Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61394 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.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6546 Oct 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Did anyone ever use that argument against same sex marriage? No. Why? Because it is stupid. There are perfectly good laws against all the horrors you ignorantly and hatefully associate with polygamy. Prosecute the criminal, not his marriage.
You argue against marriage equality poorly. If I used your arguments against same sex marriage you would scream bloody murder and file hate crime charges.
I support marriage equality and you do not.
Again, that post was addressing the incest restriction, not the number restriction. Interesting you keep conflating the two.... Freudian slip?

Again, the incest restriction is about child abuse.

Child Abuse.

There are other considerations including but not limited to procreation, but child abuse alone provides a compelling governmental interest sufficient for the restriction. Removing the incest restriction would facilitate training a child from birth, to be the eventual spouse of the sibling or parent.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6547 Oct 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the child abuse if two adult siblings marry? Where is the child abuse if 3 adult men marry?
So I guess your best argument so far is that polygamy and incest marriage should not be allowed because they are "a different argument." Priceless.
And yet you recognize they are different while trying to claim they are not, and employ pejoratives rather than addressing the merits.

Again, I'm pointing out the legal hurdles you will need to overcome if you ever decide to try to make your case.

Removing the incest prohibition allows a sibling or parent to train a child to become their spouse once they reach legal age. Living under the same roof, this allows a pervasive pattern of child abuse. It would only add further encouragement to the many who already abuse children, whether older sibling, or parent. This is a well established legal concept you will need to overcome, and so far you have presented nothing to make your case. Because the science as well as a large body of family law is against you, this will be very difficult.

Yes, the restrictions on age, number, informed consent, incest, and gender, are all different restrictions, and therefore different arguments. Age and informed consent are closely related. Number is very different. Gender has nothing to do with any of the others.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6548 Oct 8, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
He sees, but he is a species of troll. His sole purpose in this is to draw you into an argument based on polygamy, and way from his lack of any logical argument regarding same sex marriage. Pietro is the same.
When we let him steer the conversation away from the real topic, he counts it as a win.
Seems like a boring hobby, to me, but I guess it's all he has.
Can you believe he is actually trying to argue for incest?

Yes, it is clearly troll behavior. I do it for exercise, and to pick up different perspectives and resources. But not a lot of people left to have a rational discussion with. A lot of the reasonable ones have already been converted.:)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6549 Oct 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Did anyone ever use that argument against same sex marriage? No. Why? Because it is stupid. There are perfectly good laws against all the horrors you ignorantly and hatefully associate with polygamy. Prosecute the criminal, not his marriage.
You argue against marriage equality poorly. If I used your arguments against same sex marriage you would scream bloody murder and file hate crime charges.
I support marriage equality and you do not.
If you look at that post again, you will see I was only addressing incest. While true it is often associated with polygamy, it is also occurs in two parent families as well.

You do not support marriage equality. You support changing the body of law as well as social structure, to something unexplained but entirely different, and as yet undefined. You have yet to make a case for overcoming the historical and legal hurdles facing you. Yet you claim I am not doing well at making an argument I'm not trying to make. I support equal treatment under the laws currently in effect, also known as equality, while you are promoting changing the laws currently in effect to something very different and as yet unknown, unexplained, and undefined. Entirely different is not equal.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6550 Oct 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
If you remove the number restriction, why not 100?
Indeed. Why not?

You would find that it is self limiting. How many people want to enter into a 1000 person marriage? How many people want to enter in any poly marriage? Do you know of any group that large that does? Who are you to declare they cannot? And even if they did, what's the harm to you?

There are polygamist relationships now. How would it harm anyone to bring them out of the shadows and encourage their stability, legitimacy and permanence. Just like we did with SSM. Marriage is good for society. All marriage. Even ones you don't like.

Stop being a hypocrite.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6551 Oct 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you believe he is actually trying to argue for incest?
Yes, it is clearly troll behavior. I do it for exercise, and to pick up different perspectives and resources. But not a lot of people left to have a rational discussion with. A lot of the reasonable ones have already been converted.:)
Yep!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6552 Oct 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
If you look at that post again, you will see I was only addressing incest. While true it is often associated with polygamy, it is also occurs in two parent families as well.
You do not support marriage equality. You support changing the body of law as well as social structure, to something unexplained but entirely different, and as yet undefined. You have yet to make a case for overcoming the historical and legal hurdles facing you. Yet you claim I am not doing well at making an argument I'm not trying to make. I support equal treatment under the laws currently in effect, also known as equality, while you are promoting changing the laws currently in effect to something very different and as yet unknown, unexplained, and undefined. Entirely different is not equal.
You are arguing against marriage equality and doing it rather poorly.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6553 Oct 8, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
He sees, but he is a species of troll. His sole purpose in this is to draw you into an argument based on polygamy, and way from his lack of any logical argument regarding same sex marriage. Pietro is the same.
When we let him steer the conversation away from the real topic, he counts it as a win.
Seems like a boring hobby, to me, but I guess it's all he has.
Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant.

