Gay marriage is legal, but wedding in...

Gay marriage is legal, but wedding industry stuck in old traditions

There are 39 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Aug 1, 2013, titled Gay marriage is legal, but wedding industry stuck in old traditions. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

Pablo Presti and David Mohr describe what they want to Corrine Ceja as they shop for a wedding cake at Aki's Bakery in San Jose, Calif.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#21 Aug 1, 2013
Vance1 wrote:
Ban all "Gay marriage" it serves no purpose
Sorry Vance......but "GAY" marriage simply DOESN'T exist.......and just because you don't like Same-Sex couples having the right to marry won't make it be real either!!!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#22 Aug 1, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called "The federal law that forces Americans to support gay marriage", signed into law by The Obamaniac last year. Don't you know ANYTHING ?!
Cigarettes are legal, does that mean everyone is being forced to support that?

Marijuana is legal in Washington state, does that mean everyone here is being forced to support that?

Alcohol is legal, does that mean everyone is forced to support that?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#23 Aug 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Cigarettes are legal, does that mean everyone is being forced to support that?
Marijuana is legal in Washington state, does that mean everyone here is being forced to support that?
Alcohol is legal, does that mean everyone is forced to support that?
Don't forget bacon. Bacon is legal throughout the United States--and probably all of America. So are cheeseburgers. Even bacon cheeseburgers. But I know people who don's support them.

Heck, I even know people who don't support Wienersnitzel.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#24 Aug 2, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
We're about the same percentage of the population as Jews. Do you think that discrimination against Jews is also okay? Massachusetts probably has about the same number of blacks as gays.(New Hampshire has more gays.) So is it okay to discriminate against blacks?
Any man and woman that want to be married shouldn't be denied. Religion and race are irrelevant. I read a story recently that said something about if straight couples want to adopt they have to accept and approve of LGBT orientation in case their adopted child turns out to be gay, bisexual or thinks he/she has the wrong plumbing. Looks like most adoptive couples will be gay going forward, are there enough of you? You forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption process, keep up the creepy work.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#25 Aug 2, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget bacon. Bacon is legal throughout the United States--and probably all of America. So are cheeseburgers. Even bacon cheeseburgers. But I know people who don's support them.
Heck, I even know people who don't support Wienersnitzel.
I'm a strict vegetarian so I do NOT support the eating of meat, or killing animals.

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

#26 Aug 2, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
...clip... You forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption process, keep up the creepy work.
Non-discrimination based on sexual orientation has been law in Massachusetts since 1989. The LGBT community had nothing to do with Catholic Charities <<ending>> their placement of children with s-s couples. Catholic Charities had done so in the past on at least 13 different occasions. Then the Vatican and The Bishops decided it was contrary to Church doctrine to place childen with s-s couples.

Your gripe should be with The Commonwealth for enforcing a non-discrimination policy with Catholic Charities that, up to that point, had been partially funded with tax payer dollars. It was Catholic Charities' decision to quit the adoption business. The LGBT community didn't "force" Catholic Charities to do anything.

“Liberal Teachers ruin Kids”

Since: Mar 09

Paradise Valley Arizona

#27 Aug 2, 2013
If only “Adam and Steve” had lived in the garden, No one else would be here today.

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

#28 Aug 2, 2013
Vance1 wrote:
If only “Adam and Steve” had lived in the garden, No one else would be here today.
LOL. You might be correct if "the garden" myth was factual. But, cellular biology and genetics inform us that the mitochondrial "Eve" and the Y-chromosomal "Adam" didn't even know each other. They existed separately, tens of thousands of years apart.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#29 Aug 2, 2013
Vance1 wrote:
If only “Adam and Steve” had lived in the garden, No one else would be here today.
And that would have been far BETTER for all of the other creatures living on this earth.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#30 Aug 2, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Any man and woman that want to be married shouldn't be denied. Religion and race are irrelevant. I read a story recently that said something about if straight couples want to adopt they have to accept and approve of LGBT orientation in case their adopted child turns out to be gay, bisexual or thinks he/she has the wrong plumbing. Looks like most adoptive couples will be gay going forward, are there enough of you? You forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption process, keep up the creepy work.
You should get your head out of anti-gay propaganda sites now and again. You're drowning.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#31 Aug 2, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget bacon. Bacon is legal throughout the United States--and probably all of America. So are cheeseburgers. Even bacon cheeseburgers. But I know people who don's support them.
Heck, I even know people who don't support Wienersnitzel.
Windows is also legal in the US, I don't support them myself.:p

