Gay marriage

Full story: Los Angeles Times

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.
Comments
31,621 - 31,640 of 52,187 Comments Last updated 17 min ago

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34766
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34767
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Poofy
In the 1885 Utah Territory case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the United States Supreme Court articulated the crucial foundation of society:
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement (1885)
Hmmmmmmm....."..the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony;"......from the Supreme Court of all courts, imagine that.
Proving once again that judges are a reflection of the times they live in.

Same reason a SCOTUS once upheld slavery, and segregation, and bans on women voting, and, discrimination against Asians & Native Americans, and bans on contraception for single women, etc, etc, etc.

Just as the current SCOTUS ruled that married same-sex couples must be treated the same by the federal government as they do any other married couple.

Times change, society changes, courts change, definitions change.

You better get used to it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34768
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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.”
Oh no! Gay anti-gays! Sheepie is feeling very sheepish now.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34769
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
No, it's a question you can't answer, so you label it a "red herring".

I don't care what you call it.

The fact you can't answer the question proves it's a valid question.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34770
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as it remained a union of 2 people over the past 600 years.
[/QUOTE{

Two people, one man, one woman.

[QUOTE]
You focus on the gender of the people.
As do you, who prefers an outie to an innie.
We focus on the number of the people.
"We"? Gay people also focus on gender as well.
If you can limit by gender, then others can (and of course did) limit by race or religion or some other equally irrelevant characteristic.
"Race", along with "sexual identity" is a modern invention. There are, and always have been male and female, and their physical sexual union turns two into three, as in baby makes three.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34771
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Nope, conjugality is present in every legal marriage, and the nature of marriage- orderly property transfer- still exists as well.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34772
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Correct.

EVERYONE is banned from marrying more than one 13 y/o girl at a time.

I want to prevent ANYONE from marrying more than one 13 y/o girl at a time.

Which is why I support bans on polyga-marriage.

EVERYONE is EQUALLY banned from marrying more than one 13 y/o girl at a time.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34773
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Proving once again that judges are a reflection of the times they live in.
Same reason a SCOTUS once upheld slavery, and segregation, and bans on women voting, and, discrimination against Asians & Native Americans, and bans on contraception for single women, etc, etc, etc.
Uhhhhhhhh...huh...and that's comparable to the building block of society, the joining of one man and one woman in marriage? Put down the rainbow punch....and to think...you accuse Frankie of being drunk.
Just as the current SCOTUS ruled that married same-sex couples must be treated the same by the federal government as they do any other married couple.
In every aspect, or just for tax purposes?
Times change, society changes, courts change, definitions change.
You better get used to it.
Something's just don't change. Men are still men, women still women, and sex between them still makes babies. No redefinition needed there.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34774
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay "anti gays".
French Homosexuals Join Demonstration Against Gay Marriage
Yeah, so what?

Some Jews supported Hitler.
Some blacks supported slavery.
Some women supported bans on women voting.

What's your point?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34775
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, conjugality is present in every legal marriage,
Nice try...so if r state declares an apple an orange, is the apple now a citrus fruit?
and the nature of marriage- orderly property transfer- still exists as well.
Oooooooh......so close...but the nature of the marital relationship is still male female despite the legal designation "marriage" applied to male same sex relationships, and female same sex relationships.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34776
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

6

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet still remained a MALE FEMALE formally recognized union.
Really, they have? My marriage is NOT a male/female union, but it is still a legal, valid and recognized marriage by both the State and federal governments REGARDLESS of what you claim!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34777
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Proving once again that judges are a reflection of the times they live in.
Same reason a SCOTUS once upheld slavery, and segregation, and bans on women voting, and, discrimination against Asians & Native Americans, and bans on contraception for single women, etc, etc, etc.
Just as the current SCOTUS ruled that married same-sex couples must be treated the same by the federal government as they do any other married couple.
Times change, society changes, courts change, definitions change.
You better get used to it.
"Proving once again that judges are a reflection of the times they live in.
Same reason a SCOTUS once upheld slavery, and segregation, and bans on women voting, and, discrimination against Asians & Native Americans, and bans on contraception for single women", AND BANS ON POLYGAMY etc. etc. etc.

Now you're gonna tell me no. Doesn't work for polygamy. Just that other stuff, right?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34778
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

6

6

5

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's a question you can't answer, so you label it a "red herring".
I don't care what you call it.
The fact you can't answer the question proves it's a valid question.
When it will happen is your red herring in response to the argument we are having which is should it happen. I say yes. You say no because it hasn't happened yet.

