Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61405 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: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#13414 Dec 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Takes exactly the same amount of faith to be positive God doesn't exist as it does to be positive she does.
No, stupid, it does not.
If god existed, there would be evidence of his existence.
But there is none.
So, any rational person would conclude he doesn't exist.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#13415 Dec 10, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
And there you have it...
We were talking about men in penis suits and this fellow -- Dusty Mangina -- thinks they should be allowed to teach school. The point here is this is the mentality we'll soon have in every classroom in America if the insanity continues. It's the direction these people are taking -- "There's not a single thing wrong with a man in a penis suit marching down Main Street."
Say, Dusty, how about the guy in bottomless chaps who let's his "top" lead him down Main Street on a dog leash?
Would you let him teach school too?
Chaps are by definition bottomless.
Why do you add the bottomless?
Just to bring that image of a man's firm cheeks framed in leather to mind?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#13416 Dec 10, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
And it's what you DON'T think about, Rose.
In your pea-sized brain same-sex marriage is about letting people who are in love get married. That's the talking point you've adopted and that's all you want to talk about.
Actually, I never use love in my argument.
It's all about equal protection.
garylloyd wrote:
You certainly don't want to talk about men in penis suits and on dog leashes marching down Main Street
No, have no desire to talk about that, but I'm sure there are many sex chat forums where you can find people who want to.
garylloyd wrote:
and that's because there are no talking points on that -- you'd have to wing it on your own and that's something you neither have the education nor intelligence to do.
These men in penis suits want to sexualize youth and they would not be able to do it without useful idiots like you, Rose.
Rose's Law...

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#13417 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.
You just made that up.
garylloyd wrote:
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?
You're really into those penis suits, huh?
gary, nobody else gives a damn about them.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#13418 Dec 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It has the leg of natural procreation to stand on...snip...
You don't have to be able to able to reproduce in order to marry.
Next.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13419 Dec 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it hasn't.
Either way it's still 100% irrelevant to marriage for same-sex couples.
Yes it has. So sorry. try again, insert another 2 cents please.

The fact is most gay men (about 66%) do anal sex, most straight men (about 60%) don't do anal sex. Of the straight men who have done anal sex, most (74%) have experimented with it only. Of the gay men who do anal sex, they do it routinely.

Nothing to be ashamed of, just facts. I attach no value judgements to these numbers, you shouldn't either. But I insist they are correct. If you say they are not, prove me wrong.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13420 Dec 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is precisely why no one on here believes you actually support polygamy & incest.
That's a common tactic among dishonest fools like yourself. Trying to make me prove my sincerity because you have no argument against mine on the topic. It's not gonna work sunshine. Even if I wasn't sincere in my support for marriage equality, you still have no argument against mine. I support marriage equality and you do not.

See Rose_NoHo about red herrings and straw men, she's an expert.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13421 Dec 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Here's something to help you along. I support marriage equality and you do not.

Your ridiculous "seeks extra protection" argument is just that. Ridiculous. No one is seeking "greater" protection you dunderhead, just equal, which we are all supposedly granted. But not if you were King eh? Good thing you're not.

Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as your marriage. No "greater", but certainly no less.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13422 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.
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.
Every polygamist I have ever encountered supports SSM. It's the very rare homosexual who supports it though. What's wrong with this picture?

It's that the selfish fools think polygamy is just a plot against their marriage.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13423 Dec 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
This from a polyphobe.....priceless!
Sheeple is not just a run of the mill polyphobe he's a very vicious and rather stupid one. He doesn't notice his hypocrisy. Gay good straight bad.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13424 Dec 10, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I never stated a position on polygamy, moron.
What to talk about it?
Go to a polygamy forum.
You won't because you don't give a damn about polygamy, as long as people of the same sex aren't married to each other.
If you wanted to discuss polygamy, you'd go to a polygamy forum.
There must be at least one on the internet.
But you just want to troll the forum called, "Gay marriage".
Right. You won't state your position because it would reveal your hypocrisy. You are very obviously against marriage equality or else why so angry at me? Don't shoot the messenger. You're a hypocrite, you're really mad at yourself.

I support marriage equality for every consenting adult who wants to marry. And you don't. So climb down off your gay horse and get a credible argument why. Then maybe we can talk. "I'm not saying" says a lot dummy.

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13425 Dec 10, 2013
Rose_BlowHole notices her hypocrisy but doesn't deal with it well. She just dumbly lashes out and tries to censor polygamy away. Sheeple doesn't notice his hypocrisy though. SSM Good Poly Bad. Duh.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13426 Dec 10, 2013
Marriage. There is no one right way.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13427 Dec 10, 2013
If polygamy were made legal, it would still be so relatively rare that Sheeple and Rose would probably never have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family.