Why are you against marriage equality? The answer is not "Because Frankie is a species of troll."
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6554 Oct 8, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep!
Yes. I am arguing for incest. Why can't I marry my sister? I can marry my first cousin.

I hope you understand. I am arguing for marriage equality and you are arguing against it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6555 Oct 8, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, those laws have been dropping like flies, because people like you who support them can't offer a rational defense of them.
People like me? People like you. I support marriage equality, and you do not.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6556 Oct 8, 2013
Why not wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry you must have missed my other message to you, the one about that if gay marriage is passed it won't affect you at all. Sorry we can't reproduce, but if this law won't affect your life at all why are you so against it. It seems as if you just hate us. And I really don't get our smirking and smiling thing at the end of your messages, it just makes you seem mean and who wants to side with someone who is mean just because you have a different view in a subject.
You only expose what an idiot you are asserting something that eliminates children from consideration and breaks the bonds of parent/child will have no affect.

However, I simply note that ss couples simply do not equate to marriage at any level.

Smile.

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#6557 Oct 8, 2013
Grandpa Dizzo sure has some schtick. Incest as well as sex with a corpse. His sister/first cousin has been long dead, much like that dead horse topic of polygamy he uses as an excuse to post and attract attention. Some entertaining retirement plan.
Aidan Vander

Australia

#6558 Oct 8, 2013
Eileen Jael wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't tell me about you & your wife. Tell it to God & repent of this lesbian devil wickedness before God severely punishes you & yours. If you don't want to believe in God or the Bible, that's your choice. I, however, don't appreciate you throwing your sin in my face. If you want sodomy, God will have you answer for this sin.
And when exactly did you choose to be Hetrosexual Eileen? Have a think about it, when did you sit and think "hmmm i think im going to be straight". We have a great saying here in Australia. Go pull a cow's c*nt over your head and get a bull to fuck some sense into you
Why not

Centereach, NY

#6559 Oct 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You only expose what an idiot you are asserting something that eliminates children from consideration and breaks the bonds of parent/child will have no affect.
However, I simply note that ss couples simply do not equate to marriage at any level.
Smile.
Your comments really challenge me, they make me wounder what kind of person you are. Oh I'm so sorry we can't reproduce sorry, but otherwise you have no argument. Is this really what you do in your free time try and make people unequal, why don't you just focus on rights that actually affect you. You should re-evaluate yourself before you go around calling people idiots when you don't know me at all.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6560 Oct 8, 2013
NE Jade wrote:
Grandpa Dizzo sure has some schtick. Incest as well as sex with a corpse. His sister/first cousin has been long dead, much like that dead horse topic of polygamy he uses as an excuse to post and attract attention. Some entertaining retirement plan.
Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. Why are you a hypocrite?

Some youth.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6561 Oct 8, 2013
NE Jade wrote:
Grandpa Dizzo sure has some schtick. Incest as well as sex with a corpse. His sister/first cousin has been long dead, much like that dead horse topic of polygamy he uses as an excuse to post and attract attention. Some entertaining retirement plan.
Remember when the bigots compared same sex marriage to sex with a corpse? Now you're doing it against someone else's marriage. Classic hypocrite.

I can marry my first cousin. Why not my sister?
Jew Mudder Clucker

Cummington, MA

#6563 Oct 8, 2013
NE Jade wrote:
Grandpa Dizzo sure has some schtick. Incest as well as sex with a corpse. His sister/first cousin has been long dead, much like that dead horse topic of polygamy he uses as an excuse to post and attract attention. Some entertaining retirement plan.
WTF is it with the two guys embracing are you a pervert or somethin?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6564 Oct 8, 2013
Aidan Vander wrote:
<quoted text>
And when exactly did you choose to be Hetrosexual Eileen? Have a think about it, when did you sit and think "hmmm i think im going to be straight". We have a great saying here in Australia. Go pull a cow's c*nt over your head and get a bull to fuck some sense into you
I chose to be hetero when I saw sweet Eileen Greenberg's titties in sixth grade! Woo Hoo!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6565 Oct 8, 2013
Jew Mudder Clucker wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF is it with the two guys embracing are you a pervert or somethin?
Jade is posting about sex with a corpse. Getting pretty creepy around here since he showed up!
NE Jade

Cummington, MA

#6566 Oct 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I chose to be hetero when I saw sweet Eileen Greenberg's titties in sixth grade! Woo Hoo!
I chose to be gay when my dog sticky humped my leg in 6th grade. Woo Hoo!

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 Trump soaks up the adulation, brags about victory 2 min TRUMP WINNERS 66
News Ohio, Michigan electors say they won't switch v... 3 min GrowUp 1
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min RoxLo 1,458,014
News The Trump victory, the threat to California's g... 3 min tomin cali 7
News Green Party drops bid for Pa. election recount 6 min TRUMP WINNERS 24
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 7 min freedom2016 1,983
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min IND 252,987
News As anger over election of Donald Trump erupts, ... 23 min freedom2016 2,897
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 24 min Independent patriot 403,560
More from around the web