Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61390 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7101 Oct 15, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary; I'm highly amused by Greg's idiotic rants. If I weren't enjoying busting his clitty, I wouldn't be here.
You are clearly a sadomasochist enjoying it on the receiving end.

Creepy.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#7102 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Frank, you are making stupid comparisons again.
Do polygamists seek to have marriage composed of three or more people, yes or no?
If yes, then they seek greater protection of the law. You see, three people is more than two. And no state recognizes marriage between three or more people. Ergo, what polygamists seek is greater protection of the law.
Your attempt to compare the number of persons in one marriage with the number of persons in a certain race who wish to marry the person of their choosing, resulting in a two person marriage, is utterly absurd. None of the individual marriage seeks greater protection, and just because there might be more couples, does not mean that they collectively have received equal protection of the law.
Have you had a recent head injury? Because this is not a difficult concept to grasp, unless you can't count.
Hey, stupid, dummy-dumm-dumm!

Whether it's two people or twenty people it's still one contract. It's not like you can pool your resources with one person and then have a completely separate contract claiming to do the same with another.

A polygamous marriage may be generated one couple at a time, but there's no way that it could be conceived without nullifying a previous contract.

Can't you read, dummy!

Besides, it's a matter of civil law, and as far as equal protection goes, you're denying the rite of marriage to polygamous families. That's unfair to the children.

You probably are just jealous that some guy out there is getting more action AND gubbermint money......but you're a dummy!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#7103 Oct 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, stupid, dummy-dumm-dumm!
..........but you're a dummy!
When logic fails ...

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#7104 Oct 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
And how is that working for you in negating the legal status of my marriage?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7105 Oct 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
When logic fails ...
What a joke. You censor his reasoning, and then pretend he doesn't show what an idiot you are.

The fact is, your censored piece looks far more like the typical gay post than anything else.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#7106 Oct 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
When logic fails ...
Logic? Since when has logic been a part of this forum? If it's not poetry here, it's parsing up legal wording and forum responses in complete denial and reckless pursuit of childish sound bites.

Don't think so?
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
When logic fails ...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7107 Oct 15, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
And how is that working for you in negating the legal status of my marriage?
It clearly exposes the faux legal charade and annoys the hell out of you.

Smile.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#7108 Oct 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic? Since when has logic been a part of this forum? If it's not poetry here, it's parsing up legal wording and forum responses in complete denial and reckless pursuit of childish sound bites.
Don't think so?
<quoted text>
I repeat, when logic fails.....

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#7109 Oct 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It clearly exposes the faux legal charade and annoys the hell out of you.
Smile.
The federal government doesn't agree with you. And, really, their opinion is a bit more important than yours, when it comes to law.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7110 Oct 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The federal government doesn't agree with you. And, really, their opinion is a bit more important than yours, when it comes to law.
Our congress gets a 13% approval rating.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7111 Oct 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The federal government doesn't agree with you. And, really, their opinion is a bit more important than yours, when it comes to law.
No opinion, pure reality.
That's why your denial constantly censors posts.
Smile.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7112 Oct 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
When logic fails ...
Use silly slogans!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7113 Oct 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I repeat, when logic fails.....
Post nonsense and think it wit!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7114 Oct 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Hey, stupid, dummy-dumm-dumm!
Whether it's two people or twenty people it's still one contract. It's not like you can pool your resources with one person and then have a completely separate contract claiming to do the same with another.
At question is not the number of contracts, it is whether there is equal protection of the law. A contract between twenty persons offers greater protection of the law than one protecting two. I see you still haven't learned to count.
anonymous wrote:
A polygamous marriage may be generated one couple at a time, but there's no way that it could be conceived without nullifying a previous contract.
Can't you read, dummy!
Sorry Charlie, a polygamous marriage would have to be a contract between numerous parties who are all a party to the contract. Is it not the co-joining of several couples. What a stupid assertion.
anonymous wrote:
Besides, it's a matter of civil law, and as far as equal protection goes, you're denying the rite of marriage to polygamous families. That's unfair to the children.
You probably are just jealous that some guy out there is getting more action AND gubbermint money......but you're a dummy!
No it's not. They seek greater protection of the law for three or more persons in a marriage.

Tell me, idiot. If Kim has two gum balls, and Jeffrey has 17, who has more?

This isn't a difficult concept, if one isn't a moron.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7115 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
At question is not the number of contracts, it is whether there is equal protection of the law. A contract between twenty persons offers greater protection of the law than one protecting two. I see you still haven't learned to count.
<quoted text>
Sorry Charlie, a polygamous marriage would have to be a contract between numerous parties who are all a party to the contract. Is it not the co-joining of several couples. What a stupid assertion.
<quoted text>
No it's not. They seek greater protection of the law for three or more persons in a marriage.
Tell me, idiot. If Kim has two gum balls, and Jeffrey has 17, who has more?
This isn't a difficult concept, if one isn't a moron.
It sure is difficult for you because you don't get it.
Instead of just mumbling "you still haven't learned to count" explain in detail how any single member of such a group gets greater protection. Then explain what that greater protection is.
Then explain how this greater protection is different for a family of 3 or more when a mother and a father and the children make it up. I think you should stick to your alphabet blocks and coloring books.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7116 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
...bla bla bla condescending arithmetic lesson bla bla bla...
This isn't a difficult concept, if one isn't a moron.
No it's not. Everyone gets equal protection of the law, no more, no less. EQUAL. No one "seeks greater protection". You either have it or you don't.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7117 Oct 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
bla bla bla...smarm...vbla bla bla...
...Tell me, idiot. If Kim has two gum balls, and Jeffrey has 17, who has more?
Jeffrey. So what?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7118 Oct 15, 2013
If Frankie has two marbles and lides has 17, who's gay?

YUK!YUK!YUK!~Whoop!~Whoop! Ah good times.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7119 Oct 15, 2013
Ah, another morning of mind rotting Topix. Oy vey.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7120 Oct 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
No it's not. Everyone gets equal protection of the law, no more, no less. EQUAL. No one "seeks greater protection". You either have it or you don't.
It's so cute when you feel the need to edit what I said, because you are incapable of responding to the original post, or that you are embarrassed that it made you look foolish.

Let me see if I can help make you look more foolish.

Does polygamy seek the ability for three or more people to enter into one marriage?
Is three or more greater than two?
If Suzzie has two marbles, and Jack has three, who has more?

You see, Frankie, polygamy does not seek equal protection of the law. Just keep working on those rudimentary counting skills, you will develop them in time.

The reality remains that you are offering an utterly irrelevant argument that has no bearing upon the topic at hand, that has been long settled as a matter of law, and that anyone with the ability to count to three (or understand that three or more is greater than two) would understand. Although one could make an argument for polygamy, the fact that it is currently not allowed in any state in the union is not a reason to deny same sex couples (who already can legally marry in 13 states) the right to marry.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 min June VanDerMark 320,433
News Many Christian conservatives are backing Alabam... 6 min IndoEuro 229
News Trump all but endorses GOP's Moore despite sex ... 8 min Voter 49
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min positronium 1,643,832
News Trump discounts sex assault accusations against... 10 min swampmudd 62
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 24 min Ice Man 42,547
News Gillibrand: Bill Clinton should've resigned ove... 49 min Big Al 151
More from around the web