Prop 8 was directed against polygamy too. Sure polygamy is still illegal, but prop 8 made it double damn illegal. Prop 8's demise was a victory for polygamy too. A victory for marriage equality. Sorry it includes people some of you clowns hate. But that's how equality is. Look at all the bigots who are mad at you for SSM. You are them when you argue against polygamy.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13428 Dec 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
It has the leg of natural procreation to stand on. That can’t be eradicated.
Actually, KiMare, it doesn't. Couples who can't procreate are regularly allowed to marry, which disproves your infantile assertion. What is more, legal marriage is in no way needed to procreate. Fully 40% of births in this country are to out of wedlock parents, and the state does not intervene in those cases.

You see, dimwit, there is no correlation between procreation and the legal protection of marriage.

I would defy you to find any state statute with a procreative element.
KiMare wrote:
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.
No, they exist, historically, to secure property rights. It appears that you are ignorant even ofhte historical reasons for marriage.

Of course, history is irrelevant to law in our own society. Here, all people are guarantee equal protection under the law, and thus far, you have lacked the mental capacity to offer a valid argument against allowing same sex individuals to marry.

One could infer that you are too dumb to do so.
KiMare wrote:
"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?
Gee, KiMare, those are some lovely quotes you have found.

Now, are you smart enough to find a couple that would justify denying same sex couples the legal protection of marry?

I don't think you are.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13429 Dec 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
If polygamy were made legal,
You can stop there, moron Frankie.

You see, polygamy is both irrelevant to the topic, and further it does not seek equal protection of the law for two people (as already exists in every state in the union), it seeks extraordinary protection for three or more.

Your regular return to this inept and off topic argument tends to indicate that you have nothing to offer on the topic at hand, and are apparently too stupid to make an on topic argument, or for that matter to understand that three or more is greater than two.

Congratulations, Frankie, with each renewed off topic post, you reaffirm that you are an imbecile.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#13430 Dec 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a common tactic among dishonest fools like yourself. Trying to make me prove my sincerity because you have no argument against mine on the topic. It's not gonna work sunshine. Even if I wasn't sincere in my support for marriage equality, you still have no argument against mine. I support marriage equality and you do not.
See Rose_NoHo about red herrings and straw men, she's an expert.
Only common if you were sincere and intelligent about it..It's not polygamy you want, Polygyny is what you're really after..Oink Oink..Ah the Good life Yuk Yuk! LOL
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13431 Dec 10, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You can stop there, moron Frankie.
You see, polygamy is both irrelevant to the topic, and further it does not seek equal protection of the law for two people (as already exists in every state in the union), it seeks extraordinary protection for three or more.
Your regular return to this inept and off topic argument tends to indicate that you have nothing to offer on the topic at hand, and are apparently too stupid to make an on topic argument, or for that matter to understand that three or more is greater than two.
Congratulations, Frankie, with each renewed off topic post, you reaffirm that you are an imbecile.
Polygamy is not irrelevant in a discussion of marriage equality. Sorry. Good try. You will either have to argue why it shouldn't be allowed, or ignore me. Your choice puddinghead.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13432 Dec 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Polygamy is not irrelevant in a discussion of marriage equality.
Sure it is Frankie. Is three or more equal to two?

If you weren't an idiot, you would know the answer.

You see, moron, you aren't talking about equality. You are advocating for greater protection of the law. Ironically, given your mental deficiency in basic counting, you don't seem to understand this simple fact.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13433 Dec 10, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Only common if you were sincere and intelligent about it..It's not polygamy you want, Polygyny is what you're really after..Oink Oink..Ah the Good life Yuk Yuk! LOL
Nope. Polygamy. Polyandry and Polygyny, Also of course I support same sex polygamy. I didn't stutter. If a woman wants two husbands, it's her damn choice. Not yours.

When we cut through all your bullsh!t, I support marriage equality and you do not.

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Cornelius Scudmister 232,739
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min One way or another 201,038
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 36 min ChristineM 20,579
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Dr Guru 219,272
News Critics: Trump speech signals shift to coded ra... 1 hr Responsibility 15
News Maxine Waters: 'The tea party can go straight t... (Aug '11) 1 hr Sheol 3
News Oklahoma Tea Party Candidate Endorses Stoning Gays (Jun '14) 1 hr Pigeon Forge Demo... 111
News Hillary Clinton picks Tim Kaine as vice preside... 3 hr Pigeon Forge Hookers 119
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 hr Yeah 390,980
News Despite her many roles, Hillary Clinton still h... 6 hr gwww 71
More from around the web