You try to get me to argue when while I am asking why. Perfect example of a red herring/straw man. You don't even understand those consepts do you Mr. "Green Squid" Dummy?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34779
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
EVERYONE is banned from marrying more than one 13 y/o girl at a time.
I want to prevent ANYONE from marrying more than one 13 y/o girl at a time.
Which is why I support bans on polyga-marriage.
EVERYONE is EQUALLY banned from marrying more than one 13 y/o girl at a time.
But if you do it to polyga-marriage you gotta do it to monoga-marriage too dummy.

P.S. "polyga-marriage"? WTF?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34780
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, they have? My marriage is NOT a male/female union, but it is still a legal, valid and recognized marriage by both the State and federal governments REGARDLESS of what you claim!!!
So why then did you posts the following:
NorCal Native wrote:
Well, seeing as Christianity DOESN'T hold the patent on marriage and in fact NEVER did......your religious beliefs or opinions really IRRELEVANT and rather boring to boot!!!
You really should take a read regarding Marriage throughout history especially in Western Civilization:
As Demosthenes, the orator, explained it: "We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring."
Early in Roman history, a husband had considerable power over his wife and children, whom he could punish, sell, or even kill as he saw fit.
As we can learn from the Bible, the ancient Israelites had a patriarchal family structure. The status of women was low—they were regarded as the property of their fathers or husbands and could do nothing without their consent. The main purpose of marriage was procreation and the perpetuation of a man's name. Every healthy person was expected to marry. Single men and women were despised. A man could have several wives and concubines.(Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel, and Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.)
The Bible indicates that the marriage laws and customs of Israel changed somewhat in the course of time. Thus, divorces were increasingly frowned upon, and there was a general trend toward monogamy. Another change concerned the so-called levirate (i.e., the man's obligatory marriage to his brother's widow). This kind of marriage was at times required (Deuteronomy 25:5) and at other times prohibited (Leviticus 20:21). This change was probably related to changing economic conditions.
http://www.sexarchive.info/ATLAS_EN/html/hist ...
Interesting how marriage laws have changed over the last 600 years or so!!!
I simply pointed out that despite all the change in marriage, it still remained a formally recognized male female union. So other than a few states during the course of the past ten years in which they designated both male and female same sex unions, "marriage", is my response, false?

You seem to imply that designating SSRs "marriage" is simply a change, similar to the other changes in that piece you posted. It's not a change but a fundamental alteration. No different for the state legally declaring men can be lesbians. So would that represent simply a change in the history of lesbianism, or something altogether different?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34781
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, so what?
Some Jews supported Hitler.
Some blacks supported slavery.
Some women supported bans on women voting.
What's your point?
His point is that gays who don't support SSM are not anti-gays like you insist they are.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34782
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

poof wrote:
<quoted text>Did you read the link?
No. I never click on topix links, from anyone, ever.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34783
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
From the same link-
"Day by day, we do our part to ensure that the lives of all gay polygamists are not trifled upon by the stubborn ways of "traditional" marriages. We need not a plague in this world to rid the ever growing population issues that will soon devour the world whole- We only need gay polygamy. We are the way- the future. We are proud, and we will not allow the cynical nature of the U.S conservative army to dissuade us from all acts of oral, anal, or any foreplay with at least two or more participating persons of the same gender. We shall rise, minions. We shall rise."
Ah good times!
That would be interesting if gay polygamists went to court first. Now in that case, and only that case, gay marriage would open the door for that (not for general polygamy.) But it may be easier to argue gay polygamy. And once that domino falls...

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34784
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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.
Agreed - not because of moral disapproval. So is there any other reason?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34785
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

5

5

5

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I only ask "why aren't people suing" because people like Frankie keep insisting that the courts MUST MUST MUST overturn bans on polyga-marriage now that same-sex couples can marry. It's a counter to their same lame scare tactic to link same-sex couples marrying with polyga-marriage.
My only issue related to child abuse is that legalizing polyga-marriage would allow an adult to legally marry multiple 13 y/o girls at once. I oppose ANYONE- gay or straight or monogamous or polygamous- from being able to marry ANY child under age 18 for ANY reason.
Agreed, if nobody sues, nothing happens. The chance of any legislature voluntarily taking it up is pretty much nil.

Re: 13 year old girls: IMO that's not a reason. While I personally agree with you that no 13 year old of either sex is capable of consenting to marriage and understanding what it means, your fight is with the individual states that permit under-18 year old marriage, not with polygamists. Polygamy in itself does not require 13 year old brides.

I understand you think if one 13 year old getting married is bad, two are worse, and the kind of man who would marry two 13 year old girls probably shouldn't be marrying either.(Is 13 really legal anywhere?) But again, if that scenario already exists, then your fight is not with polygamy, it is with those laws. And those laws are not a reason to prohibit polygamy.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••