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. Full Story
Skankie PizzHo

Burlington, WI

#40696 Apr 5, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
There really is no purpose. I already know it's ALL about the money.
Yes, you've told us repeatedly - gubbermint money.

Yawn.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#40697 Apr 5, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
What you do not understand it the Homosexual Radical hates our society and our Judeo Christian Values. This is why they love to gasoline the fire with this Gay Marriage crap. They know it flies in the face of decency and moral values which the Militant Gay hates.
They are out to destroy our culture and they will stop at nothing to try and make it happen.
These homo.types are sicko twisted horrible people
THAT might be a bit paranoid. The problem with both factions is a bit like Israel and Palestine. Neither side really is interested in democracy. They're just shaking the tree for any free money they can get to wage their wars.

First, we are NOT defined by Judeo/Christian values. The closest we really come to that in our founder's form of democracy is the ideals of the Enlightenment which timidly avoided condemning organized religion and acknowledged the significant population of our colonies based on those seeking freedom from State religions. The only way to reconcile was to be free of any claim to a State religion.

Second, gays are not just out to kill Jesus. I won't be so bold as to what they are about and I'd probably consider it BS myself if anyone told me, but I would deconstruct it as a manifestation of the Democratic Party which is basically split between young socialist dictators and old school aristocrats whose majority of wealth was attained illegally. They don't tend to like Christianity but then again, I don't either, but for somewhat different reasons. At different times, they change as a matter of fashion. I grew up in a world of folk masses, Kennedy chic, and hippies singing "Jesus Christ Superstar".

You really have to ask yourself just what IS your Judeo/Christian culture. Are you of the Authoritarian Puritian type or are you more of a Libertarian Jesuit variety? There's a lot choices there to consider and, personally, I REALLY don't like hearing anyone tell me that I'll be judged and sent to hell for ignoring their rinky-dink opinions.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#40698 Apr 5, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh give me a break.
There is no break to give. Show me where I was making a racial slur. Did my reference to General Aldo offend your tribal pride? I wouldn't have guessed it!....or are you a White liberal who thinks he can hang with the brothers on the street?

I won't make that claim. I don't WANT to hang with them. It's not a race thing. It's a simple matter of choosing between being subordinate to a street gang or being accepted as a law abiding citizen. I KNOW that the reality is you MUST choose between these things..... and something tells me that you don't understand that.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#40699 Apr 5, 2014
Skankie PizzHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you've told us repeatedly - gubbermint money.
Yawn.
Thanks for repeating it one more time for me!

Since you're playing a baboon dominance game with the silly "yawn" comments, why do you want to keep stating my message FOR me? It's kind of silly but I like it!

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#40700 Apr 5, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
A video for X-breath. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =uPWHfrU3PSQXX&feature=you tu.be
Rev Anal and his youtube 'proof.'

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie

Union City, CA

#40701 Apr 5, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for repeating it one more time for me!
Since you're playing a baboon dominance game with the silly "yawn" comments, why do you want to keep stating my message FOR me? It's kind of silly but I like it!
He's just a dopey troll but he's gay so he's not a troll.(Rainbow rules).

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#40702 Apr 5, 2014
Frankie wrote:
<quoted text>
He's just a dopey troll but he's gay so he's not a troll.(Rainbow rules).
I try to avoid taking trolls seriously. Sometimes you get a Rose and you can't help using her to make a point that has to be made and your personal stories just won't do.

The rest of the trolls have been peeking the last few days. I look at this as an opportunity, but it's still in the making. We've already demonstrated their empty hatred, greed and emotional instability. What's next is to demonstrate the addiction factor. Some setting up is still required. Can't force these things!

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie

Union City, CA

#40703 Apr 5, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Rev Anal and his youtube 'proof.'
X-Rated Breath and his ad hominem "proof".

Judged:

18

18

18

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#40704 Apr 5, 2014
Frankie wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply said that polygamy deserves the same respect as your marriage. You are either confused or don't know what a hypocrite is. It is you who demands respect for your marriage which you gleefully deny to people you don't approve of. You don't have to agree to respect it but you can't use that as a reason to deny it. Many people don't respect SSM. They are wrong just like you are wrong. You want respect? You need to give it first.
So sorry. Tough sh!t. Don't like it? Don't do it.
Ah good times!
Where have I ever demanded you or anyone else respect my marriage?

I haven't, because as I've told you every time you post that nonsense, respect is earned.

Since there is no right to polygamous marriage, I can use whatever reason I want to deny it.

IF polyga-marriage ever becomes a right, THEN I won't be use just any old reason to deny it.

Until then, I can.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#40705 Apr 5, 2014
Frankie wrote:
<quoted text>
That's circular reasoning. Invalid and silly.
So where's your proof that I can't use a lack of respect for polygamists as a reason to keep polygamy illegal?

Show me one state which rejected that reasoning and legalized polyga-marriage.

