Gay Marriages Begin in Wisconsin Afte...

Gay Marriages Begin in Wisconsin After Ruling

There are 500 comments on the EDGE story from Jun 6, 2014, titled Gay Marriages Begin in Wisconsin After Ruling. In it, EDGE reports that:

Rich Gillard, left, and Andrew Petroll kiss after their marriage ceremony at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#287 Jun 27, 2014
DNF wrote:
Your references say nothing about the letter.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#288 Jun 27, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So gays have natural, normal intercourse the way straights do?
.....
Can you prove that all straight folks engage in just one type of sex? And then, can you show that marriage law covers the types and frequency of sex that would be required to obtain and maintain a marriage license?

Which types of sexual activity prohibit a man and woman from legally marrying? Are they required to even HAVE sex?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#289 Jun 27, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So gays have natural, normal intercourse the way straights do?
Of course. There isn't a single form of sexual expression that gay folks engage in, that isn't embraced by straight folks as well.

Of course, sex is not required for a marriage license, so I'm not sure what your point is.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#290 Jun 27, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. There isn't a single form of sexual expression that gay folks engage in, that isn't embraced by straight folks as well.
Of course, sex is not required for a marriage license, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Are you really claiming a homosexual couple engages in penis/vagina intercourse?

Certainly you are not that stupid. That means you are so desperate you are willing to an outrageous claim in a futile attempt to maintain your denial.

That's really sick, even perverted.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#291 Jun 27, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really claiming a homosexual couple engages in penis/vagina intercourse?
Which law requires verification of consummation? The type/s of sex that people are having within their marriage is completely irrelevant to the fact that they are legally married.

Ya got nuthin', Greg.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#292 Jun 27, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
1. Marriage is a relationship. Its basis is fundamentally rooted in gender distinction. At its most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a failure of mating behavior. No law can change this.
The precedent of government interest has been that marriage is the birthplace of future members of society. Ss couples have every right to pursue their own relational identity and rights, it just is not the same as marriage.
2. You know that is not honest. The basis of my argument is that a ss couple relationship is distinct from marriage for those reasons and more. You are attempting to censor those and other distinctions by dumbing down marriage to two people in a committed relationship. Something that then becomes so simple that it is discrimination to limit the number.
3. I could give a flying rip what consenting adults do in their bedroom. But when the impact of it affects my taxes and insurance, when it is demanded that I not accurately express the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of it, when it is aligned with a relationship that has cultural and religious significance, then you can be damn sure it is my business.
Smile.
1. Yes, marriage is a relationship and as such cannot be quantified in the way your are trying to do so. Your whole argument is just stupid and irrelevant. Thanks for verfying once again that your original premise is just retarded.

Arguing the traditional history of marriage, which is basically what you do here, is likewise irrelevant. We can change traditions on whim and with the stroke of a pen, or not. Welcome to America, isn't it great that we aren't bound by things just because they are traditional? Been here long?

Not the same as marriage? It is if we say it is, for all intents and purposes. And people do. And you will learn to live with it, because it's happening. Get over it.

As has been more than adequately pointed out to you, procreation is not a legitimate state interest by which it can regulate marriage. If it were no one could get married without a fertility test and the government could delcare childless marriages void if it wanted.

2. You're a moron for continuing to make this asinine argument. Oh, and how am I a "censor" for simply point out the utter stupidity of your arguments?

3. No you obviously care very much and it seems to occupy your thoughts, based on your writing here. Like I said, you are quite transparent. Also, affecting your taxes and insurance does not implicate your rights, even if true (which it most certainly is NOT).

Just like it is NOT YOUR BUSINESS. And if you think it is, just what do you think you can do about it?

Let me give you some free legal advice. There's nothing you can do except to continue to show your bigotry, ignorance and lack of logical reasoning on the Internet for all to see.

Smirk, followed by a guffaw.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#294 Jun 27, 2014
Mitts Gold Plated Taliban wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Cletus, writing sonnets is neither natural nor normal...you need to re think your use of the language. Git ur hom skool teechur to hewlp.
I also doubt that Greg Kirschmann is natural or normal. Surely an all consuming passion for all things homosexual while denouncing homosexuals in a sign of mental illness.
Or debilitating self-loathing from being a closted gay himself,
Nine Inch Balls

Chicago, IL

#295 Jun 27, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Marriage is a relationship. Its basis is fundamentally rooted in gender distinction. At its most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a failure of mating behavior. No law can change this.
The precedent of government interest has been that marriage is the birthplace of future members of society. Ss couples have every right to pursue their own relational identity and rights, it just is not the same as marriage.
2. You know that is not honest. The basis of my argument is that a ss couple relationship is distinct from marriage for those reasons and more. You are attempting to censor those and other distinctions by dumbing down marriage to two people in a committed relationship. Something that then becomes so simple that it is discrimination to limit the number.
3. I could give a flying rip what consenting adults do in their bedroom. But when the impact of it affects my taxes and insurance, when it is demanded that I not accurately express the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of it, when it is aligned with a relationship that has cultural and religious significance, then you can be damn sure it is my business.
Smile.
Regarding Point #1, Precedent. Blacks used to ride in the back of the bus. Not anymore.
Point #2, Our marriages aren't dumbed down; your responses to them are.
Point #3, Lies. My marriage has no effect on your taxes or insurance. You can continue to use this argument, but we all know that you can't avoid your preoccupation with the sex lives of gay men. You just can't stop thinking about lewd, lascivious, disgusting, filthy, degrading, demeaning , dirty gay sex.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#296 Jun 27, 2014
The five worst arguments against SSM:

http://www.nuvo.net/TheEdBlog/archives/2014/0...

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#297 Jun 27, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So gays have natural, normal intercourse the way straights do?
<quoted text>
No 'and'.
The distinction is as opposite as possible. One is the function of millions of years of evolution, the other, a violent, inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning violation of another persons body.
The sickness is clearly yours.
Smile.
Most men into anal sex are straight.
Odds are your mom has given a "backstage pass" at least once.
Don't know why you are so fixated on anal sex, butt, like any other sex act, the people involved determine how violent, harmful, unhealthy or demeaning the act is.
You are so worthless!
:)

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#298 Jun 27, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So gays have natural, normal intercourse the way straights do?
<quoted text>
No 'and'.
The distinction is as opposite as possible. One is the function of millions of years of evolution, the other, a violent, inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning violation of another persons body.
The sickness is clearly yours.
Smile.
why was your wife allowed to marry a woman?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#299 Jun 27, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your references say nothing about the letter.
letters. You claimed you had 3. Then you admitted you lied. Many saw it.

Now explain why your wife was allowed to marry a woman but you don't think other woman should be allowed the same? Is it because as two woman you're mutually sterile?

cue the music!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#300 Jun 27, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Most men into anal sex are straight.
Odds are your mom has given a "backstage pass" at least once.
Don't know why you are so fixated on anal sex, butt, like any other sex act, the people involved determine how violent, harmful, unhealthy or demeaning the act is.
You are so worthless!
:)
what I have trouble understanding is why he uses anal sex to oppose two women being married.

cue the music!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#301 Jun 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
1. Marriage is a relationship. Its basis is fundamentally rooted in gender distinction. At its most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a failure of mating behavior. No law can change this.
The precedent of government interest has been that marriage is the birthplace of future members of society. Ss couples have every right to pursue their own relational identity and rights, it just is not the same as marriage.
2. You know that is not honest. The basis of my argument is that a ss couple relationship is distinct from marriage for those reasons and more. You are attempting to censor those and other distinctions by dumbing down marriage to two people in a committed relationship. Something that then becomes so simple that it is discrimination to limit the number.
3. I could give a flying rip what consenting adults do in their bedroom. But when the impact of it affects my taxes and insurance, when it is demanded that I not accurately express the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of it, when it is aligned with a relationship that has cultural and religious significance, then you can be damn sure it is my business.
Smile.
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Yes, marriage is a relationship and as such cannot be quantified in the way your are trying to do so. Your whole argument is just stupid and irrelevant. Thanks for verfying once again that your original premise is just retarded.
Arguing the traditional history of marriage, which is basically what you do here, is likewise irrelevant. We can change traditions on whim and with the stroke of a pen, or not. Welcome to America, isn't it great that we aren't bound by things just because they are traditional? Been here long?
Not the same as marriage? It is if we say it is, for all intents and purposes. And people do. And you will learn to live with it, because it's happening. Get over it.
As has been more than adequately pointed out to you, procreation is not a legitimate state interest by which it can regulate marriage. If it were no one could get married without a fertility test and the government could delcare childless marriages void if it wanted.
2. You're a moron for continuing to make this asinine argument. Oh, and how am I a "censor" for simply point out the utter stupidity of your arguments?
3. No you obviously care very much and it seems to occupy your thoughts, based on your writing here. Like I said, you are quite transparent. Also, affecting your taxes and insurance does not implicate your rights, even if true (which it most certainly is NOT).
Just like it is NOT YOUR BUSINESS. And if you think it is, just what do you think you can do about it?
Let me give you some free legal advice. There's nothing you can do except to continue to show your bigotry, ignorance and lack of logical reasoning on the Internet for all to see.
Smirk, followed by a guffaw.
1. The evolutionary basis is not just stupid, it is really a cultural issue?

Do you understand how ignorant your claims are?

Do you understand that marriage is CROSS CULTURAL exactly because it isn't cultural, it is biological in it's most basic essence.

2. You continue in your dishonesty. You are attempting to remove core elements of marriage to impose an imposter relationship. Calling diverse genders and biological children 'asinine arguments' is, well, asinine.

3. Denial and a juvenile claim that I'm gay is your argument?

Grow up punk.

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#302 Jun 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
[QUOTE]
Grow up punk.
Smile.
Priceless. Absolutely priceless. The individual who:

1. Has no rational argument against marriage equality,
2. Spouts pseudo science word salad flibbity, jibbity mumbo jumbo,
3. Has a complete and total fixation with other men's anal cavities, and
4. Claims to have an inner lesbian who tries to sneak peaks at his nude wife

is telling another Topix poster to "grow up".

News at Nine, douche-bag. You're still as powerless today over anyone's marriage as you were the first day you landed on the Topix website. Years of disrespect toward others, and you have NOT ONE THING to show for your efforts, aside from being a total dick.

The family in Rockford must be so proud of you.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#303 Jun 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
1. Marriage is a relationship. Its basis is fundamentally rooted in gender distinction. At its most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a failure of mating behavior. No law can change this.
No law says you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
Try again, monster!
:)
KiMare wrote:
The precedent of government interest has been that marriage is the birthplace of future members of society. Ss couples have every right to pursue their own relational identity and rights, it just is not the same as marriage.
You don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
Why can't you get that through your head?
LOLSER!
KiMare wrote:
2. You know that is not honest. The basis of my argument is that a ss couple relationship is distinct from marriage for those reasons and more. You are attempting to censor those and other distinctions by dumbing down marriage to two people in a committed relationship. Something that then becomes so simple that it is discrimination to limit the number.
3. I could give a flying rip what consenting adults do in their bedroom. But when the impact of it affects my taxes and insurance, when it is demanded that I not accurately express the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of it, when it is aligned with a relationship that has cultural and religious significance, then you can be damn sure it is my business.
Smile.
You homophobes act like gay people don't pay taxes.

KiMare wrote:
1. The evolutionary basis is not just stupid, it is really a cultural issue?
Do you understand how ignorant your claims are?
Do you understand that marriage is CROSS CULTURAL exactly because it isn't cultural, it is biological in it's most basic essence.
Do you understand you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry?


KiMare wrote:
2. You continue in your dishonesty. You are attempting to remove core elements of marriage to impose an imposter relationship. Calling diverse genders and biological children 'asinine arguments' is, well, asinine.
3. Denial and a juvenile claim that I'm gay is your argument?
Grow up punk.
Smile.
Your parents failed at reproduction, they had you. That's a failure! Should their marriage be annulled?
Your mom would have scraped you out of her womb if she had known. Bet she told you that!

LOL!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#304 Jun 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>what I have trouble understanding is why he uses anal sex to oppose two women being married.
cue the music!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =XVSRm80WzZkXX
That makes sense, huh?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#306 Jun 29, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes sense, huh?
Well little Kimmie is so fixated on anuses I guess he seems to forget that not every woman is as into it as he is.

Notice he still can't explain why it's OK for his wife to marry his "inner lesbian" but it's not OK for lesbians to marry other woman.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#307 Jun 29, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
1. Marriage is a relationship. Its basis is fundamentally rooted in gender distinction. At its most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a failure of mating behavior. No law can change this.
The precedent of government interest has been that marriage is the birthplace of future members of society. Ss couples have every right to pursue their own relational identity and rights, it just is not the same as marriage.
2. You know that is not honest. The basis of my argument is that a ss couple relationship is distinct from marriage for those reasons and more. You are attempting to censor those and other distinctions by dumbing down marriage to two people in a committed relationship. Something that then becomes so simple that it is discrimination to limit the number.
3. I could give a flying rip what consenting adults do in their bedroom. But when the impact of it affects my taxes and insurance, when it is demanded that I not accurately express the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of it, when it is aligned with a relationship that has cultural and religious significance, then you can be damn sure it is my business.
Smile.
<quoted text>
1. The evolutionary basis is not just stupid, it is really a cultural issue?
Do you understand how ignorant your claims are?
Do you understand that marriage is CROSS CULTURAL exactly because it isn't cultural, it is biological in it's most basic essence.
2. You continue in your dishonesty. You are attempting to remove core elements of marriage to impose an imposter relationship. Calling diverse genders and biological children 'asinine arguments' is, well, asinine.
3. Denial and a juvenile claim that I'm gay is your argument?
Grow up punk.
Smile.
Nation’s Largest Presbyterian Denomination Embraces Same-Sex Marriage
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/06/19/3451...

so you oppose religious freedom then Kimmie

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#308 Jun 29, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
[QUOTE]
Grow up punk.
Smile.
You're impotent, Hunty. For all of your efforts, nobody's life (including marriage) has ever been affected by your ramblings. When you're dead and gone, you'll have changed nothing.

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.

Wisconsin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Michigan recount now in doubt; Pennsylvania set... 4 hr Licks5109 2
News Why are people giving Jill Stein millions of do... Mon spud 41
News Wisconsin Dems Slam Trump Backers Mon Crushy9254 65
News Everything You Need to Know About the Election ... Dec 3 EL1SE ELEESE ELYSE 1
News Did Republicans Rig the Election? Nov 30 Not my President 76
News After the Election, Trump Maintains his Bizarre... Nov 29 anti establishment 5
News Voter suppression helped decide presidential el... Nov 28 spud 22
More from around the web