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.

drink The hivE

Anonymous Proxy

#5886 Sep 28, 2013
Republican': God - Gun' And Taxes.

Democrats: Queer' Right - Illegal Immigration And Food Stamps - This Nation Is Sitting In A Big Pile Of Horse Shit...

http://31.media.tumblr.com/d248d8f38b3d2104d1...

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#5887 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So I lose my right to free speech when I run a business. Oh, and my right to freely practice my faith?
What about no shoes, no shirt, no service?
It would be participating in a sacrilege to support a faux wedding as a Pastor.
You lose your right to discriminate against patrons of your business, not your right to free speech. You can say whatever you want to your patrons. You likely won't be in business very long, but you are free to speak your mind. You just can't refuse to serve patrons of your business because serving them would somehow be at odds with your religion. Suppose a Jewish delicatessen owner refused to do business with you because he knows you use ground beef and cheese in the same dish and doing business with you is therefore against his religious views. Or let's suppose the photographer contracts with a heterosexual couple to shoot their wedding and he arrives to find that the service is of a very strictly secular nature and that the couple getting "married" are atheists. The photographer, or for that matter any of those providing a service for the wedding are at liberty to bail on the event after they realize that the couple getting married are not actually getting married by religious standards. They cannot truly get "married" if they are atheists, at least not in the sense that marriage is a religious institution. Would you walk out on a secular wedding? There are plenty of pastors who stand ready and willing to perform same-sex marriages. They call themselves Christians, too! Bt you know better than they do what constitutes "sacrilege" because your version of Christianity is the right one and all those others are wrong. Catholicism is a disease I'm glad I survived. I forget which pope it was, just a pope or two ago, who said that all non-Catholic religious organizations (he refused to refer to them as churches) lack the means to eternal salvation. That means, of course, that half of the Christians in the world are doomed for not being Catholics, according to Catholic dogma. Pretty funny stuff, if you ask me. Of course, every other sect of Christianity is just as convinced that they are right and all others.....well....not so much. I find organized religion (especially, but not limited to, Christianity) to be one of the most comical, but dangerous and divisive phenomena ever.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5888 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Faith is not separated from a Christian's business.
Sorry charlie. A business owner has no right to deny service for customers who hold different religious or moral beliefs, doing so infringes upon the customer's free exercise of religion. Providing the service in no way infringes upon the business owner's free speech or freedom of religion. Feel free to make an argument to the contrary, and be specific about how their rights have been infringed.
KiMare wrote:
I lived in HI. Shoes and shirts are not required. But a business can segregate.
The best argument you can advance is a no shirt, no shoes, no service argument? Some people might be offended that you equal not wearing a shirt or shoes to religious freedom. That's pretty cavalier.
KiMare wrote:
Some ministers do serve weddings as a business, and even outside of a Church.
Sorry charlie, it's still part of the church, ergo it is not a secular business providing public accommodation. Of course a minister cannot be compelled to legally marry a couple that goes against their religious faith, that would violate the first amendment.
KiMare wrote:
Some Christians and non-Christians rent rooms in their homes. It would be against their faith to allow unmarried couples to rent a room.
However, that is none of their business, and renting to such a couple does not violate their religious freedom to rent to an unmarried couple. They may still think that such an arrangement is sinful or amoral, but they have no right to force others to live by their (the owner's) religious morals. In most jurisdictions there are laws that would prevent them from being able to deny a couple the ability to rent on that basis.
KiMare wrote:
You are asserting that the Founding Fathers mandated they rent that room?
No, I am asserting that even if they do rent the room to such a couple it does not violate the owner's religious freedom. They may still believe it is sinful, they may choose not to enter into such a union, but they have no right to force others to abide by their religious moral beliefs. Doing so violates the free exercise of the couple who seek to rent the room.