That should be fairly easy for you to prove.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#40706 Apr 5, 2014
Frankie wrote:
<quoted text>
“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”
That's the only reason for the laws against polygamy the court has given. Moral disapproval. And it was in 1879. Reynolds is still in effect and indeed the modern court cites as authority. It is no longer a valid reason since SSM proved moral disapproval is not a reason to deny marriage.
That is an argument Miss Thang. Not a sound bite. Your turn.
No, that just the only reason the writer of that article believes the court has given.

Regardless of what the author of the article believes the court said, it's not the only reason for laws against polygamy.

The only thing "SSM" proved was that moral disapproval is not a reason to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry. Since polygamy is a completely separate issue with its own unique problems, you can't simply assume the same reasoning must apply.

As it stands, moral disapproval is indeed a sufficient reason to ban polygamy.
Frankie

Union City, CA

#40707 Apr 5, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Where have I ever demanded you or anyone else respect my marriage?
I haven't, because as I've told you every time you post that nonsense, respect is earned.
Since there is no right to polygamous marriage, I can use whatever reason I want to deny it.
IF polyga-marriage ever becomes a right, THEN I won't be use just any old reason to deny it.
Until then, I can.
Every time you say "SSM is winning in court after court, state after state, all across this rainbow land and polyga-marriage is losing in court after court state after state all across this rainbow land!" You are demanding respect for your marriage while disrespecting other marriages.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie

Union City, CA

#40708 Apr 5, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

As it stands, moral disapproval is indeed a sufficient reason to ban polygamy.
No. You are wrong. If moral disapproval is not a reason to deny SSM, it is not a reason to deny poly marriage.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie

Union City, CA

#40709 Apr 5, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that just the only reason the writer of that article believes the court has given.
It's the only reason the court has ever given. Moral disapproval. If that's not true, prove it. Gimme another reason the court has given that wasn't really just moral disapproval.

Don't tell me "polyga-marriage" is not gayga-marriage so therefore it's OK to ban it because of moral disapproval.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#40710 Apr 5, 2014
Frankie wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time you say "SSM is winning in court after court, state after state, all across this rainbow land and polyga-marriage is losing in court after court state after state all across this rainbow land!" You are demanding respect for your marriage while disrespecting other marriages.
Nope, I'm just pointing out a simple fact that we're winning in court after court and state after state.

I'm not demanding respect for anything from anyone.

Try again.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#40711 Apr 5, 2014
Frankie wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You are wrong. If moral disapproval is not a reason to deny SSM, it is not a reason to deny poly marriage.
That may be your opinion, but that's all it is- your opinion.

The current laws against polygamy back up my opinion.

NOTHING backs up your opinion.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#40712 Apr 5, 2014
Frankie wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the only reason the court has ever given. Moral disapproval. If that's not true, prove it. Gimme another reason the court has given that wasn't really just moral disapproval.
Don't tell me "polyga-marriage" is not gayga-marriage so therefore it's OK to ban it because of moral disapproval.
The court also said a religious belief wasn't sufficient justification to legalize polygamy.

So your claim is that nothing can be banned because of moral disapproval anymore? That means robbery, murder, rape, etc, etc, etc, must all be made legal according to your logic.

Just because one thing can't be banned because of moral disapproval doesn't mean NOTHING can be banned because of moral disapproval.
Frankie

Union City, CA

#40713 Apr 5, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So where's your proof that I can't use a lack of respect for polygamists as a reason to keep polygamy illegal?
Show me one state which rejected that reasoning and legalized polyga-marriage.
That should be fairly easy for you to prove.
You are operating with the fallacy that because it is illegal now it will always be illegal.

In other words you are saying polygamy should stay illegal because it is illegal.

That's a fallacy that could easily be used against SSM.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#40714 Apr 5, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
REALLY? That's ALL my post means?
It's really sad to see just how far our liberal quotacrats have fallen in their cultural awareness.
What a brilliant rebuttal (yawn.)
Frankie

Union City, CA

#40715 Apr 5, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be your opinion, but that's all it is- your opinion.
The current laws against polygamy back up my opinion.
NOTHING backs up your opinion.
The current laws are based on moral disapproval. No longer a valid reason thanks to SSM. Please deal with that fact. You can't just say we can't ban SSM because of moral disapproval but we can ban polygamy because of moral disapproval.

Just because the laws still exist doesn't mean they can't change, you should know that. I bet some fool against SSM taunted you with that eh? Said "Oh yeah? It's illegal, therefore it should be illegal!"

All your weak attempts at justifying denying marriage equality are fallacies. You haven't given one valid reason.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge 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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
California man shot in head for resisting carja... 59 min OccupyThis 4
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr grave digger 47,593
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Frank 179,677
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 19 hr Rama 201,197
Maude Wed Maude 1
Mexico's Take Over Of California: Complete By 2... (Jun '09) Wed domax 27,505
GOP's 41st senator gets movie star's greeting (Jan '10) Wed strokeofirish 224

California People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE