Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61402 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.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34747 Mar 11, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
My argument is that SSM has proven moral disapproval is not a valid reason to deny marriage. And moral disapproval is the biggest reason for the laws against polygamy, the court has said this in Reynolds which the modern court has cited.
So if we can't deny SSM because of moral disapproval, we can't deny polygamy because of moral disapproval.
And yet we do.

Gee, too bad for Frankie.....
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#34748 Mar 11, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If there are no valid reasons to ban polyga-marriage, then how is it no one has been able to overturn a single ban in any state over the past 235+ years?
Either their ARE valid reasons, or the pro-polyga-marriage people and their lawyers are VERY incompetent.
Which is it?
Even some LGBT people with no opinion on polygamy here have told you that's a red herring.

Why do it over and over still?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#34749 Mar 11, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
With all that said, I still find this an annoying tangent in the discussion of gay marriage. One has nothing to do with the other.
Quite the contrary. Both polygamy and SSM represent fundamental alterations in American marital jurisprudence, and marriage as a matter if public policy. One seeks to eliminate monogamy, or the number, whereas the other seeks to eliminate conjugality, or the nature.

Why is conjugality expendable, but not monogamy?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34750 Mar 11, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Same for your marriage too. So by your logic we need to ban your marriage. I disagree, but OK Sheeplie, if you really insist.... It's a shame I know but, you win!
No, we just need to maintain the current limit for ANY adult to marrying just ONE 13 y/o at a time.

That's what polyga-marriage bans do.

They limit EVERYONE to marrying JUST ONE 13 y/o max.

Same-sex or opposite sex, it doesn't matter. We're ALL limited to marrying just one 13 y/o at a time.

NO ONE gets to marry more than one 13 y/o at a time.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#34751 Mar 11, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you spend an awful lot of time discussing me.
Hard not too. You are so outrageous.

You ignore the man who says dog bites man. But the man who says man bites dog gets all the attention.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34752 Mar 11, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The old "polygamy should be illegal because it's against the law" argument AGAIN?
Oy vey.
I see you're drunk again.

You asked why 3 men can't marry.

They can't marry because it's illegal.

If you wanted to know why it's ILLEGAL for 3 men to marry, then that's what you should have asked.

Now sober up and try again...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#34753 Mar 11, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm actually hopeful that a serious public discussion of legalizing polyga-marriage will cause states to rethink their CURRENT laws allowing adults to marry children.
Remember when they passed civil union laws for same-sex couples they were limited to adults 18+ y/o only.
The problem is you can't restrict marriage for just one group to 18+ y/o, so the law would have to be changed for everyone in every state. I've long supported such a law.
That's a perfectly reasonable aside and a concern in any marriage. But it's not a reason to ban any particular type of marriage unless you want to ban all marriage. It's everyone or no one in this free country.

Do you understand this concept?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#34754 Mar 11, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything has already been said on both sides of the gay marriage issue.
This is just a way to kill time & torment the anti-gays while waiting for the next court ruling overturning yet another marriage ban.
Gay "anti gays".

French Homosexuals Join Demonstration Against Gay Marriage



By Wendy Wright
NEW YORK, January 18 (C-FAM) Perhaps as many as a million people marched in Paris last Sunday and at French embassies around the world against proposed legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in France. One of the surprises in the French campaign for traditional marriage is that homosexuals have joined pro-family leaders and activists in the effort.

“The rights of children trump the right to children,” was the catchphrase of protesters like Jean Marc, a French mayor who is also homosexual.

Even though France is known for its laissez faire attitude toward sex, pro-family leaders were quick to organize huge numbers. When President Hollande announced his intentions to legalize homosexual marriage last November, a demonstration against the proposal gathered 100,000 protesters. And then what started as a debate about homosexual rights changed to one about a child’s right to a mother and a father, and the numbers in opposition exploded and has come to include unlikely allies.

Xavier Bongibault, an atheist homosexual, is a prominent spokesman against the bill.“In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families,” he said in an interview.“[T]he most serious study done so far ... demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.”

Jean Marc, who has lived with a man for 20 years, insists,“The LGBT movement that speaks out in the media ... They don’t speak for me. As a society we should not be encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural.”

Outraged by the bill, 66-year old Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law who has done relief work in war-torn areas, told Le Figaro he “was raised by two women” and that he “suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation."

