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
36,721 - 36,740 of 52,229 Comments Last updated 13 min ago
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40167
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

13

13

13

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Flunkie..... can't tell the difference between hemp and marijuana.
You can't either.
1 post removed

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40169
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Jim Crow laws allowed whites to voluntarily exclude blacks; there was no force or coercion on the dominant political group. It's difficult to justify segregation, prejudice, bigotry, Jim Crow laws and apartheid, but snyper's doing the best he can.
Black people didn't have a choice.

.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue isn't freedom; gays may live with a consenting same sex adult in every state without fear. Don't you realize Christians are sued because they won't be forced to help celebrate same sex marriage even when they own a business and have so much to lose?
Liar. Never happened.
Brian_G wrote:
Please cite these "sometimes violently and horrifically,[coerced] gay people", gay rights are human rights, not special rights to rewrite marriage laws for everyone without the consent of the governed.
Think we should repeal Loving v VA? That case rewrote the marriage laws for everyone without the consent of the governed.
And your parents divorced. Laws regarding divorced are changed all the time, that REALLY affects married couples. In CA, people can now divorce for no reason. Don't recall a vote on that.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Not my perspective, I like integration, diversity and the perfect affirmative action of one man and one woman marriage over segregation. Words have meanings; when you defend same sex marriage you defend sex segregation. We can agree, that's nuts.
Your parents didn't. They divorced.
We can agree your "argument" is nuts.
poof

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40170
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The haters said your marriage is "up sheiit creek" You are a hater for saying it too. I really hope you try to understand this simple concept. At least think about it. Don't just call me a putz and claim you've won like usual moron.
No Frankie this is what you said.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
That's what they said to you. Which is exactly my point. You are now them.

My marriage? Umm what do you mean?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40171
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

13

13

13

poof wrote:
<quoted text>No Frankie this is what you said.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what they said to you. Which is exactly my point. You are now them.
My marriage? Umm what do you mean?
Gay marriage. The marriage you think you are defending against the evil polygamists. Duh.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40172
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

13

13

13

poof wrote:
<quoted text> Umm what do you mean?
We'll tell you all about it when you're sober.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40173
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

14

13

13

Xavier Breath wrote:
Apartheid was voluntary?????
For white South Africans, apartheid was as voluntary as for white Southern Democrats who wrote Jim Crow laws in the USA. Segregationist policy is always voluntary for the group in power. That's why its evil, people choose discrimination, segregation, prejudice and bigotry over diversity, integration and the perfect affirmative action of one man and one woman marriage.
poof

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40174
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay marriage. The marriage you think you are defending against the evil polygamists. Duh.
That's not what you said. If you wish to discuss things, then make coherent statements. I can not read your mind,

As I have told you. Polygamy leads to adults marring underage girls, by force. If you wish I can repost the recent court case that shows you examples of it, I can also post a link for the Canadian case on the subject of polygamy.

Polygamy and SSM have little in common
BTW what is Gay marriage, is that like Alan's Gay wedding cake?
poof

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40175
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay polygamy is gay marriage. I'm asking why you are against gay marriage. Perfectly on topic. Please answer. Is it a "pool of unmarried men"? "Is it What about the children!?!"
Are you now lobbing for gay men to be able marry multiple partners? Why not include men and women in your polygamy plans. How will you pass that law? Rather stupid if your ask me. Frankie sayz polygamy for gay men only!

Frankie's law ,What about the children!?!"

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40176
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

13

13

13

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Give this a read:
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
Marriage has been evolving for a very long time........here's some info for ya:
Nor is marriage a timeless, unchanging institution. Quite the opposite: throughout Western history its form has been constantly evolving and contested. Throughout the Middle Ages the precise definition of marriage was notoriously unsettled. After the Reformation it was complicated further by the various innovations adopted by different Protestant churches, such as divorce and remarriage. As Thomas Hobbes pointed out in 1642, the law of marriage had become so confused that “copulation which in one city is matrimony, in another will be judged adultery.”
Hmmmmmm....still male female.
It was partly to sort out this mess that secular governments originally took over the business of defining and periodically revising the rules of marriage.“Thank God!” exclaimed Sir Dudley Ryder, the British attorney general, in Parliament in 1753, rejecting the idea that marriage was an immutable divine institution,“we have in this age got the better of this, as well as of a great many other superstitious opinions.”

