgering people over and over for their opinion (which they assure you are supportive) about a subject they cannot have any influence over, and then telling them that their calls for prudent review and their inability to act amount to deliberate discrimination is nothing but hard-headed.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I am also on a space travel to Mars forum. No one there demands I travel to Mars before I am allowed to post about travel to Mars. Why do you do that?
Because you are not simply "discussing" polygamy as a subject of interest. You seem to be looking for specific ways to mischaracterize someone's disinterest in this subject as bigotry.

On your Mars forum, do you tell people that they're not REALLY interested in traveling to Mars, unless they also want to travel to Venus? Do you tell them over and over that they're actually Mars-haters, because they don't have equal love for Venus? That's what you're doing here, and it's ridiculous.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Because you don't like polygamy mentioned. But you cannot say that so you attempt censorship.
I have no problem with polygamy being mentioned. We've been having a conversation about it for days! But you are asking people for their opinions, and then you aren't accepting them. Like you did just now. I have no interest in polygamy, I have no solutions for the issue, but you decide that this means that I don't even like polygamy to be mentioned. Mention it all you want, but ask someone what you want to know, assimilate what they tell you, and frigging move ON already.

You seriously need to adjust your argument, anyway. It's no better than an argument for pedophilia. You could say that we should recognize the desires of pedophiles in the name of "equality", and anyone who says that there are "complications" (such as age of consent laws) is just a bigot who wants to censor the conversation. Isn't that the same thing?

ANY debate has details that must be considered, and you don't seem willing to do that. You seem to want to gloss over those details, and characterize any nuanced position which DOES consider the details as total opposition. It's not an honest way to debate.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#287 Aug 26, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no power to stop you from posting anything you want.
But wouldn't you rather make productive contributions to the conversation? Badgering people over and over for their opinion (which they assure you are supportive) about a subject they cannot have any influence over, and then telling them that their calls for prudent review and their inability to act amount to deliberate discrimination is nothing but hard-headed.
<quoted text>
Because you are not simply "discussing" polygamy as a subject of interest. You seem to be looking for specific ways to mischaracterize someone's disinterest in this subject as bigotry.
On your Mars forum, do you tell people that they're not REALLY interested in traveling to Mars, unless they also want to travel to Venus? Do you tell them over and over that they're actually Mars-haters, because they don't have equal love for Venus? That's what you're doing here, and it's ridiculous.
<quoted text>
I have no problem with polygamy being mentioned. We've been having a conversation about it for days! But you are asking people for their opinions, and then you aren't accepting them. Like you did just now. I have no interest in polygamy, I have no solutions for the issue, but you decide that this means that I don't even like polygamy to be mentioned. Mention it all you want, but ask someone what you want to know, assimilate what they tell you, and frigging move ON already.
You seriously need to adjust your argument, anyway. It's no better than an argument for pedophilia. You could say that we should recognize the desires of pedophiles in the name of "equality", and anyone who says that there are "complications" (such as age of consent laws) is just a bigot who wants to censor the conversation. Isn't that the same thing?
ANY debate has details that must be considered, and you don't seem willing to do that. You seem to want to gloss over those details, and characterize any nuanced position which DOES consider the details as total opposition. It's not an honest way to debate.
I feel your love and support now, thought it was gas. My bad.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#288 Aug 26, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
... It's not an honest way to debate.
It's not an honest way to debate when you insist I must give a detailed plan for every problem that might pop up in legalizing polygamy before I am allowed to advocate it on your thread.

You're the one being dishonest.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#289 Aug 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I feel your love and support now, thought it was gas. My bad.
I was hoping I'd feel YOUR comprehension for a fraction of what I just said, but I guess that WAS gas.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
It's not an honest way to debate when you insist I must give a detailed plan for every problem that might pop up in legalizing polygamy before I am allowed to advocate it on your thread.
You're the one being dishonest.
You can advocate whatever you want. But in the spirit of recognizing reality, you should at least acknowledge that such a detailed plan is necessary before any other steps can be taken.

When someone says "I support legal recognition of polygamous marriages, but the current legal framework would probably not suit them, so it should be overhauled first to be sure it suits everyone fairly", it is dishonest for you to declare that what they're really saying is "I oppose polygamy as immoral, and I only want rights for gay people and no one else".

If you think that we should blindly rush into legalized polygamy without the slightest considerations of the "complications" which might stand in its way, then you have no justification for opposing the same blind rush into child marriages. Age of consent laws are just a "red herring" according to your argument, and any pedophile could use your argument for their own cause.

