Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61392 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.

common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3063 May 7, 2013
Gay marriage deteriotes what a marriage means now and turns it into something thats non traditional or conservative and is more sexually liberated.The state does allow equal protection of the law by allowing anyone to get married ,and as long as you abide by its laws youre affored the same priveleges and rights.

I dont even think thats its about having the same priveleges and rights for the gays because as they've mentioned before ,even if they had a civil union that afforded them the same priveleges and rights they would still want to change the meaning of marriage because it represents something that they can never have ,and thats a normal ,biological family .
the crispy critter

Noblesville, IN

#3065 May 7, 2013
down with gay up with straight
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3066 May 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, in responding to a post that did not parse, but rather combined responses to multiple posts you ahve proven that you a) don't understand what parsed means, and b) lack the ability to rationally argue against comments that address specific points.
Congratulations, for proving your irrelevance. Feel free to join the adults and offer a valid argument.
You parsed. You obviously can't follow a simple request, and you're showing your obsessive-compulsive and anti-social tendencies. I don't need to "rationally respond to specific points" Those are what are called "sound bites".

Granted, the common apes don't like to debate complex concepts, but life is complex. If all you're interested in is to talk to poo flinging chimps, then so be it. You're not capable of addressing complex human cultural responsibilities, just basic animal impulses.

I'm sure you can find PLENTY of posters whose pat response to almost anything is "Yeah! Well you can suck my ****!" and from there, you can unleash your "special" response and life is like a big fat cigar for you! Neither misanthropic response is how I contend with life, but I guess you HAD to try ONE more time to induce a "fencing" match.

YOU! YOU! YOU! Remember! Just ONE more time!! Not a fencing animal! Just ONE MORE TIME!

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#3067 May 7, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text>wow I bet you have a theology degree.
Actually what Ryan wrote was probably one of the best explanations I have read! What's wrong w/ Theology degrees?

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#3068 May 7, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>Absolutely correct!
Gay Marriage is not totally legal in every state!!! In my state they just passed civil unions which is technically not the same! The big legal differences have to do w/ sickness, death , taxes and adoption all things that homosexuals have trouble engaging in unlike their heterosexual neighbors.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3069 May 7, 2013
common sense wrote:
lides,you keep going on and on like a broken record about what benefit does the state have in denying gay marriage,but what benefits will the state have in changing such a well established instutution as marriage that has been the cornerstone of civilization for millenia.Marriage as it has been has had many benefits for society and served us well till now ,so like they say if it aint broke ,dont fix it.
Why would the state spend all that money and time and effort and upset a large part of their population just to appease a small minority of people with abnormal sexual desires.What benefit will gay marriage provide to the state or to the population in general,how will it make our lives any better to change the status quo.
Gays are the ones who want to change things so the onus is on them to provide us with why we should do so and to what benefit is it to society in general.
No, that is a mistaken assumption. Since you brought up slavery, consider the analogy. Slaves would have been cruelly punished for speaking up for their rights and the value of freeing them. In truth, the debate still goes on today, but we launder our underclass through complex laws.

Today, we use Mexicans as the cornerstone of our form of slavery. We want cheap agricultural labor that can't be replaced by machines. We want to keep these people on a leash, the fear of deportation that would hurt none of the farming conglomerates, but would entail great expense within out government to prevent to begin with, and perhaps more to return to Mexico, Our farming conglomerates have dodged their taxation responsibilities while illegal aliens are a liability to our healthcare and schools.

We don't need lies and denial. We need adults. The Bill of Rights are there to protect the minority factions more than to protect gun-toting, Bible-thumping, intolerant bullies.

Slavery had to end. It was an institution in defiance of the Bill of Rights. Treating human beings as property is the old way of laundering basic human rights. Unfair taxation issues like marriage are the new way of doing the same.

Too bad for you that a greedy, goofball group has decided that they are entitled to the selfish perks that the current majority takes as a "right".

There are three basic truths of our culture that have changed since the current marriage assumptions were decided. First, women are now regularly part of the workforce. Second, the United States has established income tax laws. Third, we are no longer in a state of colonial expansion.

Well, the convention of having a marriage based on the splitting of chores between heavy labor and routine maintenance of a house may have made good sense when we did not have appliances and factories to handle a majority of the responsibilities, but just has many jobs have been replaced by machines, so has the role of the homemaker.

