Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61362 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

#13391 Dec 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
When someone lies, I call them on it. It's relevant to point out someone is a liar. So you don't trust what they say is truth.
Which is precisely why no one on here believes you actually support polygamy & incest.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13392 Dec 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you can fire every teacher you find out wore a giant penis suit in a gay pride parade.
Go for it.
Now you're making some sense. Very good!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13393 Dec 10, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I very much doubt it, as you don't seem to have one.
<quoted text>
KiMare, you regularly assert matters of faith into a discussion of civil law. You may believe what you like, that has no bearing whatsoever on legal rights or protection.
<quoted text>
There isn't, just as there isn't a legal protection to procreate. Procreation is utterly irrelevant to the legal rights and protections of marriage. Were you not an idiot, you would understand that.
<quoted text>
Once again, procreation is utterly irrelevant to the legal protections of marriage.
<quoted text>
You are correct, this is reaffirmed when you make stupid assertions like that procreation is any way related to the legal protections of marriage.
<quoted text>
Aww, everyone look at the smug smirking imbecile, who doesn't realize they just publicly made a fool of themselves. Aren't they adorable?
It has the leg of natural procreation to stand on. That can’t be eradicated. Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children. A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner. Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other. Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order. Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia

"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels

Why is deceit and denial endemic in homosexuals?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13394 Dec 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your brothers and sisters suck for air.
Equal protection applies to everyone. That's what equal means dummy. Everyone gets it. Even people you hate.
So a 6 y/o child has the right to vote??

And marry?

And buy a house?

And drive a car?

Similarly situated- learn what it means.

Btw, nice personal attack on my siblings. I'm sure that's going to convince then you support your polygamy & incest goals.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13395 Dec 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're making some sense. Very good!
I doubt Garylloyd employs many teachers, much less any that appeared in a giant penis suit during a gay pride parade.

So I'm not really worried he's in a position to fire any. Not to mention the teacher would have a good free speech lawsuit.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13396 Dec 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument against polygamy is what I'm talking about dummy. You don't have one except appleas to tradition and some silly nonsense about arithmetic.
You're gonna have to trust I really support SSM. Or else your part in this conversation is idiotic.
Please remember! I support marriage equality and you do not.
Obviously our argument against polygamy and incest is good too, since we've managed to keep it illegal.

I don't have to trust anyone on an anonymous chat site. Especially those who haven't earned that trust.

I remember you claim to support marriage for same-sex couples, but then you also claim to support marriage for polygamists & incestuous couples as well. Which is why I seriously doubt any of your claims.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#13397 Dec 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if that were true, it would be a non issue. Get a real argument.
No it's the whole issue with you. Bottoms up!

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#13398 Dec 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a discussion forum. I am a dumbass troll with no argument.
Yep! Couldn't agree more.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#13399 Dec 10, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that's just it, isn't it, Einstein?
Women who flash their boobs are not teaching school -- if we find out, they're out the door.
Are you saying that should be the same policy for men who wear penis suits in your gay pride parade, or are you just giving yet another unsolicited public masturbation exhibition?
If they do so in the classroom they should be disciplined. Otherwise, you have no argument.

Just a lot of w@nk fantasies, which are very homoerotic.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13400 Dec 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The Brown family had to flee Utah to avoid prosecution for bigamy.
Maybe you, along with Terry, Liddie, Mikey, and Rosie, could saddle up your rainbow ponies, form a posse, and go after them. Bring 'em to justice.
I'm actually surprised they were going to bring any charges; I mean it IS Utah after all.
It be like trying to enforce sodomy laws in Province town.
The children can't be held accountable for the criminal acts of their parents.
The parents most definitely SHOULD be prosecuted.
So what should be charged with? Having sex out of wedlock? Purporting to married even though they're not legally married? Engaging in "spiritual marriage"? Fathering children, or giving birth to children, out of wedlock? If that's the charge, the NBA, might b in trouble.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13401 Dec 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny! "therefore equal protection doesn't apply" Priceless.
Walk me through this Flash OK? We all have the right to equal protection except when it doesn't apply?
We all have the right to equal protection of the laws. But that can only apply to those similarly situated.

Here's some examples to help you understand:

-Adults and children are not similarly situated, therefore they don't have the equal protection of laws which apply to adults such as voting and marriage and property rights and driving and drinking etc.

-A married person and a single person isn't similarly situated, therefore they don't have the equal protection of laws which apply to married people such as immigration sponsorship, immunity from testifying against each other, tax breaks, insurance breaks, etc.

And a group of people isn't similarly situated to a couple, therefore they don't have the equal protection of laws which apply to couples such as the right to marry or joint adoption.

You don't need to be identical, just similarly situated- i.e. single, adult, not closely related.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13402 Dec 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously our argument against polygamy and incest is good too, since we've managed to keep it illegal.
Yet it still exist, provides entertainment via reality shows, and income for TLC. Good thing it's illegal. Maybe that part of the marketing plan.

Here's another "illegal" family, no, not illegal immigrants. Man oh man, Sheepie and the Rainbow pony posse, are going to be busy.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20729...
Move over Sister Wives, there's a new polygamous family in town.

