Gay marriage

There are 20 comments on the Mar 28, 2013, Los Angeles Times story 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#43414 Apr 20, 2014
Polygamy is more ethical than monogamy. It is also more natural. No matter how much a man loves his wife or his husband he would like to boff her sister or his husbands brother too! Come on folks, let's get real.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
poof

Madison, WI

#43415 Apr 20, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong thread dumbazz.
Gay marriage
Full story: Los Angeles Times
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.
Wrong azzhat, Bruno and I where discussing the Constitution, you know the friggin topic

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
poof

Madison, WI

#43416 Apr 20, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I just mailed the IRS a FAT check last Tuesday. I could have paid for my grand daughter's next year at Stanford with that money. Why can't I believe Uncle will spend it more wisely than I would have?
Sorry to interrupt, your mention of the IRS hit a raw nerve. Carry on.
Don't like it move
poof

Madison, WI

#43417 Apr 20, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Polygamy is more ethical than monogamy. It is also more natural. No matter how much a man loves his wife or his husband he would like to boff her sister or his husbands brother too! Come on folks, let's get real.
Wrong thread asshat.

Gay marriage

Full story: Los Angeles Times

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.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#43418 Apr 20, 2014
Reynolds has been cited as an authority by the modern Supreme Court. In it the Court tells us the basis of laws prohibiting polygamy: moral disapproval.

“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.”

If moral disapproval is not a reason to deny SSM (and it isn't) it is not a reason to deny polygamy.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#43419 Apr 20, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Same dodge you resort to when you're called out on a bizarro statement.
<quoted text>
Unless one one of you gave birth to her, she has a mother.
<quoted text>
But why isn't she entitled to the SAME legal rights and protections as any other female child, by having her mother and father married to each other? It can't be the same, unless it's the same.
You can be an ass and quibble over terminology as you always do. It won't stop same-sex couples from marrying.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#43420 Apr 20, 2014
poof wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong thread asshat.
Gay marriage
Full story: Los Angeles Times
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.
Gay marriage encompasses gay mon0gamy and gay polygamy. Why are you against gay marriage? I am for it. Why are you a hater and a bigot?

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#43421 Apr 20, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly Terry......I do it with my wife.
<quoted text>
It's about the sexes.
<quoted text>
Lesbians are still, at least anatomically, female. In order to procreate, they still need a male, at least his genetic materials.
<quoted text>
An unrelated MAN AND WOMAN, that's the key. Some societies did allow first cousins to marry.
<quoted text>
That there's two sexes?
<quoted text>
Even the gay folks who oppose redefining marriage?
<quoted text>
Clearly it's a function, purpose, of marriage, one of, if not the purpose and/or function.
<quoted text>
Why?
What’s a bigamist?-An Italian fog.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#43422 Apr 20, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I look at my wife and kids.
You clearly have an inferior relationship that doesn't qualify for marriage.
You clearly have a freakish relationship that doesn't even qualify as human.

Do all 3 of your nipples give milk?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#43423 Apr 20, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You can be an ass and quibble over terminology as you always do. It won't stop same-sex couples from marrying.
Says the ass Mr. Polyga-marriage himself.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#43424 Apr 20, 2014
poof wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong thread asshat.
Gay marriage
Full story: Los Angeles Times
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.
If you weren't such a simple minded moron, you'd realize "a man and a woman" discriminates against polygamy too.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#43425 Apr 20, 2014
Polygamy is more ethical than monogamy. It is more natural too.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#43426 Apr 20, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Silly Terry......I do it with my wife.

You asked; "Why have certain sexual behaviors been frowned upon by human societies throughout time and place?"

I responded: "You tell us since you're the one still doing it."

So your answer is you engage in sexual behaviors with your wife that have been frowned upon by human societies throughout time and place. So you're a sexually deviant pervert. Got it.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]
It's about the sexes.
Gays have a biological sex, perverted Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Lesbians are still, at least anatomically, female. In order to procreate, they still need a male, at least his genetic materials.
Which makes them no different than the female in an opposite sex marriage that uses donor sperm. Again, the constitutional test for equal protection is similarly situated. You wouldn't make these stupid mistakes if you could actually learn something new.
Pietro Armando wrote:
An unrelated MAN AND WOMAN, that's the key.
Based on discrimination against gays. But alas for you, that isn't the case the anymore.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Some societies did allow first cousins to marry.
Because those relationships don't create the conflicts between legal and blood relationships that siblings and parents marrying each other do.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That there's two sexes?
No, that same sex relationships "create nothing". There's more to relationships and marriages than creating babies. In fact, marriage isn't needed to have a baby.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Even the gay folks who oppose redefining marriage?
I'm not having a discussion with them, am I stupid Peter? You're the only one who's been whining to me lately besides Brian_G.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Clearly it's a function, purpose, of marriage, one of, if not the purpose and/or function.
I've never asserted that marriage and procreation don't often overlap. It doesn't change the fact SCOTUS has ruled marriage and procreative decisions separate and distinct fundamental rights that can be and frequently are exercised independently of each other. The existence of one right isn't dependent on exercising the other right.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why?
You asked; I answered. Sorry if you don't like my answer.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#43427 Apr 20, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said that the IRS issues marriage licenses.......but they are a Government organization who was barred from seeing as as legally married until just recently!!!
Fair enough.
No, I agreed with you and STILL you aren't happy.....
".....aren't happy"? I'm Pietro, Happy is one of the seven dwarfs.
well, then screw you......
Do I at least get dinner first? A wine, a little dinner....some Bocelli on the stereo......waitaminit! I thought you didn't like outties?
.men SHOULD be allowed to marry either a another man or a woman as they opt to and the same SHOULD be allowed for women....there NO LABELS involved!!!
First there has to be a definition of marriage to start with.
Wife has ALWAYS been associated with a woman being married......and it STILL is today.......the ONLY thing that has changed is one can no longer ASSume that a married woman means married to a man!!!
Sure they can......statistically speaking....the odds of her being legally married to another woman are rather small. Similar to "lesbian", now that men can be lesbians too....you shouldn't ASSume when one is talking about a lesbian, one is referring to a woman.

