Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61391 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.

anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#38937 Mar 26, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Drink your juice, Shelby.
I'm going to assume that you're referencing some sitcom or some other Hollywood humor that I really have no interest in.

You're going to have to invent your own choreographed put-downs. Isn't the "stupid" thing working out for you?
Poof

Madison, WI

#38938 Mar 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ah, duh, you sound like Rizzo, duh, drool."
Priceless. Get a real argument, troll.
What would you like to discuss?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#38940 Mar 26, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that's a fair enough response, but I may still call you out for avoiding context.
The reality is that the majority regularly plays that angle of saving the widdle children and demanding action NOW when the reality is that ALL the children would be better served by making decisions that would have better long term results. You're still not being a good advocate for individual rights and it's not my job to coddle the sensitivities of gays, parents or any other selfish faction who feels entitled to government perks.
That doesn't mean that us vets can't have perks. We paid for them with service to our country. We don't have to be smiling advocates for anyone's politics either. Military service is a dirty job. It isn't a template for corporate abuse of the workforce. It's all part of an honor code that is built around sacrifice from the young being paid back with respect in the community. If the community doesn't respond accordingly, the government may have to sweeten the pot a bit. Too much so and you'll get mercenaries....but we can't have our cake and eat it too. The reality is that military service is as much about money as anything else though. If you can't pay the cost of your war mongering yourself, then the government will have to take it out of your taxes. Accept it and move on.
Hypocrite.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#38941 Mar 26, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course parents are liars. They lie all the time to kids to get them to go to sleep on Christmas eve. I'm still angry about that Santa thing. BUT I decided that that particular lie isn't important anymore. At least not to me. How about you?
No, the real lie that angers me is the lie to themselves that justifies their sense of entitlement.
As I said to Alan before, the worst demon ever created is the one who demands to be treated as a peer no matter how much you don't want to allow it. What do YOU suppose YOUR choice is about respecting your younger siblings?...or do you even have any? Are you just riding on that demon train for the complementary peanuts?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: get therapy. So much of this is just you working out your own issues. It has nothing to do with gay marriage or taxes or anything else.(Oh and let's not forget your desperate need for attention.)

You just ranted against a sense of entitlement and then in the next sentence display your sense of entitlement. You also displayed your sense of entitlement in your previous post.

Hypocrite.

Everyone in America is "a peer." No one is more equal than anyone else. If that doesn't bear out in practice, we remedy it through the courts and/or the legislature.

I have 3 younger siblings. I was instrumental in raising two of them. The third is much younger and as yet unmarried. The middle one is married with an infant. The older one is divorced with two kids. He and I, while each others' best man at our respective weddings, had an issue when he left his wife for no good reason after 5 or 6 years. His father is long out of the picture, and I tried to give him the advice a decent father would give: You don't have to make a big decision right now, agree to go for marriage counseling for a set period of time, and take leaving off the table during that time. You can always make a decision after, but you owe it to your wife (and the vows you took) and your children (at the time, one infant and one 2 year old) to try harder than just saying, "I think I'm not happy." Nobody was cheating, nobody was on drugs, nobody was abusive to each other or the kids - he just decided to bail. He didn't like that I reminded him of his personal responsibility, so our relationship has been rocky for the last couple of years. And he's a cliche.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#38942 Mar 26, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm going to assume that you're referencing some sitcom or some other Hollywood humor that I really have no interest in.
You're going to have to invent your own choreographed put-downs. Isn't the "stupid" thing working out for you?
It wasn't for you. It was making fun of you. I knew the normal people would "get it."
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#38943 Mar 26, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I've said it before and I'll say it again: get therapy. So much of this is just you working out your own issues. It has nothing to do with gay marriage or taxes or anything else.(Oh and let's not forget your desperate need for attention.)
You just ranted against a sense of entitlement and then in the next sentence display your sense of entitlement. You also displayed your sense of entitlement in your previous post.
Hypocrite.
Everyone in America is "a peer." No one is more equal than anyone else. If that doesn't bear out in practice, we remedy it through the courts and/or the legislature.
I have 3 younger siblings. I was instrumental in raising two of them. The third is much younger and as yet unmarried. The middle one is married with an infant. The older one is divorced with two kids. He and I, while each others' best man at our respective weddings, had an issue when he left his wife for no good reason after 5 or 6 years. His father is long out of the picture, and I tried to give him the advice a decent father would give: You don't have to make a big decision right now, agree to go for marriage counseling for a set period of time, and take leaving off the table during that time. You can always make a decision after, but you owe it to your wife (and the vows you took) and your children (at the time, one infant and one 2 year old) to try harder than just saying, "I think I'm not happy." Nobody was cheating, nobody was on drugs, nobody was abusive to each other or the kids - he just decided to bail. He didn't like that I reminded him of his personal responsibility, so our relationship has been rocky for the last couple of years. And he's a cliche.
You're truly blind!(and stupid, of course! Therapy can't help that!)

