Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61385 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6614 Oct 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
They would need to substantially better themselves to rise to the level of a putz.
I support marriage equality for all, and you do not. Call me what you will. I call you a hypocrite and it's by definition.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6615 Oct 9, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I support marriage equality for all, and you do not. Call me what you will. I call you a hypocrite and it's by definition.
No, you regularly bring up an absurd concept that seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people.

Sorry that your ability to count seems to be intermittent.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6617 Oct 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
How's that fraudulent law about fake marriages affecting the fact tha SS couples will only ever be mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage?
Smile.
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are a moron. Legal marriage does not have a procreative requirement, and you look like an idiot when you make posts like this. Either you are ignorant of the law, stupid, or more likely both.
Where did I say that it did?

You seem to be stuck on stupid lides...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6618 Oct 9, 2013
Why not wrote:
KiMare your an idiot, your not even fighting for your own rights. Why don't you fight for something that will actually affect your life? You should just stop and take a break from the Internet. I mean all your conversations that you contribute to on topixs is about gay marriage -_- really, I mean why do you feel so strongly that we can't be equal. I bet if you were gay you would sure as hell want to be able to have a marriage. You wouldn't just accept that because you can't reproduce you can't have a marriage. Any person wether gay or not can hold their wedding vows.
This is a discussion site, and you want me to leave?

Wonder why that would be???

Could it be that you have yet to post a reasoned response?

Maybe you are not ready for adult discussion honey...
Why not

Centereach, NY

#6619 Oct 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a discussion site, and you want me to leave?
Wonder why that would be???
Could it be that you have yet to post a reasoned response?
Maybe you are not ready for adult discussion honey...
Maybe you are not asking me any questions!!!!
You are simply stating that we cannot have children, so sorry we can't reproduce!
Why not

Centereach, NY

#6620 Oct 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a discussion site, and you want me to leave?
Wonder why that would be???
Could it be that you have yet to post a reasoned response?
Maybe you are not ready for adult discussion honey...
Oh and you want something to discuss, why can't we have marriages when there are people who don't want any children? Are we going to take away their marriage licenses because try didn't have children.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6621 Oct 9, 2013
Why not wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you are not asking me any questions!!!!
You are simply stating that we cannot have children, so sorry we can't reproduce!
That's a lie.
Why not

Centereach, NY

#6622 Oct 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a lie.
Well why don't you look back in the discussion then, you only stated that we any have children. Oh have mercy on my soul, I can't have children! Who cares what about the people that choose not to have children! Why do they get a marriage license if they aren't going to have children.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6623 Oct 9, 2013
Why not wrote:
<quoted text>
Well why don't you look back in the discussion then, you only stated that we any have children. Oh have mercy on my soul, I can't have children! Who cares what about the people that choose not to have children! Why do they get a marriage license if they aren't going to have children.
Re-post where I said that.

Smile.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6624 Oct 9, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>No you don't, stop saying that crap. You could give two craps about Polygamy, you just like to whine about it. You are to lazy to get off your azz and loby for a change in the Polygamy laws. So just sit there and STFU, Putz.
Aw. Don't get mad Jizzy.

The bottom line is I support marriage equality. And you do not. Sure that upsets you. It should.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6625 Oct 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you regularly bring up an absurd concept that seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people.
Sorry that your ability to count seems to be intermittent.
Remember when the bigots said same sex marriage was an absurd concept? I do. You do too. And here you are doing it yourself! Real proud of you.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6626 Oct 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you regularly bring up an absurd concept that seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people.
Sorry that your ability to count seems to be intermittent.
Sorry but your ability to distinguish a man from a woman is intermittent.

