Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61392 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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7121 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
Is three or more greater than two?
If Suzzie has two marbles, and Jack has three, who has more?
Here's your problem, rights and protections of the law are not marbles. If they were, Suzie couldn't have two and Jack couldn't have 3, they each could have only one. You are dumber than a shoe.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7122 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's so cute when you feel the need to edit what I said, because you are incapable of responding to the original post, or that you are embarrassed that it made you look foolish.
Let me see if I can help make you look more foolish.
Does polygamy seek the ability for three or more people to enter into one marriage?
Is three or more greater than two?
If Suzzie has two marbles, and Jack has three, who has more?
You see, Frankie, polygamy does not seek equal protection of the law. Just keep working on those rudimentary counting skills, you will develop them in time.
The reality remains that you are offering an utterly irrelevant argument that has no bearing upon the topic at hand, that has been long settled as a matter of law, and that anyone with the ability to count to three (or understand that three or more is greater than two) would understand. Although one could make an argument for polygamy, the fact that it is currently not allowed in any state in the union is not a reason to deny same sex couples (who already can legally marry in 13 states) the right to marry.
Everyone understands it but you Lides. It's already being argued. You know that.

Gays are terrified if the issue gets out too soon, the public will shut them both down.

I'd suggest you go with it by getting Muslims to support it too. Gays and Muslims, hand in hand...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7123 Oct 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
All bogus. "Questionable" informed consent? Why is that exclusive to polygamy? Why are any of your paranoid fears exclusive to polygamy? They are not. That is your ignorance and bigotry.
There are perfectly good laws against all the crimes you ignorantly associate with polygamy. Use them. Prosecute the criminal not his marriage.
And still with the 'it should be illegal because it's illegal schtick. Priceless.
I will relate to you the story of two elderly sisters who never met until they were in their 70's and became very close and wish to marry mostly for economic and end of life power of attorney issues etc. But they may have a sexual relationship, it's none of our business.
And of a young brother and sister (in their twenties) who fell in love before they knew they were related and wish to marry. They cannot. Due to ignorance and appeals to tradition. And holding them responsible for someone else's crimes. For prosecuting the type marriage they chose instead of someone else's crimes.
And of three gay men have been together for 10 years and wish to marry but you think they should not be allowed to because "it's illegal".
Of course it's not exclusive to polygamy or incest; it's just more of a concern due to the long history of abuse in polygamous & incestuous relationships.

It's that history you need to overcome if you expect polygamy & incest to become legal.

That's one thing same-sex couples didn't really have to deal with, because there really was no public history of long term same-sex relationships. They were there of course, but not public at all. We only had to overcome the perception of the promiscuous gay man, and wanting to get married directly countered that stereotype.

You've got a much tougher row to hoe.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7124 Oct 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Everyone understands it but you Lides. It's already being argued. You know that.
Gays are terrified if the issue gets out too soon, the public will shut them both down.
I'd suggest you go with it by getting Muslims to support it too. Gays and Muslims, hand in hand...
KiMare, I'm sorry you are too dim to make on on topic argument.

The reality is that polygamy is a separate issue, it has already been dealt with as a matter of law, and there is no slippery slope leading from gay marriage to polygamy.

Grow up, learn to count, educate yourself, and try again.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7125 Oct 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS will be hard pressed to justify that. If you were arguing against it as a lawyer what grounds would you use? "It's illegal"? Or "It will hog all my protection"?
Really?

Can you name the SCOTUS justices you think are going to vote to legalize polygamy & incest?

You need at least 5.

The argument will be the harm to women, children, & society which polygamy & incest cause.

If you want a preview of the ruling, look at the Canadian court's ruling; it will be nearly identical to the ruling our SCOTUS puts out.

Of course you have to get past the district court level first, and you haven't even managed to do that yet because the cases keep getting dismissed.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7126 Oct 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not. If someone in a same sex marriage does it do you plan to make same sex marriage illegal?
It will keep a same-sex polygamous marriage illegal, just as it will keep all polygamous marriages illegal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7127 Oct 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot of work to prevent someone else's marriage isn't it? And sure, the Canadians bought his schtick, but will a sympathetic judge in Utah? California? Texas? SCOTUS?
Sorry Charlie. Marriage equality marches on. Get out of the way loser.
Hey! You started it and set the precedent. Thanks! Now stop being a bigot and hypocrite.
Yes, the SCOTUS will accept all the evidence of abuse & harm to women, children, & society which results from polygamy & incest.

Again, can you name the 5 justices on the SCOTUS who you think are going to vote in favor of polygamy & incest?