My Five Wives is TLC's latest foray into the world of polygamy. The one-hour special profiles Brady Williams, his five wives and 24 children, who all live together on a large family property outside of Salt Lake City, Utah.

Brady and his wives maintain that they practice polygamy not only for religious reasons, but also out of mutual love and commitment to each other. They are estranged from their church and therefore shunned by their community and many family members, but the Williams family believes the sacrifices are worth it.

Here's what's up with the wives:

Paulie, the First Wife: Brady and Paulie have been married for 21 years and have six children together (ranging in age from 9 to 20). A dental hygienist, Paulie was raised in a polygamist family but supports her oldest daughter who is in a monogamous marriage.

Robyn, the Second Wife: Brady and Robyn have been married for 20 years and have five children together (ranging in age from 9 to 19). Growing up in a polygamist family, Robyn always expected to be a plural wife.

Rosemary, the Third Wife: Married to Brady for 18 years, Rosemary is the mother to four children, ages 11 to 17. She is studying for her teaching degree in music and biology at a local college.

Nonie, the Fourth Wife: When she first met Brady, Nonie was living in Montana, so the couple dated long-distance before they got engaged. After 15 years of marriage and five children, Nonie is the only wife that works with Brady on a regular basis on the family's construction business.

Rhonda, the Fifth Wife: After marrying into the family 12 years ago, Rhonda confesses that it took eight years before she "really" felt like part of the family. The mother of four admits that while there are downsides to polygamy, she loves that her kids will always have other mothers around that love them.

My Five Wives will air Sept. 15 on TLC.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13403 Dec 10, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You often bring up Mardi Gras as an example, you must think it's a straight only event. How many women have their "boobs hanging out" in a classroom? If a gay wants to teach school, that's fine, as long as they leave their gay activist BS at home.
Probably about as many men wear "giant penis suits" or "assless chaps" in a classroom.

If a straight wants to teach school, that's fine, as long as they leave their hetero activist BS at home.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13404 Dec 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no rationality to bigotry.
This from a polyphobe.....priceless!
d pantz

Portage, MI

#13405 Dec 10, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant. What if they are? What men and women do in a pride parade is inconsequential. It has no bearing on their capacity to perform their job.
Dumb troll. Very dumb troll.
in a public place??? Do you know that there might be kids on the streets??? WTF, would okay straight people running down the road naked??? Quit while you're ahead ,sicko.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13406 Dec 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you, along with Terry, Liddie, Mikey, and Rosie, could saddle up your rainbow ponies, form a posse, and go after them. Bring 'em to justice.
<quoted text>
It be like trying to enforce sodomy laws in Province town.
<quoted text>
So what should be charged with? Having sex out of wedlock? Purporting to married even though they're not legally married? Engaging in "spiritual marriage"? Fathering children, or giving birth to children, out of wedlock? If that's the charge, the NBA, might b in trouble.
Except of course sodomy isn't illegal and any laws banning it are unconstitutional.

They should be charged with bigamy, which IS illegal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13407 Dec 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet it still exist, provides entertainment via reality shows, and income for TLC. Good thing it's illegal. Maybe that part of the marketing plan.
Or maybe it's all just fake as part of their "marketing plan"?

Some people will do just about anything to get on TV and make a little money.

Either way, just because some people continue to commit a crime in spite of it being illegal isn't a reason to decriminalize it. If that's your logic, we'd have to decriminalize murder, rape, incest, robbery, child molestation, and practically every law on the books.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13408 Dec 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
All the legal experts agree same-sex couples have the right to marry; the only disagreement if WHEN will the last ban preventing us from exercising that right be overturned.
ALL the legal experts? You've validated their credentials and taken a poll?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#13409 Dec 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You prove my points lides;
Where did I say anything about imposing beliefs on others? I simply noted a common and clear fact about God. It takes faith to believe.
It takes stupidity to believe in your god. It's clear he does not exist.
KiMare wrote:
Why would there need to be demands on a couple that needs protection NOT to procreate? Especially when compared to a duplicate gendered couple who can NEVER mutually procreate!
No question about who is stupid...
Smirk.
You.
The ability to procreate is not needed to marry.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#13410 Dec 10, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
They are always latent..gets boring doesn't it?
I can't imagine why else they would care.
:)

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 Comey speculates Russians may have damaging inf... 4 min Lawrence Wolf 264
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min mdbuilder 1,744,707
News Border Patrol assists in rescue of 56 illegal a... 5 min tomin cali 1
News Kremlin: Trump invited Putin to White House, bu... 8 min ardith 335
News Will Trump Fire Rosenstein? It May Not Matter. 8 min Lawrence Wolf 52
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 8 min Rednek 71,548
News Bernie Sanders Says 'Trump's Agenda Is Dead' if... 11 min Lawrence Wolf 13
Paid In Full: Movie 12 min Black_Prince_12MMM 36
News 'Get on the Right Side': Shooting Survivors Dec... 31 min Truth 1,362