Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61395 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: Oct 13

Location hidden

#7305 Oct 17, 2013
jesus christ...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7306 Oct 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie, how dumb do you want to appear?
YOU can't count. YOU keep making the idiotic argument that thee or more is equal to two. YOU aren't so bright.
You are confused.

In real marriage, gender distinguishes the relationship. One of each gender.

You are attempting to dumb down marriage to the right of any person of any gender. The number of people in the relationship would no longer matter. EACH person has the right to be married.

You are deceitfully restricting the right of a person to be married without cause. Pure discrimination. You know this. That is why you avoid addressing the fact that legal scholars from the top down acknowledge the fact.

You also know that when a ss couple stands in the middle of married people, there is a ugly elephant in the room...

That's because a ss couple will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

SMirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7307 Oct 17, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Then stop thinking about it all the time.
By not thinking about it, anal sex is no longer harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

You need to start thinking honey...

I mean idiot.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7308 Oct 17, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not preventing anyone from doing anything, dipshit. Get a rational argument.... oh wait.... there aren't any.... gee, maybe that's why polygamy is illegal. I certainly didn't vote on it.
You are arguing against others having a right for the same reason you assert.

Hypocrisy and discrimination.

It only exposes the duplicity of your position.

Just a heads up idiot. Polygamy has been legal and accepted in many cultures throughout history. Ss marriage? Never.

Oh, and I voted on DOMA along with most of the country.

That's because we know that ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

Smile.
1 post removed
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#7310 Oct 17, 2013
No. I don't think that we will face a civil war in the historical sense. We don't have State governments vs. State governments in clearly defined borders between politics and economies. This is mostly Socialized urban centers vs. unregulated and decentralized Americans. The economics are clear, but except for a few rogue States, almost all the liberals are located along the northeaster seaboard. There's a clear problem in that much of the economies of the liberals isn't completely under their bureaucratic control without Congress. Bust up Congress, and the money is instantly gone for the Eastern seaboard.

What really exists is closer to the beginnings of the French or Communist revolution in Russia. We have an aristocracy who is convinced that they serve all Americans by serving their own power base. The majority is simply going to reject all government when the debt crisis, hardly solved by going into further debt, inevitably triggers an inflationary explosion similar to that experienced by the Weimar Republic.

I can't help but wonder if the world is driving us to our own self-destruction but we really don't need any help. We are a country of political fanatics who pursue their ego trips on credit. Might as well be giving it all away to the casinos. Americans just don't know a rigged game when they see one.

The "Tea Party" really isn't to blame. The Liberals have their own version. It just doesn't have a name. Probably the closest to naming it would be to observe the Jewish American influence in politics. They preach Liberalism, appease the political fringe, much as "Tea Party" higher-ups use disgruntled bigots, all to keep the country forever hunting "terrorists" and destabilizing legitimate governments who have an active Islamic presence.

In the end, it's the Christians who will act out the final Judas-like betrayal of their leaders. I'll be honored to play out a role akin to Pontius Pilot. It's a delicate matter. You have to make sure that the Christians sell their souls to Satan. They must do so in full knowledge that they did so out of vanity, and you must make sure that they do it for far less than 20 pieces of silver.

Morality is lost in America. The masses are as controllable as Pavlov's dogs. They chose it. This forum is one of the defining manifestations of it. As such, I consider it a means of seeding messages to the collective unconscious. In the end, will it matter? Probably not. But it is my playground for better or worse and I feel the need to do my part to normalize coping with frustration by inventing new forms of bad conduct. That is the blessing of anonymity, real or imagined!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#7311 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

However, calling you on trying to pass yourself off as married IS the act of a pious Christian.
Ss couples are only ever a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
And that's the fact that you can do absolutely nothing about.
We're not attempting to pass ourselves off as anything.

We're married. Plain and simple.

Get it through your head. Marriage has evolved; you haven't.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#7312 Oct 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Mona is always lots of fun. So very angry and selfish. Play the Canadian national anthem for him. In French!(So it's diverse. Not real diverse like polyamory diverse, just a little diverse) that's what he likes. Sort of diverse and sort of tolerant. But not too much or for people he doesn't like.
He says polygamy is illegal because it's illegal. How do you deal with a moron like that? Jokes.~Whoop!
Let's try to make sure that the jokes don't say more about us than they do about others.

Personally, I'm not sure if you're really a polygamist of just making a legal point, and it would ruin the joke if you told,...but by the same token, I suppose nobody knows if I really care about proper legal protocol or if I'm just out to bust up the organization of the whacky liberals and conservatives too.

Really, this forum has run its course yet again. Every now and then someone gets bold and starts discussing their personal feelings and everyone can circle in for the kill, but there is a point where I've got to ask, how much fun is this joke?

It only matters if people have hope. When everything gets reduced to bathroom humor, even the trolls just wander off to go indulge their death wishes rather than evolve their politics. I don't don't really care how they pursue their mundane death wishes. I just see losers who want to belong to something, but don't know what or why. I've run out of jokes.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7313 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
You are confused.
In real marriage, gender distinguishes the relationship. One of each gender.
You are attempting to dumb down marriage to the right of any person of any gender. The number of people in the relationship would no longer matter. EACH person has the right to be married.
You are deceitfully restricting the right of a person to be married without cause. Pure discrimination. You know this. That is why you avoid addressing the fact that legal scholars from the top down acknowledge the fact.
You also know that when a ss couple stands in the middle of married people, there is a ugly elephant in the room...
That's because a ss couple will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
SMirk.
You are the one who is confused. It is proven by the fact that you cannot indicate a state interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional.

