Gay marriage

There are 20 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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2879 May 1, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That you lack the ability to respond intelligently
Only by your standards. Like I said, you are dumber than a 5th grader. Do you think you are going to get anyone to come around to see things as you do? That would be degeneration. I still think you're very funny though.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2880 May 1, 2013
lides wrote:
I wouldn't take pointers from Wonderbread. If possible, they are more ignorant, and less intelligent, than you are.
I'm Wonderbread and you are the red, yellow and blue buffoons.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2881 May 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"Each time I see that you have done so, instead of responding, I smile knowing that you have tacitly admitted defeat."
Ummm....JD, that IS a response.
You just can't make this stuff up. You are definitely dumber than a fifth grader.
Poor lides...he doesn't get it...I guess that's why id-jits are id-jits....

I personally, don't even bother with him anymore...waste of energy...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2882 May 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Only by your standards. Like I said, you are dumber than a 5th grader. Do you think you are going to get anyone to come around to see things as you do? That would be degeneration. I still think you're very funny though.
I am sure you won't come around, because you hate equality and you are too dumb to count to three.

Face it Wonderbread, in all of the posts you have ever made, never once have you laid out even so little as a rational basis to deny equal protection of same sex couples to legally marry.

You are ignorant of the Constitution, you are a troll, you are unintelligent, and you are inarticulate.

I could care less what your warped brain does or does not accept. All you have proven, repeatedly, is that you aren't very smart, and you have difficulty with basic concepts.

Feel free to FINALLY articulate ANY legitimate state interest served by denying legal equality for same sex couples to marry that would render such a restriction constitution, and begin to prove that you have some semblance of a brain. The reality remains that you have not done so, because no such interest exists, and the only justification for your argument is your own irrational fear and bigotry.

Yours is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2883 May 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm Wonderbread and you are the red, yellow and blue buffoons.
Maybe he'll try to put the plastic bag over his head...
d pantz

United States

#2884 May 1, 2013
lides wrote:
Fool, it's terribly funny when you prove that you haven't the intellectual capacity to refute the arguments of others, and instead stoop to the, somewhat juvenile, practice of using the "Judge It" feature.
Each time I see that you have done so, instead of responding, I smile knowing that you have tacitly admitted defeat.
that doesn't work on the mobile version.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2885 May 1, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should I be insecure, you are the one who can't defend their position, and who apparently takes umbrage at having your argument addressed point by point.
Feel free to respond with a rational argument, thus far, you have done nothing more than attempt to put forth a smokescreen and retreat.
That said, if my argument were as utterly unsupported as your own, I might do the same.
The reality remains that the constitution requires states to provide equal protection of the laws. You've never once been able to indicate a single reason why such equal protection should be denied same sex couples regarding marriage.
I don't think you're up to the task.
Reality doesn't exist in sound bite format. What you think about me isn't the issue. Are you or are you not going to respect posters by addressing their posts in the context it was given.

Yes or No?

To heck with nattering about the Constitution if you're just going to parse again, but if you want to talk about equal protection, then talk about financial protection and answer why you think anyone is entitled to tax breaks for their sexual practices.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2886 May 1, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text>that doesn't work on the mobile version.
I can't believe that he actually is complaining about "judge it"! One's arguments defend themselves. The opinions of trolls who can't defend their own prejudices pretty much explain it all quite well, don't you think?
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#2887 May 1, 2013
lides,you keep asking people to give you reasons what interest the govt has in denying gays the legal protection to marry ,but a civil union would provide you with the same legal protection as a marriage.You also say thats it in the constitution that everyone has the right to marry ,but when the constitution was written they wouldve had heterosexual marriage in mind as homosexuality and sodomy were outlawed in those days.Therefore everyone still has the legal right to marry as long as they marry the opposite sex as was intended.
I just dont get why a civil union is not good enough for you when it provides you with the exact same benefits as a marriage .Gays only make up mayby 5 percent of the population ,yet they want the other 95 percent to change the way they see what marriage is just for theyre whim.I see that as very selfish!

