Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61393 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.

Marine Corp Pat

San Jose, CA

#4961 Aug 27, 2013
This is something I can really get behind - if you catch my drift ;)
Jeena

Chennai, India

#4963 Aug 27, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Putting your head up your *ss isn't a Yoga position that I had heard of before. It's definitely given you a unique perspective on things, an idiotic one, but definitely unique.
Actually there is a Yoga posture, where you put your head up your own *ss. Thats called Karna Peetasana. Try that. You'll see your own *ss and will stop finding same-sex other's attractive. I think thats your problem. You haven't seen your own, so you think special about same sex other's.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4964 Aug 27, 2013
Homosexuality is a gift sweetness. It's not my fault you don't want to get it. But I forgive you.
AntiGlobalist Easterner

Chennai, India

#4965 Aug 28, 2013
AntiGlobalist westerner wrote:
Children, even though they have neither money nor votes should have a say in this issue. It would, to me, seem hard for me to deny children to have a say. They DO in custody battles and often their wishes may trump an opposite totality of other factors.
The fact that invoking children's rights here is automatically presumed by gay activists to be nothing but bigotry is disgusting. With such a notion no wonder this issue is not so much debated as being some "spoils if war" or "rallying cries around a battle standard" to win a fight about something else.
I will also be VERY curious to know what will be aftermath here. Is the globalist agenda, free of exceptions or rights, going to accept Putin to do thus?!?! When will we see PussyRiot on Letterman and then Gaga concert to demonize Vlaf next,?
Remember, Putin is a Russian and doesn't care what front page in people magazine says. I wish our leaders would start thinking more about their own people as well, rather than global agenda.
You bet there'll be an unholy alliance between gays and lesbos on this. The gays will be sperm donors, while the lesbos are surrogate mothers. They arrange these things nicely among themselves. They don't need us and we don't need them. They might as well live in some remote island and have their own queer laws.
Pity their children.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4966 Aug 28, 2013
AntiGlobalist Easterner wrote:
<quoted text>
You bet there'll be an unholy alliance between gays and lesbos on this. The gays will be sperm donors, while the lesbos are surrogate mothers....
That happens on occasion, but most of the time, we just raise the byproducts of irresponsible heterosexual fornication.

We call them children. Heterosexuals call them unwanted, and mistakes.
AntiGlobalist Easterner

Chennai, India

#4967 Aug 28, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That happens on occasion, but most of the time, we just raise the byproducts of irresponsible heterosexual fornication.
We call them children. Heterosexuals call them unwanted, and mistakes.
So, you pride yourselves as the social scavangers? You mean before gay-marriages these abandoned children were buried alive like trash? There are enough support systems for such children. I don't think they need the kind of set-up you offer.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#4968 Aug 28, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That happens on occasion, but most of the time, we just raise the byproducts of irresponsible heterosexual fornication.
We call them children. Heterosexuals call them unwanted, and mistakes.
Ha! Ha! Ha!

My HERO! Save us all from irresponsible fornication!

I think I just gave birth to a baby boi!.....No, I was just laughing too hard!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4969 Aug 28, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? Procreation isn't required for marriage.
Maybe it should be.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4970 Aug 28, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That happens on occasion, but most of the time, we just raise the byproducts of irresponsible heterosexual fornication.
We call them children. Heterosexuals call them unwanted, and mistakes.
Irresponsible homosexual fornication
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_basics_...

Tell us again why gay couples don't have accidental children.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4971 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
See the pattern of suing religious people for practicing their faith?
Now the photographer in New Mexico.
You really are clueless, Brian. They are sued when they deny service to others, thereby projecting their religious views onto others. Their free exercise of religion is not violated by offering a service to someone who believes differently than they do.

Why do you hate freedom?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4972 Aug 28, 2013
Quest wrote:
First, it's likely illegal. However, did these business put a sign up on the front door, so that the undesirables would know that they were not welcome? How is the black person, the gay person, or the Jew to know that they should not walk through the door?
So, you would force a Jewish photographer to commemorate a Nazi rally, unless he had proper signage?

.
Quest wrote:
Can YOU imagine walking in to a shop in your town, exited about the future, only to be tole that you were not the "sort" that business would serve. That you were lesser. Not worthy to spend your money, there. How many stores would YOU be happy to enter, and be humiliated in, before you complained? For a reference, you might want to ask a few black folks who were refused a seat at a lunch counter. It's an ugly scene, even when couched as religious belief.
None of those businesses refused custom to gays, they only refused to participate in their same sex marriage. Both the baker and the florist had served the couple that later sued them. They didn't have signs on their door because they believe gays were born in God's image too; only a leftist would think of that. They just don't want to be forced to support a same sex wedding.