That has always been the American attitude too. Both before and since independence, marriage has been always been a civil, not a religious matter, and state and federal laws have repeatedly redefined its boundaries. Throughout the 19th century, tens of thousands of Mormon Americans practiced polygamy, following obvious biblical precedents. Interracial marriage was once widely prohibited as “unnatural.” Marital laws and public attitudes have changed dramatically on that point in recent decades, as they have with respect to women’s rights and to divorce. The definition and practice of marriage has been evolving for millennia, in line with social changes.
Yet it still remained a male female union.
Even same-sex unions of various kinds have a long history. They are documented, for both men and women, not just in classical Greece and Rome, but in more recent Western societies too. Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in North America, was named after King James I, who conceived of his relationship with the Duke of Buckingham as a kind of “marriage.”“Marrying” was also how homosexuals in 18th-century London referred to their private pairings-off with each other.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06...
I'll let you finish reading these articles....I'm sure your'll find something from them to justify your position!!!
Ohhhh.....Nor Cal.....don't forget "Boston Marriages" of the 19th century, although there's no indication they were of a sexual nature, more like single women sharing a home together. Never the less, marriage in Western Civilization has been virtually a male female union. All the changes that have take place revolved around the male female union of husband/man and wife.

For you I'll check out those sites.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40177
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

15

15

14

poof wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have told you. Polygamy leads to adults marring underage girls, by force.
But Poofy, "As I told you" doesn't prove sh!t. I can easily say "As I told you, gay marriage leads to cannibalism and alligator rape by force!"

It's about time you correctly spelled "marrying". It's not a typo. You can't even spell it yet you're the expert on it. Just like your job as a "master machinest" [sic].

Always remember! Marrying. Not "Marring". Machinist. Not "Machinest". Maybe then you'll get a job. No one will hire a machinist who can't even spell his job title unless he's really good. I can't imagine you being good at anything.

Ah ad hominem.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40178
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

15

14

14

poof wrote:
<quoted text>Are you now lobbing for gay men to be able marry multiple partners? Why not include men and women in your polygamy plans. How will you pass that law? Rather stupid if your ask me. Frankie sayz polygamy for gay men only!
Frankie's law ,What about the children!?!"
"lobbing"? Say what? Relax Jizzy, try again.

If you mean am I lobbying for gay men to marry each other, yes I am. I am lobbing [sic] for all consenting adults to be able to marry who they want. And you are strongly against that.

It's good you asked though. Remember! There are no stupid posts, only stupid posters like yourself. Let me know next time you get confused. A good rule if you can remember it is that I support marriage equality and you do not.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40179
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

14

14

14

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply NOT gonna happen just because Gays and Lesbians gain the right to marry..
Still a fallacy, because "gays and lesbians" as individual men and women CAN ALREADY MARRY like any other man and woman.
....this is how States gain revenue.......your just trying to piss in the wind and ya might want to make sure you down wind when ya do it.......lol!!!
So when the gay and lesbian well of marital revenue dries up, or slows down considerably, will states legally recognize plural marriage, or designate other relationships, "marriage" to create more revenue?
By the way....read this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news...
Stem Cells are AMAZING cells and can be converted INTO any type of cell in the body.......even sperm!!!
Read it.....man oh man.....uhhhhh...the things lesbians will do to avoid men. So will lesbians create female only children?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40180
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