Congratulations, you have proven that you are irrational and childish, but you've offered no reason why same sex couples should not be allowed to marry.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#7314 Oct 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who is confused. It is proven by the fact that you cannot indicate a state interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Congratulations, you have proven that you are irrational and childish, but you've offered no reason why same sex couples should not be allowed to marry.
Actually, it has been demonstrated many times, assuming that the State has an interest in having an oversupply of workers competing against each other for work.

Generally, I'd say that there is no interest in encouraging competition within the masses unless your goal is to keep them politically repressed rather than collectively organized... but we can think this through together as long as you aren't too disturbed about not getting the results that you've already decided must be.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7315 Oct 17, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>We're not attempting to pass ourselves off as anything.
We're married. Plain and simple.
Get it through your head. Marriage has evolved; you haven't.
Marriage is a constraint on evolution. A court can't change that idiot.

SS marriage is a scientific oxymoron.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7316 Oct 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who is confused. It is proven by the fact that you cannot indicate a state interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Congratulations, you have proven that you are irrational and childish, but you've offered no reason why same sex couples should not be allowed to marry.
I have provided evidence of a state interest. Gays demand children be excluded so they can qualify. Moreover, so still refuse to acknowledge legal rejection of your position. A childish denial.

Smile.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7317 Oct 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is legal in many places and always has been. It was legal in the USA until discrimination against Mormons made it illegal in order for Utah to become a state. The laws against polygamy are based on hate and prejudice. From people like you.
Why is polygamy illegal in the USA? Because SCOTUS doesn't like it.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
You are quite the hater son. I have no respect for you nor should I. You are a hypocrite. And a bigot.
Polygamy was never legal in the US; that's one of the reasons the Morons moved west to what would become the Utah territory.

Regardless what the laws are based on, you've been unable to put forth a logical rational argument why polygamy & incest should be legal. Until you do that, you'll never be successful.

Whether you think I'm a hypocrite or a bigot is irrelevant, and won't help you reach what you claim is your goal.

Of course we all know legalizing polygamy & incest isn't really your goal. But even your pretend agenda continues to fail.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7318 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And the denial keeps coming.
And still,
ss couples are only ever, mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered halves of marriage.
I'm embarrassed for you.
Smirk.
What denial?

I'm legally married. I get all the rights & benefits of marriage.

Anything else is irrelevant.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7319 Oct 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that's the core of similarly situated, which you fail to grasp.
Not surprising you can't understand how same-sex couples have the right to marry while polygamy & incest remain illegal.
Not surprising you can't understand how polyamorists could have the right to marry while same sex marriage remains illegal in most states.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7320 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's what you call a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian, thank you.
However, calling you on trying to pass yourself off as married IS the act of a pious Christian.
Ss couples are only ever a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
And that's the fact that you can do absolutely nothing about.
Except of course same-sex couples can go get a marriage license, get legally married, and get all the rights & benefits of marriage.

And that' the fact that you can do absolutely nothing about.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7321 Oct 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Not being able to count is just a symptom of your stupidity, which is why polygamy & incest will remain illegal.
But keep trying, maybe after another 150+ years you'll get there, though I doubt it.
You keep up with that "Frankie can't count" argument against marriage equality fruitloops. It's a good one!(to lose with). Hold on tight!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7322 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused.
In real marriage, gender distinguishes the relationship. One of each gender.
You are attempting to dumb down marriage to the right of any person of any gender. The number of people in the relationship would no longer matter. EACH person has the right to be married.
You are deceitfully restricting the right of a person to be married without cause. Pure discrimination. You know this. That is why you avoid addressing the fact that legal scholars from the top down acknowledge the fact.
You also know that when a ss couple stands in the middle of married people, there is a ugly elephant in the room...
That's because a ss couple will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
SMirk.
And yet your lame arguments couldn't stop same-sex couples from getting married and getting all the rights & benefits of marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#7323 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you have.
You just reject them out of hand.
Everyone can see it.
Idiot.
WeTheSheeple says my arguments are unconvincing but his argument (Frankie can't count) is very brilliant.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7324 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are arguing against others having a right for the same reason you assert.
Hypocrisy and discrimination.
It only exposes the duplicity of your position.
Just a heads up idiot. Polygamy has been legal and accepted in many cultures throughout history. Ss marriage? Never.
Oh, and I voted on DOMA along with most of the country.
That's because we know that ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Smile.
Polygamy has never been legal in US history.

Same-sex couples marrying has been legal in US history.

And yet your vote didn't stop same-sex couples from marrying and getting all the rights & benefits of marriage.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7325 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a constraint on evolution. A court can't change that idiot.
SS marriage is a scientific oxymoron.
Hmmm, and yet the state & federal courts AND the state legislatures AND the majority of voters HAVE changed that.

Your continued denial can't stop same-sex couples from marrying and getting all the rights & benefits of marriage.

Obviously that REALLY bothers you.

Obviously that makes us REALLY happy that it bothers you so much.

Couldn't do anything to stop us.....

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
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min Calvin_Coolish 240,166
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min VetnorsGate 1,420,853
News News 14 Mins Ago Trump rebukes racism claims as... 1 min Quirky 140
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 min Terra Firma 16,167
News Trump backer tweets cartoon of Clinton in black... 5 min Blacks-LooseClint... 57
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min syamsu 205,489
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 17 min Chilli J 8,063
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 26 min Agents of Corruption 393,431
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 37 min Ronald 417
News Who is the real 'racist,' Clinton or Trump? Thi... 1 hr Donald J Trump 167
More from around the web