Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61385 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.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#7202 Oct 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
..Score another dozen or so still for yours and other's flaming hypocritical evasions of the simple truth that marriage tax breaks are implicitly unconstitutional!...
Then why are you posting on gay/lesbian forums?

There are far more straight people marrying. Wouldn't your anti-marriage crusade be more successful with a larger target group?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7203 Oct 15, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
We've never been mocked by anyone, other than you...
You are lying to yourself and no one else believes you.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7204 Oct 15, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that's awkward because WE'VE GOT THEM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =gogH4hfd6g0XX&feature=you tube_gdata_player
Yeah, it is isn't it.

Time to man up.

“Earth's #1 Brain.”

Since: Oct 13

Norvelt

#7205 Oct 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Score another dozen or so still for yours and other's flaming hypocritical evasions of the simple truth that marriage tax breaks are implicitly unconstitutional! Your bigoted replies that the majority does not have to listen to the minority protests regarding Civil Rights proves that you're not qualified to discuss law in any way!
I'll do my victory dance now! Go team, go!
Since a country, culture, or society has to have replacement members, fostering an economic advantage for the simplist proven societal unit, who by having and raising kids aren't even getting a handout because they are providing a service for the state, the most important function, giving it continuance.

As far why you are wrong in not recognizing it's constitutionality, perhaps you should review the preamble, but more specifically, the taxing and spending clause.

Despite upside down philosophy, having the state continue in the next generation, IS in the state's interest.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7206 Oct 15, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The anti-gay bigots voted against my right to marry in state referendum.
Yes, we won in spite of that.
I've never voted against your right to marry.
Not yet, but you have demonstrated that you probably will. Or were all those insults and bigotry just tough love? I got your message. You are a hypocrite.

You are angry with me for supporting marriage equality. What more do I need to know about your hypocritical self? Nothing.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7207 Oct 15, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you still haven't prevented us from getting married, starting families, and getting all the rights & benefits of marriage.
Ahh, it's good to be on the winning side.
You are ugly when you gloat while expressing your joy that other good people are being denied the right to marry.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#7208 Oct 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
And you don't?
I asked you to show me, not stall for time.

You see what's going on in our government. Everyone is all about panicking congressmen so badly that their sphincters go into neutronium status. This is kind of fun, but destructive in a passive-aggressive way. It's just like the marketers for both parties say though! Who cares?! Rock on! Hit that whammy bar and bend them strings!

Excellent, dude!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#7209 Oct 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why are you posting on gay/lesbian forums?
There are far more straight people marrying. Wouldn't your anti-marriage crusade be more successful with a larger target group?
Don't see one! You're parsing my comments still, but if you're out to create a fork, so be it! Next question is, can an unregistered participant start a new thread. Possibly, but I doubt it! Next question after that; what makes you think this is a gay/lesbian issue? It's my effin tax dollars so it's MY issue!...and I have no interest in giving my money to people for fudge packing! I don't care at all how you spin it! It's not my kids. It's MY MONEY! MINE! All MINE!

Dang! You just can't get over yourselves! I just can't figure out who started this cult, liberal Congressmen or gays....but I WILL find out! Oh, yes indeed! Better hope that it doesn't come down to musical chairs with a lynch mob because they don't tend to listen to both sides of the story.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#7210 Oct 15, 2013
The Abstruse Polymath wrote:
<quoted text>
Since a country, culture, or society has to have replacement members, fostering an economic advantage for the simplist proven societal unit, who by having and raising kids aren't even getting a handout because they are providing a service for the state, the most important function, giving it continuance.
As far why you are wrong in not recognizing it's constitutionality, perhaps you should review the preamble, but more specifically, the taxing and spending clause.
Despite upside down philosophy, having the state continue in the next generation, IS in the state's interest.
Socialist rubbish! Any accepted "will to power" rule will acknowledge that people will try to reproduce as much as they can afford without facing early death. No! The statement was about Civil Rights which is individual rights. You either can or can't discriminate in the name of the State. The official mandate is you can't, but we all know that is a big, fat, Caucasian, Christian lie!

What you're proposing is that the government can redistribute wealth with the best collective interests of the public in mind. The public will tell you that they like that to keep the gravy train moving, but they very much intend to take your filthy lucre away from you.

...But as with every liberal, you DON'T see it as filthy lucre! You really do feel entitled to an income level 4 to 20 times more than the average worker yet still call yourself a member of the middle class, where as those stockholders and CEO's who professionally liquidate American assets and the public infrastructure are a totally different breed.

...Yep! I'm still waiting to see the difference!....still waiting!

