Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61385 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.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5196 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
<quoted text>
Others before me have said this, but I'll repeat the most obvious fact. You are poor social role models. Even one of you being a biological parent will not ease the child's life. I know, as I've already mentioned here, the dubious presence of the other same-sex person is explained as 'normal'. Otherwise the child will die of unhappiness, which will preempt Euthanasia.
Don't know any kids raised in gay families, or even any gay families, do ya?

Here are a couple:



http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Not exactly lives filled with "unhappiness".

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/sex-couples-cens...

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.aspx

http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/...

We are VERY different here is the USA; so different that you cannot (obviously) imagine it.

You have a problem with gang-rapes, child brides, forced marriages, dowry, and treating women as almost subhuman property.

You have no place speaking about child-rearing. You guys create messes.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5197 Sep 5, 2013
Are you high? Because it is far to early in the morning to show this level of paranoia.
anonymous wrote:
We've been through this a thousand times. What's different between pedophilia and homosexuality?
Are you an idiot? Do you really mean to equate sexual contact with a minor, incapable of granting legal consent, to consensual sexual contact between adults? If you don't understand the difference between the two it says more of your incompetence than anything else.
anonymous wrote:
What's different between polygamy and homosexuality?
Once again, can you not count?
anonymous wrote:
I'll tell you what the difference is. It's purely a matter of what the collective culture is willing to tolerate.
I'm telling you that the collective culture is going to go critical if you continue to try to undermine the individual cultures in the name of socialist politics. Other than that, I couldn't care less about your nasty behavior!
The reality remains that unless denying equal protection of the law serves a compelling governmental interest, such a restriction is not constitutional. To say that marriage is only what
"the collective culture is willing to tolerate,"
is a pretty juvenile dodge that fails to address the question at hand.

It looks as though you have no valid argument.
anonymous

Germany

#5198 Sep 5, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanskrit: karma
Pali: kamma
Too bad you quoted the wrong part!

BTW - I already looked that all up as soon as I saw you were talking about Karma as a part of Buddhist philosophy rather than Hindu. Generally, Americans who know anything on the subject link it to Hinduism, but like with many religions, new ones tend to co-opt abstractions from the old ones in an effort to spread the word.

On the original subject, Buddhism is a miniscule fraction of the religions practiced in India so I really don't know why you brought it up, except maybe in a typically cliche effort to be the center of attention in other people's discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Indi...
Lides

Pittsfield, MA

#5199 Sep 5, 2013
I miss my pitcher, Praxis33
anonymous

Höst, Germany

#5200 Sep 5, 2013
lides wrote:
Are you high? Because it is far to early in the morning to show this level of paranoia.
<quoted text>
Are you an idiot? Do you really mean to equate sexual contact with a minor, incapable of granting legal consent, to consensual sexual contact between adults? If you don't understand the difference between the two it says more of your incompetence than anything else.
<quoted text>
Once again, can you not count?
<quoted text>
The reality remains that unless denying equal protection of the law serves a compelling governmental interest, such a restriction is not constitutional. To say that marriage is only what
"the collective culture is willing to tolerate,"
is a pretty juvenile dodge that fails to address the question at hand.
It looks as though you have no valid argument.
Looks to me like you're out to deny your rationalization of "rights" and "equal protection to pedophiles and polygamists.

You want the money for yourself! JUST like the Hetero couples do! But it has to come from somewhere. Where are the "rights" and "equal protection" of single people here?

And don't give me that same ol' cr#p that the self-important Jesus toads do. I choose not to get married and I should not be penalized for that choice.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5201 Sep 5, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Looks to me like you're out to deny your rationalization of "rights" and "equal protection to pedophiles and polygamists.
Unless you are setting out to prove that you are an imbecile, and you are doing an impressive job, these two topics are irrelevant, and here's why.
Pedophilia is illegal, specifically because one partner is underage, and incapable of granting legal consent. A legitimate state interest is served by denying marriage in such a situation, namely protecting the rights of the minor.
Polygamy does not seek equal protection of the law, but rather greater protection. Anyone who can count to three can understand this simple reality, and only truly stupid people advance polygamy as being a valid argument.
anonymous wrote:
You want the money for yourself! JUST like the Hetero couples do! But it has to come from somewhere. Where are the "rights" and "equal protection" of single people here?
What is this money you speak of? You sound insane.
anonymous wrote:
And don't give me that same ol' cr#p that the self-important Jesus toads do. I choose not to get married and I should not be penalized for that choice.
Sorry Charlie, marriage is a choice. If you choose not to enter into a marriage, or more likely cannot convince anyone to marry you, then you can't avail yourself of the legal protections (or liabilities) of marriage, plain and simple.
Gay_But_Not_Gay