The Income Tax rules go hand-in-hand with the colonization thing. There was a time when our country believed in a national purpose called "manifest destiny", kind of like an Apollo space program for the 1800's. We felt it was our destiny to build the nation to occupy the continent from coast to coast. Delaying that goal would have threatened our ambitions. That's all over! We don't need to subsidize breeding. It never really was a thing that our government should have gotten involved in anyway.

Those days are over. The days of the individual homesteaders are over. The reality of today is providing jobs for a population that has largely urbanized and that is in excess of our needs for improving our standard of living.

The reality if that we are still locked in a world of old-school industrialists who promised that we'd all have white-collar jobs, leaving the labor to foreigners. Well, that has not happened either. We have computers, but no organization, facts but no ideas.

We need adults, not posers! Don't leave our world to obsolete industrialists.

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#3070 May 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I've never written: "civil marriage is about ensuring that children are raised by their biological parents", those are Jerald's words, not mine. I wrote, the ideal is for a child to be raised by the kid's mom and dad; that's why marriage is male/female.

Note the use of the word 'ideal', not everybody can live up to that standard. That's no reason to ban adoption as Jerald proposes.
Your argument is simplistic! Throughout history children have been raised both well and poorly in a variety of environments- either do to a parent's death or being abandoned - as long as one is brought up in a loving environment that is all that counts! I have several gay friends who have kids- and having witnessed their development in our community I can safely say those kids will be terrific adults !
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3071 May 7, 2013
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> "compelling interest of the state"? What?
Roughly translated: Authoritarian rule.

It's not sinking in!

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#3072 May 7, 2013
common sense wrote:
Gay marriage deteriotes what a marriage means now and turns it into something thats non traditional or conservative and is more sexually liberated.The state does allow equal protection of the law by allowing anyone to get married ,and as long as you abide by its laws youre affored the same priveleges and rights.

I dont even think thats its about having the same priveleges and rights for the gays because as they've mentioned before ,even if they had a civil union that afforded them the same priveleges and rights they would still want to change the meaning of marriage because it represents something that they can never have ,and thats a normal ,biological family .
Lol- yea Marriage is so sacred- that's why we have the divorce rates we do, right? What are they now, over 50%? That must because of how sacred it is! And for all of you claiming its been the same for a millennia must forget the days where is was just a means for kings to gain land and power by pawing their daughters to other kings....I could go on and on over sacredness of "marriage "!

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#3073 May 7, 2013
the crispy critter wrote:
down with gay up with straight
Dude- grow up and expand your mind
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3074 May 7, 2013
4sitesartproductions wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude- grow up and expand your mind
Why is that post any different than the "Judge me" nonsense?

More posers!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3075 May 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I've never written: "civil marriage is about ensuring that children are raised by their biological parents", those are Jerald's words, not mine. I wrote, the ideal is for a child to be raised by the kid's mom and dad; that's why marriage is male/female.
Note the use of the word 'ideal', not everybody can live up to that standard. That's no reason to ban adoption as Jerald proposes.
What you’ve never done is substantiate your opinion with an actual study, medical, academic, scientific,or otherwise.

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#3076 May 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Why is that post any different than the "Judge me" nonsense?

More posers!
I judge your statement- which was ignorant !!! Saying that being straight is the only way is close minded , yes? That's why I said you should expand your mind ! I stand by my original statement - cheers.

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#3077 May 7, 2013
lides wrote:
What you’ve never done is substantiate your opinion with an actual study, medical, academic, scientific,or otherwise.
If you were referring to me- then here you go:

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statem...

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-26...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opinion/kel...

Please let me know if you would like to see more articles!!!! I tried to vet the sources to make sure they were credible! I also have my personal experience having witnessed some friends raise a very intelligent an social son which I believe I mentioned in an earlier post.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3078 May 7, 2013
4sitesartproductions wrote:
<quoted text>
I judge your statement- which was ignorant !!! Saying that being straight is the only way is close minded , yes? That's why I said you should expand your mind ! I stand by my original statement - cheers.
Why does anyone care about your judgement?

No. All you are doing is monkey fencing. The vast majority of people here aren't here to debate. They're here to trash talk.

If you wish to do a little toe tapping with the conservatives, find a nice airport bathroom stall or something. I don't need or want your games. All you posers.... Well, I have to say, titillating yourselves in front of the mirror.

Put some logic and facts on the table or go to your bathroom stall and play....

