Mexican lawmaker asks to ban gay unio...

Mexican lawmaker asks to ban gay unions in public

There are 369 comments on the KARE-TV Minneapolis story from Sep 4, 2013, titled Mexican lawmaker asks to ban gay unions in public. In it, KARE-TV Minneapolis reports that:

A state legislator in Mexico is causing a stir by asking authorities not to allow gay weddings in public spaces because it confuses children in a state that just approved same-sex civil unions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KARE-TV Minneapolis.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#401 Sep 17, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Never heard of gangs, eh?
Did some fool just dig you up from a 1,000 yr old cemetery? While you were sleeping, your brain turned to mush.
Yes I have heard of gangs and no some fool didn't just dig me up.

Is that your whole argument against marriage equality? I mean besides the testosterone crazed roving gangs one?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#402 Sep 17, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>No need to improve. The data was damning enough when first published. You just don't like it. It proves your little charade of being pro-polygamy to be as transparent as glass.
Didn't know there was a REAL reason for making polygamy illegal, did ya? Thought you'd play the 'intellectual' and make some silly argument about 'equal rights' for polygamists, as if they have any. Your stupidity has caught up with you and revealed you to be the big, fat LIAR that you really are.
You were Army? Jesus, god.... they'll take any ol' piece of shit for cannon fodder.

A fine "when are you going to stop beating your wife?" post if I ever saw one!

Sorry! You have proved nothing except that you are angry at me for revealing your hypocrisy. So sorry. You lost. Play again. Insert another nickel please.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#403 Sep 17, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the fact that I don't like them firmly established???????
Ok, Mr. Fake Scientist. Exactly how did you 'determine' that waste of internet space? And you call my reasons laughable? You are beyond stupid.... way beyond. You're so stupid, you don't even know when to shut up.
Canada already had this discussion. Needless to say, polygamy is NOT legal in Canada. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE presented, if you dare. I think you're too lazy and inept. Hell, you think gangs are a joke.
I have submitted plenty of evidence to counter yours, you ignored it and lied that I have presented none.

You are arguing against equal rights, as was my intention. To reveal your hypocrisy. You are getting very angry about it. Tough sh!t. Get mad at yourself for being a bigot.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#404 Sep 17, 2013
And still, more than 2 does not and cannot equal 2.

The number restriction remains a different restricton from gender.

A different set of laws is needed, and those laws would change the structur of society as well.

Good or bad, it is entirely different.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#405 Sep 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
And still, more than 2 does not and cannot equal 2.
The number restriction remains a different restricton from gender.
A different set of laws is needed, and those laws would change the structur of society as well.
Good or bad, it is entirely different.
Yes more than two does not equal two.

Yes, the number restriction is different than the gender restriction.

Yes, some new laws are needed (that's what were talking about-duh).

No, those are not valid reasons to deny equality.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#406 Sep 18, 2013
Egads! Close call! A roving band of testosterone crazed sex starved young men just roved by! Hide your womenfolk! Bar the doors! Neil An Blowme, no, they are not interested in you, pull your pants up!

YUK!YUK!YUK! Ah good times!~Whoop!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#407 Sep 18, 2013
And still, something different is not equality but something different.

Same sex couples are treated equally under the laws currently in effect. That is equality.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#408 Sep 18, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
And still, something different is not equality but something different.
Same sex couples are treated equally under the laws currently in effect. That is equality.
Two same sex people can marry. Three cannot. That is not equality.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#409 Sep 18, 2013
Three can't be equal to two because 3 isn't equal to 2. You are talking about extra, undefined and unknown rights.

But why 3? Why not 30, or 300. Billionaires could easily have 10 or more in 10 or more locations. If you remove the number restriction, do you draw any line, and why?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#410 Sep 18, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Three can't be equal to two because 3 isn't equal to 2. You are talking about extra, undefined and unknown rights.
But why 3? Why not 30, or 300. Billionaires could easily have 10 or more in 10 or more locations. If you remove the number restriction, do you draw any line, and why?
If you remove the gender restriction do you draw any line and where?

What gives you the right to draw the line?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#411 Sep 18, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you remove the gender restriction do you draw any line and where?
What gives you the right to draw the line?
Removing the gender restriction removes the restriction on gender. Any gender can get married. That is where the gender line is.

Removing a restriction is not drawing a line, but erasing one.

There is no governmental interest in restricting gender. Other restrictions are different restrictions, for their own reasons.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#412 Sep 18, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Removing the gender restriction removes the restriction on gender...
Priceless.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#413 Sep 19, 2013
And yet, you don't seem to comprehend that removing a line is not drawing one.

Again, are you advocating removing the restrictions on number and incest, or new limits?

3, 30, 300, 3000? Where and why?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#415 Sep 19, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
And yet, you don't seem to comprehend that removing a line is not drawing one.
Again, are you advocating removing the restrictions on number and incest, or new limits?
3, 30, 300, 3000? Where and why?
I wonder who this silly jackass is whining to. Anyone know? I am not the designated shoulder to cry on today.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#417 Sep 19, 2013
Pejoratives and personal attacks remain the refuge of those with no argument on the merits.

The restriction on gender is an entirely different restriction than the restrictions on number, incest, age, and informed consent.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#418 Sep 19, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Pejoratives and personal attacks remain the refuge of those with no argument on the merits.
The restriction on gender is an entirely different restriction than the restrictions on number, incest, age, and informed consent.
Yes more than two does not equal two.

Yes, the number restriction is different than the gender restriction.

Yes, some new laws are needed (that's what were talking about-duh).

No, those are not valid reasons to deny equality.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#419 Sep 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes more than two does not equal two.
Yes, the number restriction is different than the gender restriction.
Yes, some new laws are needed (that's what were talking about-duh).
No, those are not valid reasons to deny equality.
You were doing so well till you get to that last word. Something entirely different cannot be equality.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#420 Sep 19, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You were doing so well till you get to that last word. Something entirely different cannot be equality.
That's what they said about SSM.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#421 Sep 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what they said about SSM.
Those who made such claims couldn't back them up in the court of reason and law.

The marriages of same sex couples are treated exactly the same under the exact same laws already in effect for opposite sex couples. Marriage did not change for opposite sex couples by removing the gender restriction.

Removing the number restriction changes all of that for everyone in ways that favor the wealthy and powerful at the expense of all others.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#422 Sep 19, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Those who made such claims couldn't back them up in the court of reason and law.
The marriages of same sex couples are treated exactly the same under the exact same laws already in effect for opposite sex couples. Marriage did not change for opposite sex couples by removing the gender restriction.
Removing the number restriction changes all of that for everyone in ways that favor the wealthy and powerful at the expense of all others.
All polygamists need is a sympathetic judge. Worked for you, it must also work for them. Suck it up and live with it.

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... 6 min Frankie Rizzo 263
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 9 min Frankie Rizzo 15,090
Little Robbie's Nursery Rhymes 32 min HAHAHAHA 2
Watching Over You by Greg Lake 49 min Fa-Foxy 2
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 38,688
News ABC's 'What Would You Do?' Depicts Man Cheating... 2 hr Conrad 4
News Parents of gay Poles urge pope to help fight ho... 2 hr Conrad 1
News Austin Loses 'A Safe Space for Gay Men to Go Ha... 6 hr Mite Be 32
More from around the web