If you don't like it, don't put yourself in a position to rent rooms.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5889 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>You lose your right to discriminate against patrons of your business, not your right to free speech. You can say whatever you want to your patrons. You likely won't be in business very long, but you are free to speak your mind. You just can't refuse to serve patrons of your business because serving them would somehow be at odds with your religion. Suppose a Jewish delicatessen owner refused to do business with you because he knows you use ground beef and cheese in the same dish and doing business with you is therefore against his religious views. Or let's suppose the photographer contracts with a heterosexual couple to shoot their wedding and he arrives to find that the service is of a very strictly secular nature and that the couple getting "married" are atheists. The photographer, or for that matter any of those providing a service for the wedding are at liberty to bail on the event after they realize that the couple getting married are not actually getting married by religious standards. They cannot truly get "married" if they are atheists, at least not in the sense that marriage is a religious institution. Would you walk out on a secular wedding? There are plenty of pastors who stand ready and willing to perform same-sex marriages. They call themselves Christians, too! Bt you know better than they do what constitutes "sacrilege" because your version of Christianity is the right one and all those others are wrong. Catholicism is a disease I'm glad I survived. I forget which pope it was, just a pope or two ago, who said that all non-Catholic religious organizations (he refused to refer to them as churches) lack the means to eternal salvation. That means, of course, that half of the Christians in the world are doomed for not being Catholics, according to Catholic dogma. Pretty funny stuff, if you ask me. Of course, every other sect of Christianity is just as convinced that they are right and all others.....well....not so much. I find organized religion (especially, but not limited to, Christianity) to be one of the most comical, but dangerous and divisive phenomena ever.
Sorry, the right to refuse service for religious cause has been upheld.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#5890 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, the right to refuse service for religious cause has been upheld.
So can a store deny you service just because your a Christian?

If you walked into a hospital and they said sorry your a Christian we cant help you. Would you say ok with a smile and leave.
Sandeep

Melbourne, Australia

#5891 Sep 28, 2013
here I explain why gay marriage is between a man and a woman only:

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#5892 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I did/do no such thing.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
At its most basic essence, our marriage is no different than yours.

Your opinions are powerless to change that.

Still married, and I take great delight in rubbing that in your face.

If you'd simply accept gay marriage, I couldn't taunt you so.
Gay rights

Ronkonkoma, NY

#5893 Sep 28, 2013
Omg you people are freaking crazy! Gay marriage should be allowed! Imagine if you were gay, or for once just put yourself in our position. Everyone against you, how would you feel.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5894 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
At its most basic essence, our marriage is no different than yours.
Your opinions are powerless to change that.
Still married, and I take great delight in rubbing that in your face.
If you'd simply accept gay marriage, I couldn't taunt you so.
At it's most basic essence your relationship fails right off the bat!

Your 'marriage' is an oxymoron.

I enjoy just stating reality. It's a healthy trait of sanity.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#5895 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
<quoted text>
At it's most basic essence your relationship fails right off the bat!
Your 'marriage' is an oxymoron.
I enjoy just stating reality. It's a healthy trait of sanity.
At its most basic essence, each post of yours is personal opinion.

How effective have your opinions been at negating the reality of my marriage?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5896 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior
Actually, marriage has long been a contract to secure kinship, legal rights and protections, and until recently to secure a dowry. Today, marriage is still a legal contract to secure certain legal rights and protections. It has been illustrated time and again that the state has no interest in procreation relative to legal marriage, and regularly allows infertile couples the right to legally marry.

You have never provided a single state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, which would render such a restriction constitutional.
KiMare wrote:
At it's most basic essence your relationship fails right off the bat!
Your 'marriage' is an oxymoron.
According to your logic, so do any number of heterosexual unions, yet infertile heterosexual couples are regularly allowed to legally marry.
KiMare wrote:
I enjoy just stating reality. It's a healthy trait of sanity.
Of course, offering one's own opinion ad nausem and claiming that it is factual, or in your case "reality," is far from being proof of a sound mind.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5897 Sep 28, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
At its most basic essence, each post of yours is personal opinion.
How effective have your opinions been at negating the reality of my marriage?
It's not my opinions that are exposing your fallacy.