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#2888 May 1, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Marriage is marriage. If you have the legal right to be a gay couple, you have the legal right to be a gay MARRIED couple. End of debate.
Let's climb out of the 19th century, folks.
Rights? Fine. Call it marriage? NO. Marriage by definition is a holy union between male and female for purpose of procreation. Anything otherwise would be an abomination.

“When You Stare Into The Abyss”

Since: Feb 13

The Abyss Stares Back At You

#2889 May 1, 2013
common sense wrote:
lides,you keep asking people to give you reasons what interest the govt has in denying gays the legal protection to marry ,but a civil union would provide you with the same legal protection as a marriage.You also say thats it in the constitution that everyone has the right to marry ,but when the constitution was written they wouldve had heterosexual marriage in mind as homosexuality and sodomy were outlawed in those days.Therefore everyone still has the legal right to marry as long as they marry the opposite sex as was intended.
I just dont get why a civil union is not good enough for you when it provides you with the exact same benefits as a marriage .Gays only make up mayby 5 percent of the population ,yet they want the other 95 percent to change the way they see what marriage is just for theyre whim.I see that as very selfish!
And sorry but you would be very wrong! There are over 1,000 rights and benefits that a civil union does not provide but a marriage does! Please try again! So just who is being selfish I ask?

Civil unions V.s. Marriage,the differences!

gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilm...

“When You Stare Into The Abyss”

Since: Feb 13

The Abyss Stares Back At You

#2890 May 1, 2013
BukuModels Webmaster wrote:
<quoted text>
Rights? Fine. Call it marriage? NO. Marriage by definition is a holy union between male and female for purpose of procreation. Anything otherwise would be an abomination.
Geez,I wasn't aware that the only reasons for marriage was to procreate? Is there some new law that I haven't heard about? Perhaps you should tell all the couples who don't want any children or couples who are over their child bearing years! Your post is laughable at best! Procreation can be part of the equation but by any means isn't the only reason to get married,there are many other valid reasons! Perhaps you are also forgetting that this nation is not a theocracy but is in fact a SECULAR country! Thanks for the laugh though!

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#2891 May 1, 2013
BukuModels Webmaster wrote:
<quoted text>
Rights? Fine. Call it marriage? NO. Marriage by definition is a holy union between male and female for purpose of procreation. Anything otherwise would be an abomination.
Many people get married and don't want kids. Your religious hocus pocus fails.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2892 May 1, 2013
common sense wrote:
lides,you keep asking people to give you reasons what interest the govt has in denying gays the legal protection to marry ,but a civil union would provide you with the same legal protection as a marriage.You also say thats it in the constitution that everyone has the right to marry ,but when the constitution was written they wouldve had heterosexual marriage in mind as homosexuality and sodomy were outlawed in those days.Therefore everyone still has the legal right to marry as long as they marry the opposite sex as was intended.
I just dont get why a civil union is not good enough for you when it provides you with the exact same benefits as a marriage .Gays only make up mayby 5 percent of the population ,yet they want the other 95 percent to change the way they see what marriage is just for theyre whim.I see that as very selfish!
A civil union does no such thing. You see, we have already determined that separate was not equal 50 years ago in determining school segregation. What is more, one would have to be tetchy to think it was a good idea to let lawmakers create new legislation to ensure equal protection for a separate group, particularly when our constitution already guarantees equal protection of the laws for all.

Your assertion that everyone has the freedom to marry within the restrictions of the law are flawed at their face, which is why I ask what state interest is served. Absent such an interest, such a restriction is unconstitutional in this country.

Which brings us back to the question with which you take issue, but seemingly cannot answer.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2893 May 1, 2013
BukuModels Webmaster wrote:
<quoted text>
Rights? Fine. Call it marriage? NO. Marriage by definition is a holy union between male and female for purpose of procreation. Anything otherwise would be an abomination.
A swing an a miss.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... US Constitution, 1st Amendment.

