Gay marriage

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

#7342 Oct 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It's kept polygamy illegal for 200+ years, so obviously it's a pretty good argument.
That's not the argument that makes polygamy illegal son. You are ignorant. But don't let that stop you from denying good people the right to marry.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#7343 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I have provided evidence of a state interest.
What evidence?

ahahahahhaha
ahahahahahhahaha
ahahhahahahahaha

Evidence of your total lack of education? or evidence of your profound inability to form a cogent argument? or evidence of your meaningless semantics games?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#7344 Oct 17, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You used the exact same argument about baby marriage. It's illegal! You're a hypocrite!
Having trouble coming up with a credible argument against someone else's marriage Mona?

I see my hypocrite argument stings as I intended. Ah good times!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#7345 Oct 17, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently, you don't know the definition of truth.
And all your pompous semantics games are totally meaningless in the real world. Maybe they work for you inside your little bubble of denial, but in the real world, people like you are laughed at when you squawk your ignorance for all to see.
Oh the irony.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#7346 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you really believed that, I wouldn't matter. Yet the weight of lies, hate and attacks are thrown those who disagree.
What matters is truth. Anything you have is powers against it.
SS couples are only ever a. Mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered half if marriage. And there is not one damn thing you can do about it.
You keep squawking about reproduction. We keep telling you reproduction isn't required.

That's like you going to get a drivers license and they tell you no, because you can't tap-dance. Tap-dancing isn't required for a driver's license, and reproduction is not required for a marriage license. You keep making the same irrelevant argument. Are you nuts?..... the answer to THAT question is an obvious YES.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#7347 Oct 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Having trouble coming up with a credible argument against someone else's marriage Mona?
pfffttt....

The credible arguments against polygamy have been well known for centuries. You ignore them and think they don't exist. That's probably due to your background in science, eh?

YUK! YUK! YUK! Good times.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#7349 Oct 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh the irony.
Irony?

You mean like how you ignore facts that prove you wrong? Facts that everybody else seems to know, but somehow you missed? Oh wait... that's not irony... THAT is blatant idiocy.

With your 'degree' in cultural anthropology (as if...) I'm amazed that you have such little understanding about the harmful effects of polygamy. Did you skip those classes? hahahahahahahah Why is it everybody else is aware, you have the degree and yet it's a big surprise to you?

What could it be?.....

Could it be you're just a fraud and a liar? Most definitely.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7350 Oct 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy has never been legal in US history.
Same-sex couples marrying has been legal in US history.
And yet your vote didn't stop same-sex couples from marrying and getting all the rights & benefits of marriage.
Actually it was for a time.

You made the assertion about voting, I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of it.

You have a fraudulent piece of paper. You will never equate to marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7351 Oct 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the most effective argument we had before the courts was that marriage would give legal protections to our families & specifically the children we are raising.
So you deny that children should be considered for marriage, then turn around and fraudulently use them to justify an imposter relationship and a fake family.

Interesting.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#7352 Oct 17, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You used the exact same argument about baby marriage. It's illegal! You're a hypocrite!
There is no "baby marriage" except in your perverted fantasies.

Baby marriage is illegal because babies cannot enter into contracts. Polygamy is illegal because SCOTUS doesn't like it. Two very different reasons fruitloops.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#7353 Oct 17, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
...ahahahahhaha
ahahahahahhahaha
ahahhahahahahaha
aaaaaaaaahh ahaha splurt!!
YUK!YUK!YUK!~Whoop!~Whoop! Damn Mona. Clean up yourself. that was obscene and disgusting.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#7354 Oct 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy was never legal in the US
Wrong.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#7355 Oct 17, 2013
The laws passed by Congress during the anti-polygamy period (18621890) were instigated by both public hysteria and religious persecution of the Mormons.

Today, such laws would, in all probability, be declared unconstitutional as a "bill of attainder" (a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial).

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7356 Oct 17, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
And SCOTUS struck it down as unconstitutional. Congrats on being a dumbass.
Based on fraudulent studies and a ridiculous denial of reality.

SS couples will never equate to marriage in any way.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7357 Oct 17, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently, you don't know the definition of truth.
And all your pompous semantics games are totally meaningless in the real world. Maybe they work for you inside your little bubble of denial, but in the real world, people like you are laughed at when you squawk your ignorance for all to see.
Ah, the opinion of someone who equates anal anise to intercourse and denies the reality of mating behavior...

There is laughter, but not at me.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7358 Oct 17, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence?
ahahahahhaha
ahahahahahhahaha
ahahhahahahahaha
Evidence of your total lack of education? or evidence of your profound inability to form a cogent argument? or evidence of your meaningless semantics games?
No, numerous SCOTUS rulings over time that have expressed the interest of society in protecting marriage and family.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7359 Oct 17, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep squawking about reproduction. We keep telling you reproduction isn't required.
That's like you going to get a drivers license and they tell you no, because you can't tap-dance. Tap-dancing isn't required for a driver's license, and reproduction is not required for a marriage license. You keep making the same irrelevant argument. Are you nuts?..... the answer to THAT question is an obvious YES.
You don't need protection not to tap dance.

Married couples need protection not to procreate.

SS couples NEVER need protection, except for gays to abusively imitate intercourse.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#7360 Oct 17, 2013
A FRESH VIEW

People naturally form families, starting with two or more people bonding into a primary social unit. It happens quite aside from marital status. Marriage is an institution that formally recognizes, or refuses to recognize, such unions.

The issue logically reduces to one of legal recognition of family units. Should we recognize same sex marriages? How about multiple partner marriages?

Should some families be more worthy of formal recognition and special legal rights than others? Why or why not, and on what basis?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#7361 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it was for a time.
You made the assertion about voting, I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of it.
You have a fraudulent piece of paper. You will never equate to marriage.
When was polygamy legal in the United States?

You're one to talk about 'fraudulent pieces of paper.'
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#7362 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No, numerous SCOTUS rulings over time that have expressed the interest of society in protecting marriage and family.
Smile.
Yes. That's why they struck down DOMA.

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 Mississippi pastor trots out horse in wedding d... 9 min Pattysboi 98
News Child of Lesbian Moms Says Same-Sex Marriage Is... 11 min flbadcatowner 534
News Pediatrician Won't Treat Baby With Lesbian Moms 13 min Pietro Armando 745
News Indiana officials look to stem religious object... 17 min Xstain Fatwass Ce... 46
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 28 min raider4life 1,670
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 29 min Blondie 30,876
News 'Not going to change': Indiana gov defends reli... 29 min Mr_SKY 17
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 56 min nhjeff 1,606
News Businesses: Indiana's gay discrimination is bad... 1 hr doty 74
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Prep-for-Dep 17,778
News Former CFO who delivered viral Chick-fil-A rant... 4 hr Bubbaliscius 5
More from around the web