Reality is bitch slapping you all over honey.
give us our rights

Ronkonkoma, NY

#5898 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
<quoted text>
At it's most basic essence your relationship fails right off the bat!
Your 'marriage' is an oxymoron.
I enjoy just stating reality. It's a healthy trait of sanity.
What is wrong with you, just put yourself in our position. And anyway You can't tell anyone their marriage is going to fail just because they aren't straight.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5899 Sep 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, marriage has long been a contract to secure kinship, legal rights and protections, and until recently to secure a dowry. Today, marriage is still a legal contract to secure certain legal rights and protections. It has been illustrated time and again that the state has no interest in procreation relative to legal marriage, and regularly allows infertile couples the right to legally marry.
You have never provided a single state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, which would render such a restriction constitutional.
<quoted text>
According to your logic, so do any number of heterosexual unions, yet infertile heterosexual couples are regularly allowed to legally marry.
<quoted text>
Of course, offering one's own opinion ad nausem and claiming that it is factual, or in your case "reality," is far from being proof of a sound mind.
Actually, that's the only on gay twirl sites, you really need to get out of the closet lides!

I know you are a narcissistic lawyer, but heads up, people hate lawyers, let alone want them to handle kinship/legal protections including giving you a dowry...

Here, read this before you go to bed, and learn something;

http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/bussandschmit...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5900 Sep 28, 2013
give us our rights wrote:
<quoted text>
What is wrong with you, just put yourself in our position. And anyway You can't tell anyone their marriage is going to fail just because they aren't straight.
You have no idea what position I am in...

You won't get what you want by imposing yourself falsely on a relationship you in no way equate with. It will only expose the counterfeit.
gay rights

Ronkonkoma, NY

#5901 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not my opinions that are exposing your fallacy.
Reality is bitch slapping you all over honey.
Listen here, you need to get your facts straight before you come online and express your opinions that hurt peoples feelings. Whats your argument? Why cant we have a marriage? Please explain your fascinating views on this subject as you put yourself in our position. Your the one that needs the reality slap.
give us our rights

Ronkonkoma, NY

#5902 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what position I am in...
You won't get what you want by imposing yourself falsely on a relationship you in no way equate with. It will only expose the counterfeit.
Why don't you just change and like the same sex then? Can you change that easy? You must have super powers because unlike you, I cannot change they way I was born.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5903 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Here, read this before you go to bed, and learn something;
I already knew that you were an irrational bigot.

KiMare, legal marriage has no prerequisite or requirement of procreation. Our constitution guarantees that all people are entitled to equal protection of the law, and you have consistently failed to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, which would render such a restriction constitutional.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5904 Sep 28, 2013
gay rights wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen here, you need to get your facts straight before you come online and express your opinions that hurt peoples feelings. Whats your argument? Why cant we have a marriage? Please explain your fascinating views on this subject as you put yourself in our position. Your the one that needs the reality slap.
Yes you are right, I need to explain why a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered couple is not the same as a diverse gendered couple united in the social constraint of marriage, primarily to provide the best setting for the likely procreation that occurs.

All I can think of right now is, they are different relationships. Everybody knows that. In fact every single culture that has existed in human history. In fact, social scientist estimate for 10 million years!

Is that what you mean?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5905 Sep 28, 2013
give us our rights wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you just change and like the same sex then? Can you change that easy? You must have super powers because unlike you, I cannot change they way I was born.
Well it so happens that I happen to be lesbian trapped in a straight man. Do you think you could change to be us?

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 Trump pledges fealty to religious values, a oeM... 4 min Sandra 86
Buffler Crick Tales 14 min Hector 3
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 21 min Frankie Rizzo 238
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 26 min Rose_NoHo 12,798
News The Long Island Gay & Lesbian Film Festival to ... 1 hr Homer 4
News Russia: Formal complaint made over gay crackdow... 2 hr The Wheeze of Trump 1
News More rejection of 'Intimate Conviction' - Anoth... 2 hr The Wheeze of Trump 4
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr NoahLovesU 57,457
More from around the web