Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 59794 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Mar 28, 2013, titled Gay marriage. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6890 Oct 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, that's simply repeating the same unvalidated assertion. Looks like you are having the same trouble SCOTUS has in dictating reality.
Actually the assertion was validated by the SCOTUS, which was my point.

Unless you're sitting on the SCOTUS, how you view reality is irrelevant.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6891 Oct 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course.
But I'm talking about
Reality vs. SCOTUS.
No competition.
Smile.
Your reality is irrelevant.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6892 Oct 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I be offended?
Live your life however you want; marry whomever you want.
I'm just telling you it's never going to be legalized.
I simply want to discuss marriage equality, but I seem to have hit a nerve. Get over yourself. Live and let live.

Never say never. All polygamists need is a sympathetic judge. As gays have proven to us.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6893 Oct 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can convince the Congress or the courts to legalize polygamy, go for it.
Once again, I didn't ask for permission. So stop offering it. You don't matter.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6894 Oct 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Your reality is irrelevant.
Likewise.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6895 Oct 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply want to discuss marriage equality, but I seem to have hit a nerve. Get over yourself. Live and let live.
Never say never. All polygamists need is a sympathetic judge. As gays have proven to us.
No, since there is already a SCOTUS precedent upholding polygamy bans, you'd need at least 5 sympathetic SCOTUS justices.

Like I said, if you think you can do it, then go for it. I personally don't care if you want to marry the entire state of California at once. I'm just telling you why it's illegal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6896 Oct 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Likewise.
Actually my reality IS relevant because it's supported by current law and constitutional rulings.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6897 Oct 13, 2013
10 year old catches 31 lb. striper

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6898 Oct 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, since there is already a SCOTUS precedent upholding polygamy bans, you'd need at least 5 sympathetic SCOTUS justices.
Like I said, if you think you can do it, then go for it. I personally don't care if you want to marry the entire state of California at once. I'm just telling you why it's illegal.
Right. SCOTUS would be hard pressed to justify keeping polygamy illegal. As you are now.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6899 Oct 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually my reality IS relevant because it's supported by current law and constitutional rulings.
That's what they said.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6900 Oct 13, 2013
I suggest you silly jackasses (you know who you are) calm down, relax forget your paranoia and watch the kid catch a striper with his dad. For all you know he's got two moms.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6901 Oct 13, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as the federal government is concerned, they DO qualify. THAT is reality.
Probably one of the most idiotic statements you've made to date.

Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.

It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.

It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.

It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.

It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.

It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.

It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.

All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.

It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6902 Oct 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Your reality is irrelevant.
We'll see.

Smile.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6903 Oct 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
We'll see.
Smile.
We already have, haven't we?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6904 Oct 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably one of the most idiotic statements you've made to date.
Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.
It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.
It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.
It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.
It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.
It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.
It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.
All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.
It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.
Objects in Neil An Blowme's mirror are dumber than they appear. He is a pickle short of a picnic. His intellect is rivaled only by garden tools. He's got a leak in his think-tank. He is one Fruitloop shy of a full bowl.

You get my drift. Ah good times!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6905 Oct 13, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
We already have, haven't we?
In the scope of historical past episodes, no.

In the scope of reality, yes.

Ss couples are only ever a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

Makes the SCOTUS ruling look really stupid.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6906 Oct 13, 2013
Neil An Blowme is so dumb it takes him two hours to watch 60 minutes.

I heard he sold his car for gasoline money.

When he saw a Wet Floor sign, he peed on the floor.

YUK!YUK!YUK! Ah good times.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6907 Oct 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Objects in Neil An Blowme's mirror are dumber than they appear. He is a pickle short of a picnic. His intellect is rivaled only by garden tools. He's got a leak in his think-tank. He is one Fruitloop shy of a full bowl.
You get my drift. Ah good times!
LOL

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6908 Oct 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. SCOTUS would be hard pressed to justify keeping polygamy illegal. As you are now.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
If you really believe that, then bring a case to court.

The latest case was dismissed at the federal court level before it even got started.

It's easy to justify keeping polygamy illegal- it's in the best interest of society.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6909 Oct 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what they said.
And their reality was relevant AT THAT TIME; it no longer is.

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 Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 4 min Fa-Frizzo 5,667
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 min Wondering 21,692
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 7 min Wondering 4,570
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 9 min Wondering 283
News The Christian owners of a bakery found to have ... 19 min Ted Haggard s Mas... 6
News Ireland gay marriage: Northern Ireland must now... 20 min Scandinavian uber... 6
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 42 min Rev Wall 33,240
Are the mods fair and balanced? 1 hr Fa-Frizzo 846
News Ireland same-sex marriage 4 hr Rosa_Winkel 225
More from around the web