Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61394 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.

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

Hayward, 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

Hayward, 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

Hayward, CA

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

Hayward, CA

#7355 Oct 17, 2013
The laws passed by Congress during the anti-polygamy period (1862–1890) 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.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#7364 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What the hell is anal anise, Oh Greatly Stupid KiMerde?

Mating behavior = sex When did I deny THAT?

Yeah.... like YOU know ANYTHING about reality. Your entire belief system is based on wishful thinking. Yes, the laughter you hear is directed at you...a professional bullshit artist, bereft of facts, and full of shit.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#7365 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on fraudulent studies and a ridiculous denial of reality.
SS couples will never equate to marriage in any way.
Oh? The Constitution is a fraudulent study is it? Your denial mechanisms are interesting indeed.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#7366 Oct 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
The laws passed by Congress during the anti-polygamy period (1862–1890) 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).
Oh?...... the other day you said it was illegal because SCOTUS hated polygamists. How did it get to SCOTUS if there wasn't a trial?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#7367 Oct 17, 2013
Well, well, well.....

Look what I found from a two year old article:

What we have found is that monogamy works better than polygamy. It starts with simple math. There are roughly equal numbers of men and women in a stable society. When polygamy is allowed, women become a scarce commodity. They have to be hidden away from other men, their rights have to be suppressed to keep them in polygamy. Men can't find a wife without taking ever younger girls as brides.

Combine that with a large pool of unmarried men, and you get an economy that can't compete with western countries. The unmarried men tend to join gangs and armies and cause trouble. They don't need to work as hard to just support themselves. They have no role in society and are resentful.

Women without rights aren't educated, don't work, and again, the economy suffers.

The only benefactor of polygamy is the rich powerful man. Everyone else suffers. It just isn't consistent with the freedom and equality we choose instead.

I would suggest you go to the country where your grandfather's polygamy was legal and try living there. I don't think you'd like it.

Polygamy has consequences, especially for the average person.

And yet Blankie, with a degree in cultural anthropology ( sure...) has never heard of this before.

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 min Frankie Rizzo 43,015
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 min Wish4549 4,736
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 12 min Sorry Hill 2,271
News Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin? 21 min Doyle 11
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 41 min Wish3287 22,553
News Mexican leftist senators defend battering Trump... 54 min Shirvell s Shrivel 1
News Arkansas court upholds gay marriage birth certi... 56 min Shirvell s Shrivel 1
News Trump's staff picks disappoint, alarm minority ... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 277
More from around the web