Gay marriage

Mar 28, 2013 Read more: Los Angeles Times 59,238
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman. Read more
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#40206 Apr 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you illogical chooches always attempt to deny that when we're discussing marriage and it's definition, polygamy is part of that discussion? Why do you, or any other advocate for the abolition of the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, care if polygamy is legalized in some form?
Hear hear! Spot on. My sentiments exactly. Just WTF is the problem here? Polygamy is marriage fer chrissakes.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#40207 Apr 1, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
That is an irrelevant question. The question that must be answered in court is what is the government interest in denying marriage to gay couples.
The government has no interest in denying men and women from marrying each other, and that includes a man who self professes to be "gay" marrying a woman who self professes to be "lesbian".
As it turns out, the government has NO interest in this denial.
What is denied exactly?
Gee..... it must really sting to have the US government consider you a bigot.
Then they must consider gay men and women who disagree with redefining legal marriage as bigots too.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#40208 Apr 1, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
Thank you oh wise one know as Rose no ho.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#40209 Apr 1, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
He's misguided and naïve at best.
Whoa!!!!!! What no, "self hatred"?
It was the anti-gays who fought every step of the way against ANY recognition of our relationships whatsoever.
No, just ordinary men and women, and to be fair, not all were free of bias towards the heterosexually challenged.
The ONLY reason some anti-gays now support civil unions for same-sex couples is because they know they're losing the fight.
Agreed.
Maybe if you anti-gays hadn't spent the past 50+ years trying to ban ANY recognition of our relationships, but now it's too late.
You only have yourselves to blame.
Pandora's box has been opened.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#40210 Apr 1, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because there is no constitutional justification to ban same-sex couples from marrying.
Maybe if you read some of the court rulings you'd understand that.
You'll likely still be scratching your butt over it 20 years from now...
What is the constitutional justification for abolishing the sole legal definition of definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife?

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#40211 Apr 1, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it IS that simple.
States laws/constitutions can't violate the federal constitution. It doesn't matter how those laws were passed; if they're unconstitutional, they're unconstitutional, and the courts will eventually overturn them.
Soooooooo.....suddenly the legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife is "unconstitutional". One judge says no it's not, another says it is. Go figure.
That applies equally to BANS on same-sex couples marrying or laws which ALLOW same-sex couples to marry.
[QUOTE]

There is no ban on same sex couples marrying. What exists is a constitutional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. There's no more a ban on same sex couples marrying than there is on same sex trios marrying.

[QUOTE]
If they're unconstitutional, they're unconstitutional.
All depends on the judge.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#40212 Apr 1, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, my husband & I are both men. I realize your stupidity is just some lame attempt to imply we're not "real men"; that's your problem. Neither of us has any desire to be a woman. If I wanted to marry a woman, I'd have just married a woman; it's not like I didn't have plenty of offers over the years.
Ya know after reading:

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/ga...

It’s demonstrably not the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. It’s two guys or two girls, and no matter how much Mendelssohn and matching white outfits you dress it up in, the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn’t the same. We’re not going to procreate as a couple (until science catches up), and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions to do so (which is probably healthy for them but neither here nor there). So the promise part is nice. Otherwise,“gay marriage” is beside the point. And for precisely that reason, I find it cringe-worthy to watch gay couples aping the rituals of a heterosexual wedding ceremony.-

It offers a different perspective on your "husband and husband" usage.......interesting perhaps there a bit of heterosexual aping here.
And just to really freak you out, we both served 20+ years in the military! So all you anti-gays have been paying for our retirement pensions & medical benefits since we were 38 y/o!! And you'll keep paying for the rest of our lives!!!
That's okay....you're paying for baby's mamas, and polygamists extra wives!

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#40213 Apr 1, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
They're not similarly situated.
We can go through it as many times as necessary for it to sink into your alcohol soaked brain.
If you're not similarly situated, you have no equal protection claim.
Without an equal protection claim, states can ban you from marrying for whatever reason they want- even moral disapproval.
Polygamist grouping aren't similarly situated to a couple.
So they have no equal protection claim under marriage laws.
Demonstratively not the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman.

See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/ga...

It’s demonstrably not the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. It’s two guys or two girls, and no matter how much Mendelssohn and matching white outfits you dress it up in, the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn’t the same. We’re not going to procreate as a couple (until science catches up), and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions to do so (which is probably healthy for them but neither here nor there).

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#40214 Apr 1, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hear hear! Spot on. My sentiments exactly. Just WTF is the problem here? Polygamy is marriage fer chrissakes.
It's not that difficult. The problem is they see the issue through rainbow colored glasses. Once the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife is abolished, as several states have done, why does it matter to them, or any other SSM advocate if polygamy, or even incest, is legalized? Legal SSM has laid the groundwork for polygamy, even same sex polygamy. Why is it discriminatory to prevent two men from marrying, but not three?

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#40215 Apr 1, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If they had even half a brain they would.
And if we could just convince half the hetero women to only have girls as well, then we'd be off to a good start.
They could even through science eliminate gay men too.....no men at all....no more hubby & hubby, they'll just take out the extra appendages.