Hyderabad, India

#5202 Sep 5, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You should really seek professional help.
This is nothing more than your opinion, and it is unsubstantiated by any study, or medical, scientific, or academic organization.
Simply put, it is nothing more than your own BS rhetoric.
Why don't you introspect on life instead of feeling smug about some crap thrown up by BS studies. You're reveling on borrowed intelligence, as obviously you have none. Its about you painting a rosy picture to your children and making them accept you, while really you're far removed from life. And you say I need help?!
Lides

Pittsfield, MA

#5203 Sep 5, 2013
I miss my pitcher, Praxis33

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5205 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
Why don't you introspect on life instead of feeling smug about some crap thrown up by BS studies. You're reveling on borrowed intelligence, as obviously you have none. Its about you painting a rosy picture to your children and making them accept you, while really you're far removed from life. And you say I need help?!
Would you care to make a point?
You do need help. You are a bigoted fool, arguing for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.

You are clearly ignorant of the constitution and US jurisprudence, and you have no valid argument to support your position, which is why you inflict painful attempts at thought like the one to which I am responding.

Your argument would be funny if it weren't simply pathetic.

Can you come up with a state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry that would render such a restriction constitutional, and prove that you have a valid argument? I don't think you can.
Gay_But_Not_Gay

India

#5206 Sep 5, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you care to make a point?
You do need help. You are a bigoted fool, arguing for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
You are clearly ignorant of the constitution and US jurisprudence, and you have no valid argument to support your position, which is why you inflict painful attempts at thought like the one to which I am responding.
Your argument would be funny if it weren't simply pathetic.
Can you come up with a state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry that would render such a restriction constitutional, and prove that you have a valid argument? I don't think you can.
'equality of equals', not inequals like straights & gays.
I've already answered your 'state interest' in a previous post. Please turn the pages. And you've not answered that yet.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5207 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
'equality of equals', not inequals like straights & gays.
I've already answered your 'state interest' in a previous post. Please turn the pages. And you've not answered that yet.
Sorry, moron, try again.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...

No mention of "equality for equals," which is an idiotic assertion.

Actually, you have never addressed the state interest question.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5211 Sep 5, 2013
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>You homosexuals may say that you follow every religion, but you really don't. If you followed the Word, you wouldn't celebrate your mental disorder, you'd be seeking help. All your high minded bullshit is just that. Sorry.
your "Word" is from a proven false myth...

you worship the words of humans. you worship a false idol. you are in a cult.
Gay_But_Not_Gay

India

#5212 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
<quoted text>
My last answer to Lides applies to your happy gay parenting 'reality' show.
Looking at all the Indian issues in the context of your peculiar problem, I'm inclined to think they are blessings in disguise.
1. Gang rapes are there in all nations where men are.
2. Child marriage & forced marriage - Better sense prevails to avoid the nonsense that you people now force.'Child marriage' is consummated only after the bride's puberty - It is not pedophilia.
3. Ah, yes, dowry!- One of the fall-outs of marriage arrangements. It has its origin in times when women did not inherit. Dowry was a marriage gift to her and not her man. But it is conveniently continued by patriarchs, as men want to cling on to all advantages they had since caveman times.
All said and done, none of these revolt against natural laws as much as you.
I would also clarify that all these social customs - child marriage, forced marriage, dowry have been abolished by law in India. Legal age for women is 18 & for men is 21yrs. They can be breached by persons at the risk of criminal prosecution. The state does not support this.
I've to say this because most of you know very little about the world outside of USA and you should not be led to believe that India is archaic.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5213 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
<quoted text>
I would also clarify that all these social customs - child marriage, forced marriage, dowry have been abolished by law in India. Legal age for women is 18 & for men is 21yrs. They can be breached by persons at the risk of criminal prosecution. The state does not support this.
I've to say this because most of you know very little about the world outside of USA and you should not be led to believe that India is archaic.
yes, and no-one under the age of 21 drinniks alcohol in the US...