Thanks for playing.
common sense

Glen Waverley, Australia

#2894 May 1, 2013
lides you are obviously a very intelligent individual so surely you must see why a lot of people see issue with a gay union being called a marriage.You are wanting to change the whole meaning of a word to suit yourselves when 95 percent of the population are straight.
I totally understand fighting for a state recognized union that provides you with the same rights and priveleges but to call it marriage ,which everyone knows refers to the union of a male and female ,is wrong .
The segragation you speak of was an entirely different issue and should in no ways be compared to this ,and if i was african american,which i am not,i would take offence to you even saying that.
d pantz

United States

#2895 May 2, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't believe that he actually is complaining about "judge it"! One's arguments defend themselves. The opinions of trolls who can't defend their own prejudices pretty much explain it all quite well, don't you think?
Maybe he shouldn't post if he doesn't like it. Complaining to me is only going to make me go to full site and "judge it!".
d pantz

United States

#2896 May 2, 2013
common sense wrote:
lides you are obviously a very intelligent individual so surely you must see why a lot of people see issue with a gay union being called a marriage.You are wanting to change the whole meaning of a word to suit yourselves when 95 percent of the population are straight.
I totally understand fighting for a state recognized union that provides you with the same rights and priveleges but to call it marriage ,which everyone knows refers to the union of a male and female ,is wrong .
The segragation you speak of was an entirely different issue and should in no ways be compared to this ,and if i was african american,which i am not,i would take offence to you even saying that.
I really don't care what its called, as long as the federal government stays out of it.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2897 May 2, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> I really don't care what its called, as long as the federal government stays out of it.
I care what it is called! The issue is legal precedent. Marriage has a prepackaged precedent of State sponsorship giving it legitimacy that it does not merit.

Make no mistake about it!!

Gay marriage is a legal segue towards Gay Affirmative Action and any other social engineering program that the Socialists can come up with.

It's not too different than the repeated effort to call "illegal aliens" "undocumented immigrants". I'd like to think the average person isn't an idiot who can be conditioned to think of political decisions as fate, but there it is! There are your idiots.

Don't concede defeat by giving legitimacy to behaviors that are not legitimate or legal. Or.... give in and live the life of a food animal, living in a small box for the entirety of your pathetic life.

The government gives people like that guns to shoot each other, but that doesn't make them free. They are in perpetual confinement by their own need to be part of a herd. Democracy has no meaning to those who can't defy the alphas of the herd.

The government considers livestock disposable. I consider them disposable. Soon enough, machines will replace them anyway. They'll just sit on their fat @zzes with their mouths agape when they get rounded up to be reduced down for raw materials.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2898 May 2, 2013
common sense wrote:
lides you are obviously a very intelligent individual so surely you must see why a lot of people see issue with a gay union being called a marriage.You are wanting to change the whole meaning of a word to suit yourselves when 95 percent of the population are straight.
I totally understand fighting for a state recognized union that provides you with the same rights and priveleges but to call it marriage ,which everyone knows refers to the union of a male and female ,is wrong .
The segragation you speak of was an entirely different issue and should in no ways be compared to this ,and if i was african american,which i am not,i would take offence to you even saying that.
There's nothing intelligent about him. His posts are canned rhetoric.

Personally, I think YOU'RE canned rhetoric. This debate has nothing to do with racial minorities. You just want to pander to race hatred where you can find it. YOU are looking to keep marriage perks for the straights and not the gays.(Assuming that you're not just being a concocted loser shill for the gay cause to begin with!) Based on what you're already acting out, given a choice, you WILL give the gays those perks rather than give them up in the name of fair taxation.

You WILL obey your master. You already have sworn allegiance. We just need to know which master you serve. Now!.... Are you just going to invent another sock puppet name from Melbourne to carry on your dodgy propaganda or will you cut the rhetoric and put some actual legal logic into the debate?

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 3 min Pietro Armando 2,399
News Madison bans discrimination against atheists, n... 6 min EdmondWA 28
News Religious Right Outraged Over CBS Correctly Cal... 7 min Tazo 1
News Gay marriage foe's argument seems to leave Supr... 8 min Dan 87
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 11 min GayleWood 20,568
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 17 min WeTheSheeple 3,364
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 18 min Reverend Alan 488
News Justice Roberts Hints How He Could Justify Voti... 2 hr WeTheSheeple 85
Are the mods fair and balanced? 11 hr Poof1 812
More from around the web