"As soon as I learned that the government was going to officialize marriage between two people of the same sex, I was thrown into disarray,” he explained. It would be “institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably. In that there is an injustice that I can in no way allow." If the women who raised him had been married,“I would have jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and before the European Court of Human Rights, for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad."

A pro-family coalition that includes homosexuals is certainly different than in the United States and likely most places around the world. It is unclear why at least some French homosexuals would not only favor man-woman marriage only, but would campaign against homosexual marriage. It could be that France has allowed for civil unions, for all couples, for more than a decade.

Jean Marc, who has lived with a man for 20 years, insists,“The LGBT movement that speaks out in the media ... They don’t speak for me. As a society we should not be encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural.”

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34755 Mar 11, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You really think no one in the world wants a poly marriage? Oy vey.
Where did I say that?

Wow, you really ARE hammered, and it's not even noon yet.

When you sober up, see if you can find one polyga-family in this country who wants to get polyga-married and is going to challenge the state ban in court.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34756 Mar 11, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage as defined as what, other than the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife?
The new definition of marriage, which for the past 10 years has included same-sex couples.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#34757 Mar 11, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything has already been said on both sides of the gay marriage issue.
This is just a way to kill time & torment the anti-gays while waiting for the next court ruling overturning yet another marriage ban.
You are more interested in tormenting people than calmly, intelligently and honorably discussing the topic. That has become glaringly obvious. You condemn a whole class of people just to torment someone who is advocating for their rights that you don't like. And you lie so casually it seems part of you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34758 Mar 11, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Priceless. Ask the judge that! PLEASE ask the judge that.
What judge?

(let's see if you can figure it out through your alcohol haze)
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#34759 Mar 11, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet I have actually taken POSITIVE ACTION to end inequality for same-sex couples.
By YOUR OWN ADMISSION, you're on here only to argue and have no intention of filing a lawsuit or lobbying your elected representatives or join a public protest for equality.
Now whine again how you just want to be able to discuss polyga-marriage without accomplishing anything.....
Red herring. This is a discussion forum you are allowed to discuss here without being actively involved in anything else. Not been to college?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#34760 Mar 11, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet we do.
Gee, too bad for Frankie.....
Indeed you do. Too bad for honesty and intellectualism.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34761 Mar 11, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are just throwing out red herrings and straw men. Because you have no valid argument.
Let's list a few-
"It will be another 235 years!"
"because a man can then legally mass rape thusands of 13 year olds!"
"Because no one, not even three people in the whole wide world wants it!"
And etc...
Unless you have a case in court before a judge, I don't need to give any reason whatsoever.

What are you going to do about it? Cry?

All I need to do is absolutely NOTHING and polygamy will remain illegal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34762 Mar 11, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Red herring. But you know that.
Green squid.

But you know that.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#34763 Mar 11, 2014
Gay "anti gays" for Sheepie

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-215...

I'm a gay man who opposes gay marriage. Does that make ME a bigot, Mr Cameron?

By ANDREW PIERCE

PUBLISHED: 16:56 EST, 12 June 2012 | UPDATED: 06:55 EST, 15 June 2012

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34764 Mar 11, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
WHEN it will be legal I am not arguing, that's your red herring. I am arguing it SHOULD be legal.
The QUOTE is from SCOTUS straight out of Reynolds.
“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.”
And arguing that is SHOULD be legal is YOUR green squid.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34765 Mar 11, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
<quoted text>
Yet still remained a MALE FEMALE formally recognized union. Sooooooooo.....despite all those changes over the past 600 years, the composition, male female, of the marital union, stayed the same.
Just as it remained a union of 2 people over the past 600 years.

You focus on the gender of the people.

We focus on the number of the people.

If you can limit by gender, then others can (and of course did) limit by race or religion or some other equally irrelevant characteristic.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#34766 Mar 11, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The new definition of marriage, which for the past 10 years has included same-sex couples.
Ten years? Gee that long? Ya don't say.....well that explains a lot. So now marriage is not only a right, but includes "same sex" marriage....at least in some states...and not necessarily a right, but legally recognized none the less.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 1 min californio 128
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Obama is a joke 1,403,931
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 4 min WasteWater 1,538
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min DanFromSmithville 201,229
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 7 min woodtick57 5,384
News Despite her many roles, Hillary Clinton still h... 7 min YouDidntBuildThat 189
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 7 min Yeah 391,181
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 13 min AMERICAN SUNSHINE 232,953
News Trump bounces into the lead 1 hr WasteWater 58
More from around the web