You're pretty much demonstrating the pattern, but thought that being the "eldest" "entitled" you do dodge that bullet. Sure the kids matter but every relationship has elements that people AREN'T going to share with others. And probably PARTICULARLY not with a gay who is likely to side with the woman. Arrogant eldest son. Arrogant gay.

You think I'm wrong? Tell us what you REALLY mean by "cliche". You think his life is some kind of fashion statement? Queer eye for the married guy? What a BRICK!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#38944 Mar 26, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't for you. It was making fun of you. I knew the normal people would "get it."
I guess that reminds me of an old adolescent joke about umm "oral sex" cramp.

Do you get it? How often?

Haw! Haw! Haw! A real knee slapper!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#38945 Mar 26, 2014
European-American wrote:
Why do Americans (USA and Latin America specifically) care so much about sexuality? In Europe, they don't give a sh..it what your sexuality is. They just care about your character and how you treat others with respect and decency. Americans (USA and Latin America) are fu...cked up because of their lies, ignorance, arrogance, stubborness, and last but not least, stupidity and hatred.
You obviously haven't been following what's going on in France for the past year or so...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#38946 Mar 26, 2014
#38720
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
The constitution doesn't care about your assumptions about the procreative capabilities of various classes of people. It only cares that similarly situated classes are treated alike.
-
The Constitution may not care, but statutory law cares. The only way same-sex couples might be "similarly situated" to opposite-sex couples would be if men were similarly situated to women. Insofar as marriage traditionally pertains to the sexual relationship, then men would have to be biologically and sexually situated similar to women and vice versa. But they are not: Women get pregnant and bear children; men do not! Each sex has its own, distinct biological role.

The only way marriage could be logically and legally consistent would be by removing the presumptive link between biology and sexuality and the marital relationship. But this changes the nature of marriage in a fundamental way, rendering it effectively a sort of civil partnership.
-
Then you in a roundabout way just declared Justice Scalia insane based on what he said in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:
"...what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
-
I don’t think you understood Justice Scalia correctly. He was posing a rhetorical question, evidently, to highlight an implication of the ruling, which, eventually, came to pass.

Re: Marriage classifications are realistically based on the only relationship where procreation has a high probability and is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of that relationship,
Terra Firma wrote:
It doesn't need to be as marriage encompasses far more than just creating babies. And same sex couples, like their similarly situated opposite sex non-procreative couples, have just as much interest and right to those aspects of marriage.
-
Well, nothing needs to be. A legislature can pass any old, crazy law that it wants. But, marriage has evolved into an institution that has its origin in the reality of procreation, and this is universally true across all cultures and civilizations since the dawn of civilization. So, one’s choice is between a body of laws that are rooted in reality, or laws based on crazy ideas and notions with no practical utility except political ones. Same-sex marriage has not been driven by logic, reality or practical necessity, but purely by politics. Evidently, we live in a system where, if there were people well-enough organized and politically connected who wanted to marry the family pet, marriage would be available to them, also.

Then again, you make an apples-to-oranges comparison, taking an entire class, singling out one, specific characteristic, and comparing it to a sub-category of another entire class that shares that same characteristic, and then drawing an equivalency between each entire class. This is just really bad logic!