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#43428 Apr 20, 2014
So this is the preview of the anti-gays strategy after the SCOTUS overturns the remaining state marriage bans.

Essentially the anti-gays will never accept the simple fact that same-sex couples can marry, so all they have left is to attempt to belittle our marriages to make themselves feel better about losing.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#43429 Apr 20, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
So this is the preview of the anti-gays strategy after the SCOTUS overturns the remaining state marriage bans.
Essentially the anti-gays will never accept the simple fact that same-sex couples can marry, so all they have left is to attempt to belittle our marriages to make themselves feel better about losing.
Polygamy is more ethical than monogamy. It is more natural too.

Judged:

28

28

28

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#43430 Apr 20, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You can be an ass and quibble over terminology as you always do. It won't stop same-sex couples from marrying.
".....ass...."? Always thinking of something to eat aren't you.

Labels actually....labels that once were used to describe various "heterosexual" sexual behavior and people. A gay man used to describe a womanizer! Rather ironic now it means a manizer.

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#43431 Apr 20, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays have a biological sex, perverted Peter.
Exactly, individual men and women.
Which makes them no different than the female in an opposite sex marriage that uses donor sperm.
With one significant difference, the husband is presumed to be the father of the child. The form, husband and wife, remains the same, and the child is born to his legal mother and father.
Again, the constitutional test for equal protection is similarly situated. You wouldn't make these stupid mistakes if you could actually learn something new.
Two men, or two women, aren't similarly situated to a man and a woman.
Based on discrimination against gays. But alas for you, that isn't the case the anymore.
No, just a man and a woman. Besides, "gay" once referred to a womanizing man, and a female prostitute! So how were those "gays" discriminated against?
Because those relationships don't create the conflicts between legal and blood relationships that siblings and parents marrying each other do.
Sooooooo....what conflict is there in allowing same sex siblings to marry?
No, that same sex relationships "create nothing". There's more to relationships and marriages than creating babies. In fact, marriage isn't needed to have a baby.
The bottom line is, sex between men and women produces offspring. Marriage serves as a societal means of regulating the relationship between the sexes, and recognizing their offspring.
I'm not having a discussion with them, am I stupid Peter? You're the only one who's been whining to me lately besides Brian_G.
So have you had discussions with your gay friends on this issue, and do some of them disagree with legally designating same sex relationships, "marriage"?
I've never asserted that marriage and procreation don't often overlap. It doesn't change the fact SCOTUS has ruled marriage and procreative decisions separate and distinct fundamental rights that can be and frequently are exercised independently of each other. The existence of one right isn't dependent on exercising the other right.
But the existence of one, procreation, provides the compelling governmental interest in establishing marriage as a state recognized relationship and right.

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#43432 Apr 20, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
This Country is STILL a Great Nation.....to bad idiots like yourself DON'T comprehend what FREEDOM means, what it COSTS and what FUNDAMENTAL means!!!
How does seeking further government involvement in one's personal life represent "freedom"?
The Federal Government NO LONGER refers to my marriage as 2nd class
The federal government never sorted marriage by classes, nor recognized same sex relationships as "marriage" prior to the Windsor ruling.
and it NEVER referred to me as a 2nd class citizen...
Where are you getting this "second class citizen" stuff from? As far as Uncle Sam is concerned you are a woman no different from any other woman as it relates to marriage.

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#43433 Apr 20, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
The federal government never sorted marriage by classes, nor recognized same sex relationships as "marriage" prior to the Windsor ruling.
Actually they DID basically from 1996 UNTIL 2013..........even after the State of Massachusetts started to issue marriage licenses to Gay and Lesbians!!!

Again, NEITHER the State nor the Federal government would recognize my relationship if we had NOT gotten legally married in 2008!!!

We have been together since 2007....and the State DIDN'T even know we were together UNTIL we applied for our marriage license!!!

Get it Pete, it's HAVING a State issued Marriage license that DESIGNATES our relationship a marriage just as it's the reason the State recognizes your relationship as a marriage because some state issued you a Marriage license!!!

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
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 30 min OzRitz 52,835
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 34 min Guru 187,272
News Mandatory vaccine bill advances after key vote ... 2 hr Ronald 4
News Why a convicted murderer is getting a free sex-... 5 hr Ronald 8
News A look at California's drought 8 hr the Fear tator 6
News Silicon Valley, Bay Area see huge rise in binge... 14 hr John Colby PhDud 2
News Correction: California Drought-Water Rates story Thu H20 the new Oil 1
More from around the web