Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61405 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6979 Oct 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant whether you think it's stupid or not.
Being a Mom & Dad has never been a requirement for marriage.
It's not preventing us from marrying and getting all the rights & benefits of marriage.
Why in hell would you require that??? Married couples need protection not to become mom and dad. SS couples can NEVER procreate together!

That's why SS marriage is an oxymoron.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6980 Oct 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Children don't care who their mom and dad are?
Even children know you don't stick things in your butt.
Children only care about the gender (or race or ethnicity or religion) of their parents if they are TAUGHT by some bigot to care about those things. Otherwise they just want parent(s) who love them and take care of them.

Obviously you've never had kids or known any children or you'd know children stick things EVERYWHERE!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6981 Oct 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not angry at all, I simply oppose legalizing polygamy, just as I oppose legalizing incest.
Well then, you admit you are a hypocrite. You have no credible argument against polygamy. You simply don't like it. Where have we seen that before?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6982 Oct 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Neil An Blowme has some odd posts. He thinks children don't care and he thinks polygamy means baby marriage. There's not much sense in arguing with the dope I figure. So I just goof on him. He's very excitable and tends towards meltdowns which always amuse me. Ah good times!
I mean how seriously should I take someone who calls himself Neil An Blowme?
About as seriously as someone who thinks polygamy & incest should be legal.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6983 Oct 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant what you think.
It won't stop us from marrying and getting all the rights & benefits of marriage.
It's not what I 'think', it's simple reality.

SS couples will only evert be a mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6984 Oct 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why in hell would you require that??? Married couples need protection not to become mom and dad. SS couples can NEVER procreate together!
That's why SS marriage is an oxymoron.
Earth to KiMare, there is no requirement of procreation relative to legal marriage, a fact illustrated by the fact that the state allows infertile heterosexual couples to legally marry.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6985 Oct 14, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
KiMoron, currently no state allows three or more people to enter into a single marriage. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you, you are arguing an utterly irrelevant point. 3 is greater than 2. Polygamists seek greater, not equal protection of the law. One wonders why you so regularly return to a point that makes you look like a fool?
Would you care to come back to the topic at hand, or continue you inept quest to argue for polygamy?
Ah yes. Back to your two arguments against someone else's right to marry. They are seeking "greater protection". And it's illegal because it's against the law. We heard them, laughed at them already and now it's getting boring. No need to repeat them yet again please.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6986 Oct 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Defending the ideal model of one man/one woman marriage is the policy that promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. It's sad same sex couples aren't entitled to the befits of husband and wife, but many homosexuals have married under the same laws as everyone else. A special right to rewrite marriage laws for everyone is double-dipping.
How does banning same-sex couples from marrying "promote the greatest good for the greatest number"?

Banning same-sex couples from marrying has no effect on opposite-sex couples whatsoever.

All it does is harm same-sex couples and the families they are going to create regardless of whether they can marry or not.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6987 Oct 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Meaning you anti-gays couldn't use the fear of legalized polygamy or incest to stop same-sex couples from marrying, and polygamist won't be anymore successful using marriage for same-sex couples to justify legalizing polygamy.
Turns out your slippery slope isn't slippery at all.
So polgymists using the same argument SS couples used are disqualified?

Idiot.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6988 Oct 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
About as seriously as someone who thinks polygamy & incest should be legal.
That's what the haters said about same sex marriage.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6989 Oct 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people do fall in love, but they will only ever have a fake marriage and a manufactured default family.
Clear not the same and certainly not equal.
Clearly your opinion is not only irrelevant, but wrong as well.

That's why we continue to marry and get all the rights & benefits of marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6990 Oct 14, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
KiMoron, currently no state allows three or more people to enter into a single marriage. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you, you are arguing an utterly irrelevant point. 3 is greater than 2. Polygamists seek greater, not equal protection of the law. One wonders why you so regularly return to a point that makes you look like a fool?
Would you care to come back to the topic at hand, or continue you inept quest to argue for polygamy?
Why the need for the troll hissy fit?

I'm simply and accurately pointing out that if marriage is a fundamental right of every individual, then each individual is has a right to a marriage if their choosing. And, as you claim, there is no firm definition of marriage.

You opened Pandora's box, now take responsibility like a man!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6991 Oct 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Opinions are powerless Dicky.
That's why SS marriage is an oxymoron.
And SS couples will only ever be a mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
And you gnash your teeth Dicky.
And yet we'll continue to get married and get all the rights & benefits of marriage.

So you've accomplished what?