And that's tolerant, how?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4973 Aug 28, 2013
lides wrote:
You really are clueless, Brian. They are sued when they deny service to others, thereby projecting their religious views onto others. Their free exercise of religion is not violated by offering a service to someone who believes differently than they do.
Why do you hate freedom?
You don't have a right to zero tolerance customer service; get over yourself and stop suing Christians. A photographer should be free to not be forced to use her artistic expression in support of same sex marriage if that's against her religious beliefs. The same for the the baker and florists too. Don't be a hater and stop suing Christians. That's not funny.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4974 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
So, you would force a Jewish photographer to commemorate a Nazi rally, unless he had proper signage?
Are you trying to reinforce the notion that you are insane by equating homosexuality to Nazis?
Brian_G wrote:
None of those businesses refused custom to gays, they only refused to participate in their same sex marriage.
Which is to refuse custom. I love it when you contradict yourself in the course of one sentence.
Brian_G wrote:
Both the baker and the florist had served the couple that later sued them.
Yet, they denied service when they became aware the customer was homosexual and getting married to someone of the same sex.
Brian_G wrote:
They didn't have signs on their door because they believe gays were born in God's image too; only a leftist would think of that. They just don't want to be forced to support a same sex wedding.
If they believe gays are made in God's image, then why judge them and discriminate against them? Are you saying that these owners are Christian in name only, and are in actuality hypocrites?
Brian_G wrote:
And that's tolerant, how?
Not providing serve for a gay wedding is intolerant, plain and simple. Providing the service in no way infringes upon the religious freedom of the owners, which is why they keep losing in court.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4975 Aug 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you trying to reinforce the notion that you are insane by equating homosexuality to Nazis?
Answer the question:
So, you would force a Jewish photographer to commemorate a Nazi rally, unless he had proper signage?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4976 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
You don't have a right to zero tolerance customer service; get over yourself and stop suing Christians.
I have a right to be free from discrimination or religious persecution. Businesses have no right to project their religious beliefs onto me, or to refuse me service based upon their religious beliefs.
Brian_G wrote:
A photographer should be free to not be forced to use her artistic expression in support of same sex marriage if that's against her religious beliefs.
A photographer does not have the right to thrust their religious morality onto others, demanding that customers conform to their religious moral beliefs in order to use their services. Doing so violates the free exercise of the customer. Your photographer's case perfectly illustrates how mindless your argument is, as they have already lost in court 3 times. Guess what? They will continue to lose. Shooting photographs for a gay wedding doesn't violate the photographer's religious freedom.
Brian_G wrote:
The same for the the baker and florists too. Don't be a hater and stop suing Christians. That's not funny.
They too shall lose in court. They have no valid defense.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4977 Aug 28, 2013
lides wrote:
Not providing serve for a gay wedding is intolerant, plain and simple.
Of course it is. They won't tolerate something they find to be deeply and fundamentally wrong. I see no problem with it.
Jeena

Chennai, India

#4979 Aug 28, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe it should be.
I have been trying to tell these guys that 'marriage' itself is merely a means to secure the future of children, but they go on that 'procreation' is not needed for 'marriage'.
AntiGlobalist Easterner

Chennai, India

#4980 Aug 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a right to be free from discrimination or religious persecution. Businesses have no right to project their religious beliefs onto me, or to refuse me service based upon their religious beliefs.
<quoted text>
A photographer does not have the right to thrust their religious morality onto others, demanding that customers conform to their religious moral beliefs in order to use their services. Doing so violates the free exercise of the customer. Your photographer's case perfectly illustrates how mindless your argument is, as they have already lost in court 3 times. Guess what? They will continue to lose. Shooting photographs for a gay wedding doesn't violate the photographer's religious freedom.
<quoted text>
They too shall lose in court. They have no valid defense.
There is something called 'business ethics' or 'work ethics', right? It means you do not allow to sell your soul for money, right? It is simply in their business ethics to refuse gay-marriage offers.
commone sense

Box Hill, Australia

#4981 Aug 28, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Homosexuality is a gift sweetness. It's not my fault you don't want to get it. But I forgive you.
You really are a poor ,sick ,deluded individual aren't you.How on earth are the following a gift?-
1-never being able to naturally have biological kids born out of the love you share with your loved one.
2-not being able to have proper sexual intercourse without the help of lubes,sextoys and resorting to unnatural,unhygienic sexual practices to get your rocks off.
3-always being looked down on and regarded as not normal,
4-never being able to go anywhere in the world without the risk of being jailed ,or killed for your disorder.
5-never being able to get married ,or have your marriage recognized anywhere in the world.

More like a curse .

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4983 Aug 28, 2013
Winner of the most ironic name choice of the day goes to:
commone sense wrote:
You really are a poor ,sick ,deluded individual aren't you.How on earth are the following a gift?-
Definitely not poor, not sick and decidedly not deluded pumpkin. Whether you like it or not, my being gay, a gift from my creator.
commone sense wrote:
1-never being able to naturally have biological kids born out of the love you share with your loved one.
Sweetie, my being gay is actually a secondary reason why I have not become a parent. The primary one is that I never wanted one of my own.
commone sense wrote:
2-not being able to have proper sexual intercourse without the help of lubes,sextoys and resorting to unnatural,unhygienic sexual practices to get your rocks off.
You seriously need to work on your homoerotic fantasy life.
commone sense wrote:
3-always being looked down on and regarded as not normal,
Why is it that those who argue for the natural and normal superiority of the heterosexual always the most inferior models of the orientation? I really don't mind breaking this to you hon, but you could be waving at us from the top rung of the world's tallest ladder and still not be able to look down on the worst of us.
commone sense wrote:
4-never being able to go anywhere in the world without the risk of being jailed ,or killed for your disorder.
You've confused a country's laws with its people. I'm certain that I've seen more of the world than you have. I've even been to a few countries where officially there was an unwelcome mat for me. You'd be shocked at how few people actually share in your issues.
commone sense wrote:
5-never being able to get married ,or have your marriage recognized anywhere in the world.
More disappointment for you hon. I can get married and it will be recognized and soon, will be able to do so in any state.
commone sense wrote:
More like a curse .
The irony...

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 Christians Must Unite Now Against Gay Bullies a... 12 min ZOBO 30
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 19 min Terra Firma 36,244
News Tennessee GSA Supporters Rally While Hate-Group... 30 min betterfacts 14
News Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 1 hr Tony Price 77 2,092
News Maroon 5 scrap North Carolina shows 1 hr Retired SOF 22
News More gay people can now get legally married. Th... (Oct '14) 2 hr Shie46 52
News Gay sex - disgusts Allah and causes earthquakes... 3 hr NE Jade 4
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 hr River Tam 11,856
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 3 hr An NFL Fan 995
More from around the web