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#3079 May 7, 2013
d pantz wrote:
"compelling interest of the state"? What?
It is a very important part of the legal standard to which our right to marry is supposed to be held to. The individual's right to marry is seen as being such a fundamental one, in order for the state to deny us that right, it must serve a compelling governmental interest in order to do so. You cannot marry a six-year-old, because the state has the compelling interest of the protection of minors. You cannot marry your pet, lawn furniture, your car, etc, because the state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as a consensual contract between the parties. You cannot marry your mother, father, sister, brother, etc, because the state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as a contract between legal strangers. The government has no interest, compelling or otherwise, that is served by denying your, my, our right to marry based on the sex of the person you are wanting to marry.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3080 May 7, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>It is a very important part of the legal standard to which our right to marry is supposed to be held to. The individual's right to marry is seen as being such a fundamental one, in order for the state to deny us that right, it must serve a compelling governmental interest in order to do so. You cannot marry a six-year-old, because the state has the compelling interest of the protection of minors. You cannot marry your pet, lawn furniture, your car, etc, because the state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as a consensual contract between the parties. You cannot marry your mother, father, sister, brother, etc, because the state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as a contract between legal strangers. The government has no interest, compelling or otherwise, that is served by denying your, my, our right to marry based on the sex of the person you are wanting to marry.
Hold on now...what 'compelling interest' goes the state have in maintaining marriage 'only' between strangers???

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#3081 May 7, 2013
common sense wrote:
Gay marriage deteriotes what a marriage means now and turns it into something thats non traditional or conservative and is more sexually liberated.
People who actually want to be married and in many instances having already been together for years and even decades, "deteriotes" marriage? Is heterosexuality some sort of learning disorder? Considering that your "tradition" allows for serial monogamy (the current American record is something like 27 legal marriages) and no fault divorce, allowing same sex marriages doesn't seem like all that much of a threat to it.
common sense wrote:
The state does allow equal protection of the law by allowing anyone to get married ,and as long as you abide by its laws youre affored the same priveleges and rights.
I'll bet you don't know this, but that is the same argument which was used to justify bans on interracial marriages. As long as you abide by the rules, you have the same right to marry someone of your approved races as everybody else. Sorry, the state should not have the authority to determine who we may or may not marry based on their sex.
common sense wrote:
I dont even think thats its about having the same priveleges and rights for the gays because as they've mentioned before ,even if they had a civil union that afforded them the same priveleges and rights they would still want to change the meaning of marriage because it represents something that they can never have ,and thats a normal ,biological family .
Dear, the "meaning of marriage" has been legally redefined in any number of ways and any number of times over the course of the centuries. You can cope with another. Creating a separate special category just for same sex couples kind of flies in the face of the idea of equal protection, doesn't it? Why do you call yourself "common sense" when you don't seem to have any? The two states which have tried to go the separate but equal route have failed miserably. Vermont's Legislature went with full equality with all couples under the same laws after only a couple of years, New jersey is in the process of being sued over their disaster. the ONLY way that ALL couples will be treated as legal equals is if the same applies to all.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#3082 May 7, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Hold on now...what 'compelling interest' goes the state have in maintaining marriage 'only' between strangers???
Why am I not the least bit surprised that you wouldn't be bright enough to figure that one out on your own? Anyways. Dear, marrying those already legally related to you would supersede the rights of your other legal kin, some of whom might be ahead of your spousal choice in that line. The state has a compelling interest in maintaining the common law regarding kinship, which is served by denying incestuous marriages.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3083 May 7, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Why am I not the least bit surprised that you wouldn't be bright enough to figure that one out on your own? Anyways. Dear, marrying those already legally related to you would supersede the rights of your other legal kin,
So??????
some of whom might be ahead of your spousal choice in that line.
Exactly! That would be a reason for the two getting married...to make the one 'you' want to be your 'next of kin'.....
The state has a compelling interest in maintaining the common law regarding kinship, which is served by denying incestuous marriages.
What interest does the state have in telling someone who they can choose as their next of kin in marriage??? You haven't explained that at all.....

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 Church of Scotland moves closer to letting mini... 2 hr Rainbow Kid 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr tbird19482 49,276
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr Pope Rainbow 6,049
News Mormon church pulls older teens out of Boy Scouts 3 hr The Troll Stopper 43
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... (Nov '16) 3 hr UMAKEWORLDPEACEUM... 2,428
Thanks BIG BOSS MAN! 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 3
News Amherst raises Pride flag 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 4
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 7 hr Evilgelicalling 460
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 13 hr Harlod 69,528
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 14 hr Truth 25,618
More from around the web