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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#51494 Jun 16, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. Just because something's always been done a certain way doesn't necessarily make it the best way.
An appeal to biology, and conjugality. Two sexes, one union. So is coitus the best way to reproduce?

But you aren't interested in a logical argument, are you?
So they called gay people something else besides 'homosexual' before the late 19th century.
They who? How do you know people were distinctly identified by same sex sexual behavior? Seems odd for something so "innate", that it took until the late 19th century for same sex sexual behavior to be given a medical term.
That doesn't mean they didn't exist.
It could mean that despite the existence of SSSB, and individuals who engaged in such, there was no compelling reason to designate it as a basis for a distinct identity.

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Fremont, CA

#51495 Jun 16, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Each American owes about $50,000 to pay off the national debt. That is what happens when Christians are elected to public office.
Make government smaller. Get government out of the marriage manipulation business, get government out of playing favorites to Christians and stop blaming gays for the defects of Christians.
Christianity is the problem not homosexuality and gay marriage.
...and taxing the single minority to provide tax breaks to the married majority somehow fixes the budget?

Get a clue. Both parties are about them getting money but not the other side.

The Liberals are mostly the educated professionals who don't employ others. The Conservatives are mostly the corporate climbers who are all corporate politics anyway. Neither side wants to do anything but shear the sheep...and they will continue to do so until the sheep simply stop being sheep.

There's not a flipping thing in creation you can litigate that will fix the problem. Right now, both parties are even looking for an angle on how they can claim to be looking out for our interests by driving the government into a ditch. What's coming down the pipe will be bloody. But it will happen.. Nothing can stop it.... Why try to stop it? Every one of them deserves their head on a pole.

Judged:

25

25

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#51497 Jun 16, 2014
Pattysboi wrote:
fr Pietro:
>...Both polygamists, and SSMers seek the abolition of the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Same objective.<

[QUOTE]
Wrong. Polygamy is against the law. Marriage Equality is not. Clear as mud now? Good. If not,have mommy explain to you why little boys shouldn't interrupt adult conversations.
Patty's girl,

No, it's right. "Marriage equality" seeks the abolition of he sole legal definition of marriage as union one one man and one woman as husband and wife. Ditto for polygamists who also seek the same. Remember "marriage equality" is not just for same sex couple anymore.

BTW polygamy is not illegal, it's simply not legally recognized through issuance of concurrent multiple marriage licenses.

Judged:

22

22

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#51498 Jun 16, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
An appeal to biology, and conjugality. Two sexes, one union. So is coitus the best way to reproduce?
Doesn't require marriage. Never has; never will.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But you aren't interested in a logical argument, are you?
If you gave one t would be a first. After all, you're the one who keeps citing procreation as an argument when it's never been a requirement of marriage and you only want to exclude some but not all who can't procreate.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They who? How do you know people were distinctly identified by same sex sexual behavior? Seems odd for something so "innate", that it took until the late 19th century for same sex sexual behavior to be given a medical term.
Considering disease has been around as long as humans, it seems odd that it took until the late 19th century for medicine to fully confirm the germ theory of disease.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It could mean that despite the existence of SSSB, and individuals who engaged in such, there was no compelling reason to designate it as a basis for a distinct identity.
Because the majority of people back then, fueled in no small part by religious beliefs, were more concerned with punishing, persecuting and harming people who exhibited such behavior as "abnormal" and "abominations". And people like that still exist today; you need only look in a mirror to find one.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#51499 Jun 16, 2014
lides wrote:
...Tell me, Brian, why is it so disastrous if a same sex couple can marry and have the same legal rights and protections as anyone else? How does that adversely effect your life?
Same sex couples do have the same legal rights and protections of a anyone else without marriage, they have the same legal rights as single people.

Berndan Eich, cofounder of Mozilla was adversely effected with the loss of his job. Elaine Huguenin was sued to force the celebration of same sex marriage from her artistic expression, where's her free speech? Sex segregating marriage creates new school cirriculum where instead of history, children learn the contributions of homosexuals and other minority groups as PC propaganda. Same sex marriage means higher taxes for everyone or less to go around with a smaller slice of the pie.

.
lides wrote:
You really are an unintelligent monster, and you prove it each and every time you argue for fellow citizens to be treated as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
I'm insulted thus adversely effected by being called "an unintelligent monster", but let's move on. So you can call single people, second class citizens because they aren't treated like married couples, by lides logic.

I advocate civil unions and domestic partnerships, a perfect compromise. Same sex couples already have wills, living wills and contracts and I advocate same sex couples be treated like married couples by the community, not by the law.

Live isn't fair to those who lose love's lottery and never find a mate. Not giving single people the rights of married couples isn't monstrous or mean. Not radically redefining marriage based on sexual predilection is only common sense.

Judged:

35

35

35

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#51500 Jun 16, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Patty's girl,
No, it's right. "Marriage equality" seeks the abolition of he sole legal definition of marriage as union one one man and one woman as husband and wife. Ditto for polygamists who also seek the same. Remember "marriage equality" is not just for same sex couple anymore.
BTW polygamy is not illegal, it's simply not legally recognized through issuance of concurrent multiple marriage licenses.
Actually, civil polygamy is illegal and is prosecutable as the crime of bigamy, stupid Peter. The government doesn't care if you engage in religious marriage (regardless of the number of people involved) because such marriages have no eval status or recognition.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#51501 Jun 16, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, civil polygamy is illegal and is prosecutable as the crime of bigamy, stupid Peter. The government doesn't care if you engage in religious marriage (regardless of the number of people involved) because such marriages have no eval status or recognition.
So you're saying polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it's illegal. The old appeal to tradition fallacy, eh?