Judged:

16

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#40216 Apr 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The government has no interest in denying men and women from marrying each other, and that includes a man who self professes to be "gay" marrying a woman who self professes to be "lesbian".
<quoted text>
What is denied exactly?
Equal protection, you stupid b!tch. How many times do you have to be told?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#40217 Apr 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not that difficult. The problem is they see the issue through rainbow colored glasses. Once the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife is abolished, as several states have done, why does it matter to them, or any other SSM advocate if polygamy, or even incest, is legalized? Legal SSM has laid the groundwork for polygamy, even same sex polygamy. Why is it discriminatory to prevent two men from marrying, but not three?
Non sequitur.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#40218 Apr 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the constitutional justification for abolishing the sole legal definition of definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife?
Stupid, try to understand this time.
Equal protection.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#40219 Apr 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know after reading:
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/ga...
It’s demonstrably not the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. It’s two guys or two girls, and no matter how much Mendelssohn and matching white outfits you dress it up in, the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn’t the same. We’re not going to procreate as a couple (until science catches up), and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions to do so (which is probably healthy for them but neither here nor there). So the promise part is nice. Otherwise,“gay marriage” is beside the point. And for precisely that reason, I find it cringe-worthy to watch gay couples aping the rituals of a heterosexual wedding ceremony.-
It offers a different perspective on your "husband and husband" usage.......interesting perhaps there a bit of heterosexual aping here.
<quoted text>
That's okay....you're paying for baby's mamas, and polygamists extra wives!
If the baby mamas were allowed to marry the baby daddy, they would no longer be single mothers entitled to welfare and they could all live in one section 8 house instead of several. But nooooooo. It's the dreaded "polyga-marriage"! Can't have that! Can only have gayga-marriage. And same sexa-marriage. According to Sheepleman. It's a bird! It's a plane...

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#40220 Apr 1, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Equal protection, you stupid b!tch. How many times do you have to be told?
Keep telling him over and over and count 'em! Then you'll know someday. Easy!

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#40221 Apr 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not that difficult. The problem is they see the issue through rainbow colored glasses. Once the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife is abolished, as several states have done, why does it matter to them, or any other SSM advocate if polygamy, or even incest, is legalized? Legal SSM has laid the groundwork for polygamy, even same sex polygamy. Why is it discriminatory to prevent two men from marrying, but not three?
Because they fear it will weaken the case for SSM. Let's cut through all their bullsh!t, we didn't just fall out of the apple tree. This ain't our first rodeo, and etc. They fear polygamy will somehow jeopardize SSM, they are selfish and paranoid.

I support 'em both. They hate that. They can't believe it, and they refuse to believe it. Ah good times! Makes em mad!

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#40222 Apr 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it discriminatory to prevent two men from marrying, but not three?
Excellent question. It will surely earn you the title of homophobe by the polyphobes.

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 14

Australia

#40223 Apr 2, 2014
Eileen Jael wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, you don't have a legal right. God said, NO, whether the sodomites like it or not. There is a Judgment Day where we all will have to give an account. NO, MEANS NO, and God doesn't care if we are offended and disagree. Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, died for you, me and the whole wide world to save us from ourselves and the tricks of the devil or Satan (Lucifer). Our sin was nailed to the cross; Jesus Christ took that condemnation on himself to SAVE US. How precious is that love! After Good Friday we can say, as we do every year, HE IS RISEN! HE IS RISEN, INDEED! God bless you, gay person. May your eyes be opened to the TRUTH! http://nosamesexmarriage.com/marriage/bible_v...
who said God said no? Paul did when addressing the imperfections of the Corinthians. There's some really ancient requirements in the Old Testament but that's about it. Why do you think Jesus never mentioned gays or ghosts? There are better things we should spend our time considering, like what are we going to do next? Avoiding hatred and the us and them equation would be a good start. We are one the children of God. Stu

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#40224 Apr 2, 2014
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that doesn't justify rewriting marriage law for everyone to make government recognize sex segregation marriage. We prefer the perfect affirmative action, diversity and integration of one man and one woman marriage.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#40225 Apr 2, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that doesn't justify rewriting marriage law for everyone to make government recognize sex segregation marriage. We prefer the perfect affirmative action, diversity and integration of one man and one woman marriage.
Spoken like a true Republican. Too bad you can't be honest and open about your choices but like any other Republican, nobody trusts you to do anything but steal people's money anyway.

Got a candidate for the next election? Nope? Guess not. Being president isn't very profitable. Too much scrutiny. Much easier to arrange kickbacks from safety of a Senate committee.

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 U.S. corporations pressure two states accused o... 5 min doty 803
News One man dares to confess to gay bashings: why w... 13 min nhjeff 2
News The Supreme Court's big gay-marriage case could... 16 min serfs up 11
News Which presidential hopefuls would attend a gay ... 17 min kuda 70
News Gay Marriage' Rooted in Fraud, Child Rape 23 min WeTheSheeple 6
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 39 min piratefighting 2,545
News Shop owner will deny - openly gay' customers 1 hr Brian_G 38
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Prep-for-Dep 19,166
Are the mods fair and balanced? 1 hr Brian_G 459
News Hillary Clinton has a new position on same-sex ... 5 hr Fa-Foxy 197
More from around the web