Opposite-sex, non-procreative couples are similarly situated to all opposite-sex couples based on the characteristic that they are opposite-sex couples, not on whether they can procreate or not. The classification is drawn according to the gender composition of couples and not according to their fertility for practical reasons. The law assumes the high probability of procreation for opposite-sex couples, because these actually do this! And it is much easier to see whether people are men and women that it is to tell whether they are fertile or not. So, slight over-inclusion or under-inclusion is permitted in laws, as law making is imperfect, and mathematical precision is not expected nor required. But, why does this even need to be explained?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#38947 Mar 26, 2014
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>What would you like to discuss?
Let's start with your ignorance, hate and bigotry.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#38948 Mar 26, 2014

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#38949 Mar 26, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't mean that us vets can't have perks. We paid for them with service to our country.
You didn't serve our country. Our country is not those criminals and con-artist authoritarians in Washington who invented a war so as to gain more power over people by scaring them so they will accept more government control over them. You were part of a scam put on by the criminals and their friends in Washington who have deceived everyone into believing they have some kind of legitimate authority over us. You were sent to kill brown people to makes the friends of the criminals rich. And rich they got. You served the interests of those criminals. You were a hired hit man.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#38950 Mar 26, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course parents are liars. They lie all the time to kids to get them to go to sleep on Christmas eve. I'm still angry about that Santa thing. BUT I decided that that particular lie isn't important anymore. At least not to me. How about you?
No, the real lie that angers me is the lie to themselves that justifies their sense of entitlement.
As I said to Alan before, the worst demon ever created is the one who demands to be treated as a peer no matter how much you don't want to allow it. What do YOU suppose YOUR choice is about respecting your younger siblings?...or do you even have any? Are you just riding on that demon train for the complementary peanuts?
Santa has a message for all the little children of the world: Dear Children, Some day you will learn everything there is to know about Santa, on that day I want you to remember everything the adults told you about Jesus.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#38951 Mar 26, 2014
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>What would you like to discuss?
I do not believe it is a question of what, but with whom. Authoritarians do not make for a good discussion Poof. When you can't refute or answer something, or even challenge it you resort to name calling and insults. Why would anyone consider you for a discussion?
Poof

Madison, WI

#38952 Mar 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's start with your ignorance, hate and bigotry.
Are you upset again? Frankie if it upsets you to participate in a discussion, why do you even bother to come here?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#38953 Mar 26, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Hypocrite.
That is unfair and unfounded. I didn't see anything hypocritical. What was hypocritical in what he wrote?
Poof

Madison, WI

#38954 Mar 26, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Santa has a message for all the little children of the world: Dear Children, Some day you will learn everything there is to know about Santa, on that day I want you to remember everything the adults told you about Jesus.
Hey take your religious bigotry elsewhere. We are trying to have a discussion on the subject of same sex marriage. Your negativity isn't needed.
Poof

Madison, WI

#38955 Mar 26, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't serve our country. Our country is not those criminals and con-artist authoritarians in Washington who invented a war so as to gain more power over people by scaring them so they will accept more government control over them. You were part of a scam put on by the criminals and their friends in Washington who have deceived everyone into believing they have some kind of legitimate authority over us. You were sent to kill brown people to makes the friends of the criminals rich. And rich they got. You served the interests of those criminals. You were a hired hit man.
You seem to disgruntled with Vets , don't hate Frankie.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#38956 Mar 26, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You just ranted against a sense of entitlement and then in the next sentence display your sense of entitlement. You also displayed your sense of entitlement in your previous post.
Hypocrite..
That is a much better reply than just saying Hypocrite. You explained what you found hypocritical and I find I have to agree with you. My last post to you was a mistake. Sorry.
Poof

Madison, WI

#38957 Mar 26, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not believe it is a question of what, but with whom. Authoritarians do not make for a good discussion Poof. When you can't refute or answer something, or even challenge it you resort to name calling and insults. Why would anyone consider you for a discussion?
Why do you attack people just because they disagree with you ? Childish behavior on your behalf.

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 Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 2 min Tulips 976
Will NE Jade Apologise two Frankie twoday? 2 min Big Frankie Fan 12
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 min tbird19482 37,386
Turday Morning Jade Thread 4 min Big Frankie Fan 2
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 5 min Frankie Rizzo 13,155
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 7 min Nopal 890
Greatest Gays 25 min Swede 6
More from around the web