...still waiting for the unwashed masses to cash in their lies on a big payday!....still waiting!

....still waiting for the corporate executives to share their profits with the workers because they are so efficient that they overwhelm the competition.....still waiting!

There's a war coming. It's getting close. It's one of those totally nuttys that is just going to happen even though everyone is positive it won't! You'll see!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7211 Oct 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
You point blank lie.
Legal experts acknowledge the connection. Even a Supreme Court Justice noted it.
Each time you deny reality, you validate the utter failure of your position and the lack of character you have.
Sorry, KiMare, you are incorrect.

Does the state allow infertile heterosexual couples to legally marry? If so, your argument is shot.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You have it backwards. Same sex marriage is a separate issue.
That's what I said, Frankie. Are you losing it?
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
What is your point? Poly should stay illegal because it's a "separate issue"? Come on dude are you some kind of moron?
I've my my point quite plain. Can't you read? Polygamy seeks greater protection of the law for three or more persons to enter one marriage.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Same sex marriage is a separate issue. So what? What a retard.
So, if you want to stay on topic, offer an argument on same sex marriage, not polygamy, as the two are unrelated.

If you want to prove you are an idiot, keep offering irrelevant arguments of polygamy, and I will keep asserting that you are too dumb to count to three.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7212 Oct 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, KiMare, you are incorrect.
Does the state allow infertile heterosexual couples to legally marry? If so, your argument is shot.
<quoted text>
That's what I said, Frankie. Are you losing it?
<quoted text>
I've my my point quite plain. Can't you read? Polygamy seeks greater protection of the law for three or more persons to enter one marriage.
<quoted text>
So, if you want to stay on topic, offer an argument on same sex marriage, not polygamy, as the two are unrelated.
If you want to prove you are an idiot, keep offering irrelevant arguments of polygamy, and I will keep asserting that you are too dumb to count to three.
Sorry, but I think I will stay. This is a perfectly good marriage equality thread. Censorship sucks.

Polygamy is a perfectly appropriate topic in any discussion of marriage equality. Your censorship sucks.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7213 Oct 16, 2013
lides says same sex MARRIAGE and poly MARRIAGE are "unrelated" so he must censor poly away.

lides has obviously never taken even an elementary cultural anthropology course. But he knows his basic arithmetic! He knows that 2 is not 3 so therefore he can deny good people the right to marry.

If polygamy were made legal it would still be so rare that lides would probably never have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family. But lides wants to make double damn sure he never is by banning good peoples marriages. All the while demanding his own type of marriage be allowed.

lides is a hypocrite. I support marriage equality and lides does not.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7214 Oct 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are never REALLY married.
You never START families.
You don't need or deserve the rights and benefits of marriage.
Hardly the winning side.
LOL.
And yet I am married and get all the rights & benefits of marriage.

Sounds like I did win.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7215 Oct 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not yet, but you have demonstrated that you probably will. Or were all those insults and bigotry just tough love? I got your message. You are a hypocrite.
You are angry with me for supporting marriage equality. What more do I need to know about your hypocritical self? Nothing.
You have failed to convince me that polygamous or incestuous marriages benefit society.

If you expect me (and the rest of society) to support you, then you're going to have to do a better job of making your case.

I've given you numerous pointers how to do that, but you seem more intent on insulting us instead of attempting to convince us why polygamous/incestuous marriages should be allowed.

You're making the same mistakes the gay community made, which is why it took us 50+ years to exercise our right to marry.

If you want to wait another 50 or 100 or 150 years, then continue on the same path you're taking.

The choice is yours.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7216 Oct 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are ugly when you gloat while expressing your joy that other good people are being denied the right to marry.
I gloat to those who tried to keep us from exercising our right to marry.

You have yet to demonstrate a right to polygamous/incestuous marriage exists or even should exist.

“Earth's #1 Brain.”