14

14

14

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm....still male female.
<quoted text>
Yet it still remained a male female union.
<quoted text>
Ohhhh.....Nor Cal.....don't forget "Boston Marriages" of the 19th century, although there's no indication they were of a sexual nature, more like single women sharing a home together. Never the less, marriage in Western Civilization has been virtually a male female union. All the changes that have take place revolved around the male female union of husband/man and wife.
For you I'll check out those sites.
You are very kind. Norcal, not so much. I admire your tolerance and patience. She could learn from it. But she won't. Lesbian good, Pete bad.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40181
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Priceless. Monogamists do it more, son. If ten thousand monogamists marry children (which is way low an estimate) maybe one polygamist marries ten children (an overestimate), then you see, we have monOgamists doing it a thousand times more than polygamists but you don't want to ban monogamy.
I can't do anything about the current laws which allow adults to marry children.

But that doesn't mean I have to support making it WORSE by allowing adults to marry MULTIPLE children.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40182
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm....still male female.
<quoted text>
Yet it still remained a male female union.
<quoted text>
Ohhhh.....Nor Cal.....don't forget "Boston Marriages" of the 19th century, although there's no indication they were of a sexual nature, more like single women sharing a home together. Never the less, marriage in Western Civilization has been virtually a male female union. All the changes that have take place revolved around the male female union of husband/man and wife.
For you I'll check out those sites.
I seriously DON'T care if ya do or ya don't......that's ENTIRELY up to you.....however, it WON'T change the fact that marriage today INCLUDES Gay and Lesbian individuals who seek the right to marry the person of their choosing without regard to gender make-up!!!

I'm STILL as legally married as you are:-)

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40183
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are very kind. Norcal, not so much. I admire your tolerance and patience. She could learn from it. But she won't. Lesbian good, Pete bad.
STFU idiot.....you are a moron, at least Pete tries to act like he's here to debate SOMETIMES, you NOT so much!!!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40184
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I specifically did not. I cited every study of default families that do not include SS couples.
Regenrus equated SS couples with other default families.
Christ on a Cracker, Greg. You don't even know the name of the discredited a-hole you are backing.

It's REGNERUS, douche-bag, REGNERUS.

Here's the link, again, where a Michigan judge destroys Regnerus's credibility:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/michigan-judge-...

Trust KiMare to always back a loser.

SecretSmile, Hunty.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40185
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You try to. You said after I go out and change all the state laws you'll talk about it and not before Remember? What a dope. Can't even remember what you said an hour ago. Stick to sativas.
Nope, I said I wouldn't consider changing my opposition to polyga-marriage until after all state laws which allow adults to marry children are changed.

I'll discuss it all you want, but I'm not going to change my position.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40186
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>For white South Africans, apartheid was as voluntary as for white Southern Democrats who wrote Jim Crow laws in the USA. Segregationist policy is always voluntary for the group in power. That's why its evil, people choose discrimination, segregation, prejudice and bigotry over diversity, integration and the perfect affirmative action of one man and one woman marriage.
Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,. How's your bla, bla, bla, argument workin' out for you? Stopped any SSM's lately?

Did you attend the Kimare school of internet trolling (take a position and drive it home, repeatedly)?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40187
Apr 1, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Pietro Armando wrote:
<Read it.....man oh man.....uhhhhh...the things lesbians will do to avoid men. So will lesbians create female only children?
If they had even half a brain they would.

And if we could just convince half the hetero women to only have girls as well, then we'd be off to a good start.

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.

36 Users are viewing the US Politics Forum right now

Search the US Politics Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Realtime 1,079,897
UN rights expert accuses Israel of 'ethnic clea... 10 min scirocco 604
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 10 min Frankie Rizzo 2,545
Opinion: Rick Perry is dead wrong 13 min Yep2 140
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 13 min LRS 174,625
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 15 min American Lady 244,055
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 15 min SpaceBlues 45,793
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 26 min lmao 146,320
Bachmann says she may make another presidential... 1 hr Responsibility 98
•••
•••