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#32 Aug 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Windows is also legal in the US, I don't support them myself.:p
i use xp
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#33 Aug 4, 2013
Edio wrote:
<quoted text>
Non-discrimination based on sexual orientation has been law in Massachusetts since 1989. The LGBT community had nothing to do with Catholic Charities <<ending>> their placement of children with s-s couples. Catholic Charities had done so in the past on at least 13 different occasions. Then the Vatican and The Bishops decided it was contrary to Church doctrine to place childen with s-s couples.
Your gripe should be with The Commonwealth for enforcing a non-discrimination policy with Catholic Charities that, up to that point, had been partially funded with tax payer dollars. It was Catholic Charities' decision to quit the adoption business. The LGBT community didn't "force" Catholic Charities to do anything.
Of course they did.
Have you read the 1st Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#34 Aug 4, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they did.
Have you read the 1st Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
You live in Massachusetts. You should be aware that, prior to recognizing same-sex marriages in the state, Catholic Charities had been placing children in same-sex households when it was in the best interest of the children.

When same-sex marriages were legalized, however, the hierarchy decided to substitute bigotry for judgment in the placement of children. They ordered Catholic Charities to cease placing children with same-sex couples, even when the placement would serve the best interests of the child.

As a result, the Catholic Charities' board resigned en masse.

You know all these things because you live in Massachusetts. It was all over the papers at the time.

You simply ignore the facts because you are a dishonest person. Everything you say will be tainted by your propensity to ignore truth and substitute more convenient facts.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#36 Aug 15, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You live in Massachusetts. You should be aware that, prior to recognizing same-sex marriages in the state, Catholic Charities had been placing children in same-sex households when it was in the best interest of the children.
When same-sex marriages were legalized, however, the hierarchy decided to substitute bigotry for judgment in the placement of children.
They didn't substitute bigotry for judgment, they came to their senses. It is never in the best interest of a child to place him/her with a same sex couple. It places enormous and unnecessary stress on the child.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#37 Aug 15, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't substitute bigotry for judgment, they came to their senses. It is never in the best interest of a child to place him/her with a same sex couple. It places enormous and unnecessary stress on the child.
And yet, you have no proof that you are correct, just opinion, which flies in the face of reality.

There are NO proposals to forcibly remove the tens of thousands of children from their same sex parents and raise them in foster care. Nor are there proposals to sterilize all gay people, and prevent their adoption of children.

The ONLY question here is whether or not children of gay parents benefit in the same ways as other children if their parents can legally marry.

And you already know the answer to that question. That's why you so carefully avoid it.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#38 Aug 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
The ONLY question here is whether or not children of gay parents benefit in the same ways as other children if their parents can legally marry.
And you already know the answer to that question. That's why you so carefully avoid it.
Avoid what? The child of a same sex couple, married or not, can never benefit from having a mother and a father caring for him/her.

There will always be kids that will make fun of a child with same sex parents.

Look what all of this gay nonsense is doing.
Father/daughter dance banned in Rhode Island.
Couples that refuse to accept homosexuality may have a difficult time adopting.
Catholic Charities opts out of adoption services.
Military members may get an additional 10 days of leave to get married. That's not equal.
The list goes on.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#39 Aug 15, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't substitute bigotry for judgment, they came to their senses. It is never in the best interest of a child to place him/her with a same sex couple. It places enormous and unnecessary stress on the child.
Right. According to you, the children of same-sex parents should be rounded up and thrown into orphanages.

Nobody is going to trust your judgment regarding the welfare of other people's children.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#40 Aug 15, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Avoid what? The child of a same sex couple, married or not, can never benefit from having a mother and a father caring for him/her.
And yet, there is absolutely no evidence that having two mothers or two fathers is in any way inferior to having a father and a mother.

More importantly, you have yet to answer this question: What child of same-sex parents is deprived of a father and a mother? The answer, of course, is NONE. If there were well-qualified homes with opposite sex parents wanting that child, the children wouldn't be available to the same-sex couple. If the couple has the child through some version of surrogacy, then the child would not have been born at all, much less into an opposite-sex household.

You know how same-sex couples adopt children already: They are the ones that no heterosexual couple will accept. They are the ones that their disabled or drug-addled siblings can't raise on their own. They are the children whose father is serving a life sentence for having shot their mother.

Yet you pretend--and pretend is all it is--that there are "better" options for these children.
Military members may get an additional 10 days of leave to get married. That's not equal.
Amazingly, you have said something a reasonable person can agree with. Keep up the good work.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
When will Jade apologize two Frankie? 2 min Frankie Rizzo 4
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 5 min Ismail 794
News Orlando Democrat: FDA should end ban on gay men... 9 min Frankie Rizzo 19
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 18 min antipolicticalcor... 13,124
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 21 min Jon 967
News Politicians, Gay Rights Groups Calls on FDA to ... 26 min RalphB 3
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 1 hr Terry 387
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr TomInElPaso 37,364
More from around the web