Judged:

29

29

29

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#51502 Jun 16, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
So you're saying polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it's illegal. The old appeal to tradition fallacy, eh?
Actually, I said no such thing. But don't let the truth or your reading disability get in the way of your need to lie about others, Frankie.

Poof1

“don't tell me how”

Since: May 14

to live my life

#51503 Jun 16, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it's illegal. The old appeal to tradition fallacy, eh?
No dumbazz he said that polygamy is illegal.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#51504 Jun 16, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I said no such thing. But don't let the truth or your reading disability get in the way of your need to lie about others, Frankie.
Oh! Silly me. I thought there was a reason for you telling us what everyone knows already. That polygamy is illegal. But you see, no one is arguing otherwise.

So is that your whole argument why polygamy should be illegal, squeaky? Because it is?

Judged:

26

26

26

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#51505 Jun 16, 2014
Poof1 wrote:
<quoted text>No dumbazz he said that polygamy is illegal.
Another one with the big news we already know. "Polygamy is illegal". No sh!t Poop1. YUK!YUK!YUK! No Sh!t Poop1. Funny! Ah good times.

Tells us polygamy is illegal. Priceless!

Judged:

26

26

26

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#51506 Jun 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>I
I advocate civil unions and domestic partnerships, a perfect compromise. Same sex couples already have wills, living wills and contracts and I advocate same sex couples be treated like married couples by the community, not by the law.
We now have over 1400 federal marriage benefits that we didn't have before. Even with attorneys, there were certain areas that we did NOT have access to, like social security.
Without federal recognition, I couldn't be added to my husband's property without paying taxes on that gain.

You keep arguing shit without knowing your facts, and you keep arguing to prevent things which have ALREADY happened. It really makes you look pretty silly.

I would call you mentally deficient, but that would be rude to mentally retarded individuals.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#51507 Jun 16, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly they do, but EFF the Conservatives and the high horse they rode in on.
That doesn't change the fact that the Democratic Party is pursuing their own agenda and I fully intend to take it away from them and you.
Good luck with that; you'll need it.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#51508 Jun 16, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Oh! Silly me. I thought there was a reason for you telling us what everyone knows already. That polygamy is illegal. But you see, no one is arguing otherwise.
Stupid Pietro Armando argues otherwise in post #51497:

"BTW polygamy is not illegal..."

I simply corrected him. Then you and your reading disability butted in as usual.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
So is that your whole argument why polygamy should be illegal, squeaky? Because it is?
I've not argued polygamy should be illegal, Frankie. Once again you're confusing me with other posters. It's not the first time you've done so and likely won't be he last time, given your obvious senility.
Bruno

Lomita, CA

#51509 Jun 16, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You post the same crap, but refuse to answer questions about it.
Name one of the new intrusive regulations, or STFU and don't post that again, b!tch.
Roses Law --- so STFU bitch

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#51510 Jun 16, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid Pietro Armando argues otherwise in post #51497:
"BTW polygamy is not illegal..."
I simply corrected him. Then you and your reading disability butted in as usual.
<quoted text>
I've not argued polygamy should be illegal, Frankie. Once again you're confusing me with other posters. It's not the first time you've done so and likely won't be he last time, given your obvious senility.
Ah, so you agree that polygamy should be legal but you just feel like insulting me anyway, eh?

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#51511 Jun 16, 2014
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Roses Law --- so STFU bitch
Oh, you two lovebirds get so silly.

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#51512 Jun 16, 2014
Every adult human being must be free without state, public, religious or other forcible interference to choose the form of heterosexual, homosexual or sexually mixed family life, provided that it does no harm.

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Chucky

Miami, FL

#51513 Jun 16, 2014
Why is Amerika suddenly embracing homosexuality?
I don't mind them coming out of the closet but I wish they'd STAY IN THE HOUSE!!

Judged:

18

18

18

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Cali Girl 2014

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#51514 Jun 17, 2014
Pattysboi wrote:
Eileen Jael, sodomites lived in Sodom, which was destroyed, along with Gomorrah, because of inhospitality to strangers, NOT homosexuality. Please have someone explain it to you so that you can understand the truth.

Oh, and just an FYI,my WIFE and I (a happy lesbian FAMILY) will celebrate our fifth wedding anniversary this year in June.
Inhospitality??to strangers in what way?BTW-Congratulations on your marriage,may God Bless you!

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
Looking for a girlfriend for a married bi-sexual (Aug '08) 2 min Pleasures feminin... 54
News Singer Greg Gould: 'I was told not to be too gay' 1 hr Marco R s Secret ... 1
News Gay Pride just 'not black enough' 1 hr Marco R s Secret ... 1
News Scientists reveal lesbians are MUCH more likely... 1 hr Marco R s Secret ... 6
News Is your child a "prehomosexual"? Forecasting ad... (Sep '10) 1 hr Dr. Q 773
News Trans woman in Halifax questions if prejudice i... 2 hr Dr. Q 6
News Hundreds rally, march for transgender rights in... 2 hr Dr. Q 4
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 7 hr Constitution 101 24,775
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 hr TomInElPaso 45,145
More from around the web