Since: Oct 13

Norvelt

#7217 Oct 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Socialist rubbish! Any accepted "will to power" rule will acknowledge that people will try to reproduce as much as they can afford without facing early death. No! The statement was about Civil Rights which is individual rights. You either can or can't discriminate in the name of the State. The official mandate is you can't, but we all know that is a big, fat, Caucasian, Christian lie!
What you're proposing is that the government can redistribute wealth with the best collective interests of the public in mind. The public will tell you that they like that to keep the gravy train moving, but they very much intend to take your filthy lucre away from you.
...But as with every liberal, you DON'T see it as filthy lucre! You really do feel entitled to an income level 4 to 20 times more than the average worker yet still call yourself a member of the middle class, where as those stockholders and CEO's who professionally liquidate American assets and the public infrastructure are a totally different breed.
...Yep! I'm still waiting to see the difference!....still waiting!
...still waiting for the unwashed masses to cash in their lies on a big payday!....still waiting!
....still waiting for the corporate executives to share their profits with the workers because they are so efficient that they overwhelm the competition.....still waiting!
There's a war coming. It's getting close. It's one of those totally nuttys that is just going to happen even though everyone is positive it won't! You'll see!
Pure idiocy. The survival of the state is paramount OVER civil rights. That's why people get interred in camps during war and habeous corpus gets suspended. The survival of the state trumps civil rights in every single case. Without the state's existence, there are no civil rights.
The most hilarious thing in your witless diatribe is your idiotic mischaracterization of me as a liberal. I am a strict constitutionalist conservative, but not so vaccuous to miss that when survival is the issue, it trumps everything else.
-
As for your complete BS about people breeding, this country would be experiencing a population decline were it not for immigration, and that is the worst possible way to bolster population because it causes divisiveness. Every study out there shows the greatest factor in social stability is a homogenous people.
-
Simply put, you are a deluded idiot.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7218 Oct 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
lides says same sex MARRIAGE and poly MARRIAGE are "unrelated" so he must censor poly away.
lides has obviously never taken even an elementary cultural anthropology course. But he knows his basic arithmetic! He knows that 2 is not 3 so therefore he can deny good people the right to marry.
If polygamy were made legal it would still be so rare that lides would probably never have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family. But lides wants to make double damn sure he never is by banning good peoples marriages. All the while demanding his own type of marriage be allowed.
lides is a hypocrite. I support marriage equality and lides does not.
I've always wanted to ask-

In a polygamous marriage, are all individuals married to each other? Or are the women only married to the men individually? Or is it some kind of new multi-partner marriage where they all marry each other at the same time?

If one of them want a divorce, do they have to divorce each spouse individually or all at once? What if they only want to divorce one person but stay married to the rest? Who gets half of what in a divorce? Who gets custody of the kids? And which kids?

Questions like that are why polygamy will likely remain illegal.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7219 Oct 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You have failed to convince me that polygamous or incestuous marriages benefit society.
If you expect me (and the rest of society) to support you, then you're going to have to do a better job of making your case.
I've given you numerous pointers how to do that, but you seem more intent on insulting us instead of attempting to convince us why polygamous/incestuous marriages should be allowed.
You're making the same mistakes the gay community made, which is why it took us 50+ years to exercise our right to marry.
If you want to wait another 50 or 100 or 150 years, then continue on the same path you're taking.
The choice is yours.
You have failed to convince many people that same sex marriage benefits society.

Me, I support marriage equality. You, not so much.

Marriage is good for society.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7220 Oct 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I've always wanted to ask-
In a polygamous marriage, are all individuals married to each other? Or are the women only married to the men individually? Or is it some kind of new multi-partner marriage where they all marry each other at the same time?
If one of them want a divorce, do they have to divorce each spouse individually or all at once? What if they only want to divorce one person but stay married to the rest? Who gets half of what in a divorce? Who gets custody of the kids? And which kids?
Questions like that are why polygamy will likely remain illegal.
All of the above and none of the above. The marriage you enter is of your choosing in my world.

In your world, you wish to dictate the choices. You feel you have some kind of right to decide if someone else's decision on marriage is worthy. All the while demanding we respect your choice. I respect your choice but you don't respect others' choices.

Marriage. There is no one right way.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7221 Oct 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you to show me, not stall for time.
You see what's going on in our government. Everyone is all about panicking congressmen so badly that their sphincters go into neutronium status. This is kind of fun, but destructive in a passive-aggressive way. It's just like the marketers for both parties say though! Who cares?! Rock on! Hit that whammy bar and bend them strings!
Excellent, dude!
Excellent post.~Whoop!~Whoop!

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 The gaydar machine: a backlash 2 min Gaydar Alert 5
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 min Jeremiah 13,093
News Kentucky official campaigns against gay marriag... 25 min Wisdom 9
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 28 min Wondering 348
Korn Huskers News 52 min Jadean NE 3
News 'I didn't want my mum to know': The men and boy... 58 min Lewis 3
News Stopping hate crimes against transgender Americans 1 hr Lewis 14
News Who would be a better president: Donald Trump o... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 42
News College to offer sensitivity training after ant... 7 hr Breeding Is A Sym... 8
News Birth-record fix for gays falls to lower court 14 hr Travis Turbil 18
More from around the web