Pffft. if i have to point out the contradiction in your statement about the law and the nation of India, all the irony will leak out...

youa re not really from india, are you?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5215 Sep 5, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad you quoted the wrong part!
BTW - I already looked that all up as soon as I saw you were talking about Karma as a part of Buddhist philosophy rather than Hindu. Generally, Americans who know anything on the subject link it to Hinduism, but like with many religions, new ones tend to co-opt abstractions from the old ones in an effort to spread the word.
On the original subject, Buddhism is a miniscule fraction of the religions practiced in India so I really don't know why you brought it up, except maybe in a typically cliche effort to be the center of attention in other people's discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Indi...
This is a FORUM, not a chatroom. Forums are not even semi-private venues. There are no "other people's discussions" in A FORUM.

A FORUM is a free-for-all.

Siddhartha had problems with hinduism and set out to address them. He found solutions by altering some definitions and his primary perspective on certain concepts, eliminating others, and refining yet others. Pretty scientific for the period.
Gay_But_Not_Gay

India

#5216 Sep 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, and no-one under the age of 21 drinniks alcohol in the US...
Pffft. if i have to point out the contradiction in your statement about the law and the nation of India, all the irony will leak out...
youa re not really from india, are you?
Agreed. Indian society is still to catch up with some of its laws(Dowry ones in particular). I've acknowledged this in my posts no. 5159 & 5164. So does your society as regards racial laws.
It is just that I don't want 'gay rights' issues to add to the chaos. I'm afraid our laws and courts are moving towards this, as they always ape US & UK laws mindlessly. The slave mnindset will not go. Many Indian gay brethren will be following this thread and some may even be here passing-off as Americans. So I'm here.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5217 Sep 6, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
I'm afraid our laws and courts are moving towards this, as they always ape US & UK laws mindlessly.
Perhaps some day you might civilize and be able to form your own laws? Until such a time, it is best that you continue to emulate your betters. Why your betters? Because both are moving towards equality for all. twit.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5218 Sep 6, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks to me like you're out to deny your rationalization of "rights" and "equal protection to pedophiles and polygamists.
.
What an odd thing to say.

Do you also feel that every straight person who marries or values marriage must also support harming children or marrying multiples, since they too want to marry a single consenting adult?

You must not have many friends.

Fortunately, all of the straight and gay people I know understand the the differences between adults and children, and what having the ability to consent means. That you don't is disturbing, and possibly dangerous.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5219 Sep 6, 2013
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>You homosexuals may say that you follow every religion, but you really don't. If you followed the Word, you wouldn't celebrate your mental disorder, you'd be seeking help. All your high minded bullshit is just that. Sorry.
Why are you pretending to be a Christian?

According to the words of Jesus, ALL Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ, despite the small differences. If you deny that simple truth, you are not a follower of Christ, so why lie about it?

If you are angry that God created a few people who can only be attracted to the same gender, and upset that He blesses them in the same way He blesses everyone who believes in Him, then argue with Him about it.

He will set you straight.

Don't whine to us about God's plans in our lives. Complain to HIM.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#5220 Sep 6, 2013
lides wrote:
Polygamy does not seek equal protection of the law, but rather greater protection. Anyone who can count to three can understand this simple reality, and only truly stupid people advance polygamy as being a valid argument.
BWAHAHAHAHA! You're still a laugh a minute.

How about if we count to four?
Mom, Dad, Jack & Jill. Oh my, look at the unequal protection!
Could it be that this protection you misunderstand is for individuals? Each individual gets equal protection. Don't stop being stupid, you're hilarious.

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 Boy Scouts suffer a setback in Supreme Court ov... (Oct '06) 33 min RecoveringRacist 318
Looking for a girlfriend for a married bi-sexual (Aug '08) 2 hr Fishinggal40 77
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 2 hr Wondering 344
News College to offer sensitivity training after ant... 3 hr Breeding Is A Sym... 8
News Prominent chefs oppose baker in major gay right... 4 hr Newt G s Next Rel... 7
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 hr Travis Turbil 13,071
Transgender "woman" convicted of raping 10-year... 5 hr Travis Turbil 2
News Who would be a better president: Donald Trump o... 10 hr Noe 41
News Birth-record fix for gays falls to lower court 10 hr Travis Turbil 18
More from around the web