You are not advocating equality, you are advocating irresponsible legislative action, with complete disregard as to whether or not the law would properly function for the people to whom it would be applied. You don't have to come up with the plan to change the law yourself, but when you pretend that no such plan is necessary, or that the people who advocate putting a plan in place are bigots, you are not being honest at all.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#290 Aug 26, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I was hoping I'd feel YOUR comprehension for a fraction of what I just said, but I guess that WAS gas.
<quoted text>
You can advocate whatever you want. But in the spirit of recognizing reality, you should at least acknowledge that such a detailed plan is necessary before any other steps can be taken.
When someone says "I support legal recognition of polygamous marriages, but the current legal framework would probably not suit them, so it should be overhauled first to be sure it suits everyone fairly", it is dishonest for you to declare that what they're really saying is "I oppose polygamy as immoral, and I only want rights for gay people and no one else".
If you think that we should blindly rush into legalized polygamy without the slightest considerations of the "complications" which might stand in its way, then you have no justification for opposing the same blind rush into child marriages. Age of consent laws are just a "red herring" according to your argument, and any pedophile could use your argument for their own cause.
You are not advocating equality, you are advocating irresponsible legislative action, with complete disregard as to whether or not the law would properly function for the people to whom it would be applied. You don't have to come up with the plan to change the law yourself, but when you pretend that no such plan is necessary, or that the people who advocate putting a plan in place are bigots, you are not being honest at all.
I never said a plan is not necessary. Of course a plan is necessary! I said a plan is not necessary for me to be allowed to post here.

You are using "a plan" as a red herring.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#291 Aug 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I never said a plan is not necessary. Of course a plan is necessary! I said a plan is not necessary for me to be allowed to post here.
It's necessary for you to quit being so boring.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You are using "a plan" as a red herring.
Sure, right. Absolutely right. Because of all the hatred in my heart for polygamists. I just can't wait to laugh at their misfortune while I enjoy all my special rights. You've discovered my secret motivation. When I say that I hope to see the laws changed in their favor, I'm really just trying to hide my seething disapproval of their wicked ways. How insightful of you.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#292 Aug 26, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It's necessary for you to quit being so boring.
<quoted text>
Sure, right. Absolutely right. Because of all the hatred in my heart for polygamists. I just can't wait to laugh at their misfortune while I enjoy all my special rights. You've discovered my secret motivation. When I say that I hope to see the laws changed in their favor, I'm really just trying to hide my seething disapproval of their wicked ways. How insightful of you.
You gotta ask them one at a time tough guy. Please start. Give me one reason that you consider a good enough reason to not allow polygamy. Please don't demand 1000 answers before you'll even consider giving all consenting adults the freedom to choose their family style, OK champ?

OK shoot. Your biggest concern with legalizing polygamy. What is it? Simple question sport. No need for an essay in response.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#293 Aug 26, 2014
Every adult human being must be free without state, public, religious or other forcible interference to choose the form of heterosexual, homosexual or sexually mixed family life, provided it does no harm.

Edmund seems to disagree. He says polygamy should stay illegal for polygamists own good. He says I need a detailed plan in order to be allowed to advocate people be allowed to choose their family style.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#294 Aug 26, 2014
"As far as prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.

And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice."
-Jillian Keenan
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#295 Aug 26, 2014
"The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet."
-Jillian Keenan

Edmund says not so fast.... I say it's been a long time coming. And now that SSM is the norm, it's time to make polygamy mainstream for those who want it too. Edmunds say not so fast...

I think Edmund is using minor complications as a red herring.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#296 Aug 26, 2014
Edmunds great great grandpa in the 1800s thought it would be too complicated to free the slaves so he was against it.

The slaves said let us be free, Edmunds great grandpa said "No! You cannot even talk about freedom!" Because he wants a detailed plan on how the slaves would handle their freedom.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#297 Aug 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You gotta ask them one at a time tough guy. Please start. Give me one reason that you consider a good enough reason to not allow polygamy. Please don't demand 1000 answers before you'll even consider giving all consenting adults the freedom to choose their family style, OK champ?
OK shoot. Your biggest concern with legalizing polygamy. What is it? Simple question sport. No need for an essay in response.
Go ask a polygamist. I really couldn't care less.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Edmunds great great grandpa in the 1800s thought it would be too complicated to free the slaves so he was against it.
The slaves said let us be free, Edmunds great grandpa said "No! You cannot even talk about freedom!" Because he wants a detailed plan on how the slaves would handle their freedom.
Yeah, sure, that's just what he would say. You are too stupid. I thought for a while that coherent conversation would be possible, because you're fairly well-spoken, but you had me fooled.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#298 Aug 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Edmund... says polygamy should stay illegal for polygamists own good.
Not what I said at all. Better luck next time.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#299 Aug 26, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Not what I said at all. Better luck next time.
You implied it. "Are you just looking for 1,138 ways to SCREW these families over? Because that's what you're setting up to happen. " etc.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 6 min piratefighting 6,463
News End of Boy Scouts' ban on gays prompts elation ... 10 min Pattysboi 13
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 10 min ___Jenny___ 1,596
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 10 min Jamal 34,547
News Elkhart mayor asks city council to withdraw LGB... 14 min Pattysboi 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 16 min Jamal 23,955
identity crisis 23 min sweepeanewhaven 1
News Boy Scouts of America ends ban on gay adults 1 hr Rose_NoHo 44
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 3 hr Rose_NoHo 1,135
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 3 hr Poof1 8,053
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 4 hr WeTheSheeple 613
More from around the web