Remember when the bigots said that? I do. You do too. And here you are. Doing it yourself. Real proud of you. Tell your mom.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6627 Oct 9, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>No you don't, stop saying that crap. You could give two craps about Polygamy, you just like to whine about it. You are to lazy to get off your azz and loby for a change in the Polygamy laws. So just sit there and STFU, Putz.
So what happened to your Chicago gay colon sock Jizzy? Kind of cool. Way too much info but descriptive and relevant. You should have kept it.
Why not

Centereach, NY

#6628 Oct 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
For ss couples to be equated to marriage,
the demand is that children be removed from consideration
to equate ss couples to marriage.
And that mother and father be removed
to equate ss couples to family.
Found it O_o
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6629 Oct 9, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>No you don't, stop saying that crap...
No. Try to make me.

YUK!YUK!YUK! Ah good times. That's why I like you silly jackasses.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6630 Oct 9, 2013
Why not wrote:
<quoted text>
Found it O_o
Remember these;

Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.

It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.

It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.

It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.

It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.

It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.

It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.

All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.

It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.

Marriage is a miraculous union of two genders,
a union so profound,
it is described as the union of Mars and Venus.
It reunites humanity to the roots of life,
while at the very same time
hosting the best and natural
birth place of future human life.
It is the blend of masculinity and femininity.
The wisdom of logic and intuition united.
Strength and delicacy perfectly balanced.
Protection and nurture combined as one.
A complimentary merging that multiplies the unbiased blend of humanity's genders.

A ss couple cannot equate to a single one of these distinctions.

If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no effect

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.

Want more?

Smile.
Why not

Centereach, NY

#6631 Oct 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember these;
Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.
It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.
It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.
It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.
It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.
It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.
It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.
All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.
It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.
Marriage is a miraculous union of two genders,
a union so profound,
it is described as the union of Mars and Venus.
It reunites humanity to the roots of life,
while at the very same time
hosting the best and natural
birth place of future human life.
It is the blend of masculinity and femininity.
The wisdom of logic and intuition united.
Strength and delicacy perfectly balanced.
Protection and nurture combined as one.
A complimentary merging that multiplies the unbiased blend of humanity's genders.
A ss couple cannot equate to a single one of these distinctions.
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no effect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Want more?
Smile.
Wow I also read that you plagiarized those. Obviously you just got defensive and wanted to intimidate me with some long poem thing. You know what I don't feel like doing it now, but tomorrow I will go through each and every one of your "points" or the points you plagiarized and I will break it down one by one and give you a response for your stupid poems. I mean you ask me to show you were you said that we can't marry because we can't reproduce and I showed you! Your just getting defensive. You know I showed you respect in the beginning, but you only showed me your a cold person.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6632 Oct 9, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Sorry but your ability to distinguish a man from a woman is intermittent.
I can distinguish between the two with ease. It is you, who seem to have difficulty articulating a reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Remember when the bigots said that? I do. You do too. And here you are. Doing it yourself. Real proud of you. Tell your mom.
I see a bigot, fighting against the rights of fellow citizens. It doesn't paint you in an entirely flattering light.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6633 Oct 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I can distinguish between the two with ease. It is you, who seem to have difficulty articulating a reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
<quoted text>
I see a bigot, fighting against the rights of fellow citizens. It doesn't paint you in an entirely flattering light.
Why would I want to articulate why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry when I fully support their right to marry? Marriage is good for society. All marriages. Even the ones you don't approve of.

I support marriage equality for all, and you do not. I see a hypocrite fighting against someone else's right to marry.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6634 Oct 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I can distinguish between the two with ease.
And I can count with ease. So when you condescendingly imply I don't understand three does not equal two, I feel compelled to ask if you can distinguish a man from a woman, the same insult, but turned around on you.

So how do you like me so far fruitloops? Not so much? YUK!YUK!YUK!

You are a hypocrite. I support marriage equality. And you do not.

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 BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 16 min Dr Guru 237,291
News California lawmakers eye statewide immigration ... 7 hr Geezer 80
News California raises smoking age to 21, tightens v... (May '16) 11 hr Solarman 25
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 12 hr Well Well 63,270
News Threat Of Losing Obamacare Turns Some Apolitica... 17 hr kyman 3
News 24 military medals stolen during California dam... Sun Ashley 2
News Lowea s hiring 45,000 seasonal workers includin... Sun Ramrod87 12
More from around the web