Can you even name any of the SCOTUS justices?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7128 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
KiMare, I'm sorry you are too dim to make on on topic argument.
The reality is that polygamy is a separate issue, it has already been dealt with as a matter of law, and there is no slippery slope leading from gay marriage to polygamy.
Grow up, learn to count, educate yourself, and try again.
They are all US citizens. If marriage were a true fundamental right there would be no rules or regulations. There are rules and regulations as well as fees. Same sex marriage was also dealt with as a matter of law.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7129 Oct 15, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Can you name the SCOTUS justices you think are going to vote to legalize polygamy & incest?
You need at least 5.
It's Frankie, cut them a little slack. Just ask if they can name 5 justices, past or present, without a trip to Google™.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7130 Oct 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No it won't. Why do you want to prevent consenting adults from marrying? You didn't like it when someone did it to you.
Because there is a significant question as to whether they are indeed all consenting.

That's the BIGGEST hurdle you've got to overcome, mostly due to the very public history of polygamous relationships & incest in this country.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7131 Oct 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That sums up WeTheSheeple's schtick nicely. Couldn't have said it better. He's a bona fide moron.
And yet same-sex couples have won our right to marry.

Have you?

Gee, not so dumb after all....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7132 Oct 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what they said about your attitude, remember?
And to a certain extent they were right, which is why it took us 50+ years to get marriage equality instead of just 10-20 years.

The gay community made strategic errors along the way (hindsight is 20-20), but we adjusted our strategy and became successful.

You can either learn from our mistakes and have a chance of seeing polygamy legalized in your lifetime, or you can continue on your current path and die without ever having a realistic shot at achieving your goal.

The choice is yours.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7133 Oct 15, 2013
The Abstruse Polymath wrote:
<quoted text>
There are other explanations for an opposition to gay marriage besides homophobia and religiously indoctrinated dissapproval.
Nope, that's about all there is.

Either way it's irrelevant now that same-sex couples can marry and have all the rights & benefits of marriage.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7134 Oct 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
When someone goes off like that, you know you are touching a major soft spot.
The denial of reality by the ss marriage charade demands that we join them in the deceit.
I'm one rock in the stream that won't budge.
A rock is about the best description of yourself you've come up with so far.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7135 Oct 15, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
You can either learn from our mistakes and have a chance of seeing polygamy legalized in your lifetime, or you can continue on your current path and die without ever having a realistic shot at achieving your goal.
The choice is yours.
The problem is that Frank isn't really arguing for polygamy, they are raising it thinking that they are making a valid slippery slope argument, when in reality, they are just exposing their own stupidity.

And their inability to count to three, or understand that it is greater than two.

It leaves one with the general impression that Frank isn't so bright.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7136 Oct 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not when you acknowledge the minority identity of mating behavior.
<quoted text>
Context Dicky.
We are talking about minority rights of marriage.
Mating behavior dictates the minority.
Did you get it now dumb Dicky?
<quoted text>
Which brings us full circle to the original point.
If your dumbed down definition of marriage is used,'two' people is discrimination plain and simple.
But this still remains;
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
Every law discriminates against someone; the only question is whether that discrimination is constitutionally justifiable.

You lost that argument, which is why same-sex couples can legally marry and have all the rights & benefits of marriage.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7137 Oct 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It clearly exposes the faux legal charade and annoys the hell out of you.
Smile.
And yet you've failed to stop same-sex couples from legally marrying and getting all the rights & benefits of marriage.

Smile.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7138 Oct 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No opinion, pure reality.
That's why your denial constantly censors posts.
Smile.
And the reality is you've been unable to prevent same-sex couples from legally marrying and getting all the rights & benefits of marriage.

But keep trying if it keeps your dusty mangina busy....

Smile
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7139 Oct 15, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the SCOTUS will accept all the evidence of abuse & harm to women, children, & society which results from polygamy & incest.
Again, can you name the 5 justices on the SCOTUS who you think are going to vote in favor of polygamy & incest?
Can you even name any of the SCOTUS justices?
Even if I couldn't, you'd still have no argument.

How does it feel to argue against marriage equality? You do it poorly. You make a pretty dumb bigot.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7140 Oct 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not. Everyone gets equal protection of the law, no more, no less. EQUAL. No one "seeks greater protection". You either have it or you don't.
Correct, which is why you get to marry ONE person at a time, just like everyone else.

Equal protection.

You obviously don't understand the legal concept of similarly situated which is critical to equal protection claims.

A group of 3 or more adults is not similarly situated to 2 adults.

Your lack of understanding of basic legal concepts is why you keep losing your court cases.

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) 1 hr WelbyMD 240,929
News California Democrats take aim at Trump, GOP Con... 2 hr Curious 17
News Passage of immigration crackdown in California ... (Apr '10) 2 hr Curious 234
News ICE arrests nearly 200 illegal immigrants in Ca... 4 hr tomin cali 1
News Treasury Chief to Congress: Raise Debt Limit Be... Wed Red Crosse 9
Bella Esmail Moore Wanted For FRAUD!! Iranian Wed Romel Esmail Wanted 2
News California takes many hits, large and small, in... Wed Solarman 1
More from around the web