Maybe you'd better off spending your time dusting out your mangina.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6993 Oct 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "seeks greater protection" argument against polygamy is ridiculous to the point of absurdity.
Everyone gets the same amount of protection of the law dummy, no more, no less. You know, equal. Hence the name. Duh.
Polygamy "seeks greater protection". Oy vey.
Correct. You get to protect ONE SPOUSE under the law, just like everyone else. Trying to protect more than one spouse at a time is asking for MORE protection.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6994 Oct 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Children only care about the gender (or race or ethnicity or religion) of their parents if they are TAUGHT by some bigot to care about those things. Otherwise they just want parent(s) who love them and take care of them.
Obviously you've never had kids or known any children or you'd know children stick things EVERYWHERE!
You are one sick pervert.

Tell your mom and dad that any Tom and dick could replace them.

I have two sons and ten foster children. Even a child knows better. Only a pervert abuses the self or another person like that.

Go back in the hole you crawled out of, you depraved idiot.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6995 Oct 14, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Earth to KiMare, there is no requirement of procreation relative to legal marriage, a fact illustrated by the fact that the state allows infertile heterosexual couples to legally marry.
Gays who can never procreate and abusively imitate the intimacy of marriage have no moral authority to dictate what is a part of marriage.

You are disqualified on numerous bases.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6996 Oct 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Ah yes. Back to your two arguments against someone else's right to marry. They are seeking "greater protection". And it's illegal because it's against the law. We heard them, laughed at them already and now it's getting boring. No need to repeat them yet again please.
Frank, I've not argued against anyone's right to marry. I have illustrated the polygamy does not seek equal protection of the law, but apparently you are stuck in one of those moments when you cannot count.

If you are getting bored of having your irrelevant argument of polygamy debunked, perhaps you should offer a valid and on topic argument against same sex marriage.

Personally, I don't think you can.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6997 Oct 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I answered the question which was asked. Not my problem you didn't like the answer. I suggest you ASK the question you want answered, and not expect us to GUESS which question you really meant to ask. "Why is it illegal" is an ENTIRELY different question.
It's illegal because there were a majority of votes in the state legislature to pass the bill & the Gov signed the bill into law!
Okay, just yanking your chain with that one.
Incest is illegal because of the potential harm to society & the individuals involved. Procreation issues aside, the history of incest is one of child sexual abuse, almost exclusively by an older male relative. Existing legal kinship & a patriarchal society means there is a greater likelihood of undue influence on the female or younger person involved, which means they can't give informed consent.
Priceless. Now it's illegal because they "voted it" illegal.

Once again I am not advocating crime. I am advocating the right to equal protection. Even for people you don't like.

By the way, most of the fears associated with inbreeding have recently been proven to be untrue for the most part. And don't forget, along with the tendency for bad traits from inbreeding there is an equal tendency towards good traits such as high intelligence.

Your refusal to allow someone else's marriage is based on ignorance and bigotry which makes you a hypocrite.

Why can't two brothers marry? Two first cousins can in most states.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6998 Oct 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Why the need for the troll hissy fit?
No hissy fit, I've merely debunked your argument.
KiMare wrote:
I'm simply and accurately pointing out that if marriage is a fundamental right of every individual, then each individual is has a right to a marriage if their choosing. And, as you claim, there is no firm definition of marriage.
There is a firm definition of marriage, and before any government in the US can use that definition to exclude people from that legal protection doing so must serve a compelling governmental interest in order to be constitutional. This is why laws against incest and polygamy are unconstitutional. The former has a demonstrably higher instance of birth defect and mental illness, and the latter seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people?

Are you capable of articulating any such interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render your position constitutional? I don't think you can.
KiMare wrote:
You opened Pandora's box, now take responsibility like a man!
No, I have don'e no such thing. Only an intensely foolish person would make such a childish claim.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6999 Oct 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why the need for the troll hissy fit?
I'm simply and accurately pointing out that if marriage is a fundamental right of every individual, then each individual is has a right to a marriage if their choosing. And, as you claim, there is no firm definition of marriage.
You opened Pandora's box, now take responsibility like a man!
High five!

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 Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 1 min Fa-Foxy 63
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 20 min Terra Firma 14,607
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 31 min June VanDerMark 10,938
News NBA Moves All-Star Game Out of North Carolina O... 42 min Wondering 36
News Boy Scouts faring well a year after easing ban ... 48 min Wondering 6
Little Robbie's Happy Place 1 hr WasteWater 37
News Justicea s gay marriage order halts licenses in... (Jan '16) 1 hr DaveinMass 474
Is Little Robbie safe and sound? 1 hr WasteWater 36
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 38,405
More from around the web