Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 60583 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

#6454 Oct 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You might want to read back a little. All you have are gay twirl talking points you have not thought about. Nor do you know your own condition.
Look up 'mating behavior' and 'homosexuality and epi-genetics'.
Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.
It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.
It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.
It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.
It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.
It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.
It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.
All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.
It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.
<quoted text>
It's just you avoiding unchangeable distinctions.
Or, which of those distinctions will you change a ss couple into to equate to marriage?
Smirk.
Whatever you say, Smirky! I'm only interested in the money....and you don't deserve MY money!
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#6455 Oct 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective and devastatingly total failure of mating behavior.
Ss marriage is an oxymoron.
How can you judge things of faith, when the ability to deal with facts evades you? Smile.
Like on other post...FAITH IS FOR IGNORANT WEAK MINDED NAZI PIGS LIKE YOU...

I deal in facts and the truth. Now since your cults god is myth and can not be proven to be real your cults god has no place in todays world or in law and rules....RUN ALONG NOW NAZI...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6457 Oct 8, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
....
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! Stop lying and pretending otherwise!
What idiot thinks marriage is all about money?

If you believe so, then you must have been in a terrible marriage. But you needn't project your own hatred of marriage on others.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#6458 Oct 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. A sexual defect. That is a scientific fact. All people have defects of some sort and measure.
SS couples are not "defective" simply because they can't reproduce. That's like saying that couples who choose to not have children are defective.

We know you're still looking for company in your circus side-show of genetic freaks, but you're going to have to look elsewhere.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#6459 Oct 8, 2013
The Shadow wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn I wish you'd quit taking stupid pills for a while. Your mental illness is showing.
What I posted was 100% fact. I guess your the one taking stupid pills if you cant see that.

Run along now for months I have slammed you and destroyed you on here...You have lost...Your the laughing stalk of Topix. RUN AWAY MORON.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6460 Oct 8, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
SS couples are not "defective" simply because they can't reproduce. That's like saying that couples who choose to not have children are defective.
We know you're still looking for company in your circus side-show of genetic freaks, but you're going to have to look elsewhere.
Choosing not to, and being absolutely incapable are not the same idiot.

LOL.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#6461 Oct 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Choosing not to, and being absolutely incapable are not the same idiot.
LOL.
But civil law it is close enough..You see when the dust clears this is about a CIVIL CONTRACT. Marriage is a legal civil contract. So equality must apply. Religion has no say in this. It is the government you get permit from not church. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS NAZI.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6462 Oct 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There are plenty of studies of natural studies of natural families with step/foster/adoptive/single parent default families.
Look it up and learn.
"Default families"? Is that a new legal term?

Does the government have an interest in preventing the couples in such "default families" from legally marrying? Can you point to case law where their right to marry has been eliminated because they are not "natural families"?
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#6463 Oct 8, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
What idiot thinks marriage is all about money?
If you believe so, then you must have been in a terrible marriage. But you needn't project your own hatred of marriage on others.
As I said, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!

Now, are you going to start reciting poetry, like others here do?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6464 Oct 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Choosing not to, and being absolutely incapable are not the same idiot.
LOL.
Not under the law. Procreation is not a requirement for ANY marriage.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#6465 Oct 8, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
What I posted was 100% fact. I guess your the one taking stupid pills if you cant see that.
Run along now for months I have slammed you and destroyed you on here...You have lost...Your the laughing stalk of Topix. RUN AWAY MORON.
It really annoys me when someone uses the word "your" instead of "you're" when calling people stupid. Maybe I shouldn't even bring up the use of "laughing stalk" when the phrase is "laughingstock"!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#6466 Oct 8, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
But civil law it is close enough..You see when the dust clears this is about a CIVIL CONTRACT. Marriage is a legal civil contract. So equality must apply. Religion has no say in this. It is the government you get permit from not church. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS NAZI.
Then if it IS a civil contract, why are people looking for exclusionary decisions that unfairly tax people who aren't seeking a lifetime sexual partner?

I think you may have said that you'd be happy with civil unions. If so, I don't want to beat a dead horse. It's best not to concede the wording though.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#6467 Oct 8, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
It really annoys me when someone uses the word "your" instead of "you're" when calling people stupid. Maybe I shouldn't even bring up the use of "laughing stalk" when the phrase is "laughingstock"!
s me when spelling Nazi jackboots make big deal out of it..This is a posting site no college paper. SO WHAT WHO CARES...

The point I see is you know I am right so can only attack the spelling....YOU GOT NOTHING ELSE.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#6468 Oct 8, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if it IS a civil contract, why are people looking for exclusionary decisions that unfairly tax people who aren't seeking a lifetime sexual partner?
I think you may have said that you'd be happy with civil unions. If so, I don't want to beat a dead horse. It's best not to concede the wording though.
It needs to all change but equal should be equal. All rights and protections should be the same.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6469 Oct 8, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
"Default families"? Is that a new legal term?
Does the government have an interest in preventing the couples in such "default families" from legally marrying? Can you point to case law where their right to marry has been eliminated because they are not "natural families"?
Who said I was limited to legal terms?

Or that marriage is limited to legal interest?

Stuff your manipulated legal stuff up where you stuff other abused stuff.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#6470 Oct 8, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
It needs to all change but equal should be equal. All rights and protections should be the same.
Really? Anyone should be able to marry anyone?

Explain how these two combinations are equal:
1. One man and one woman.
2. One man and one man.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6471 Oct 8, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Not under the law. Procreation is not a requirement for ANY marriage.
Why would you require something that marriage needs to protect from occurring???

How do you equate a relationship that never needs to protect from procreation? In fact, the only protection gay couples need is when they try to abusively imitate normal intercourse!

Why do you not know this retard?
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#6472 Oct 8, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Anyone should be able to marry anyone?
Explain how these two combinations are equal:
1. One man and one woman.
2. One man and one man.
YES ANYONE TO ANYONE....It does not have to be equal to be civil right. Wow you Nazi pigs sure are ignorant and uneducated.

Can a short white skinny white man and tall fat black women get the same drivers permit??????? YES THE PERMIT IS SAME FOR BOTH EVEN THOUGH BOTH REALLY DIFFERENT.....Wow you just got educated on civil rights and civil permits and contract work....

NOW GO LAY DOWN YOU HAVE LOST.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#6474 Oct 8, 2013
The Shadow wrote:
<quoted text>
Another sign of your mental illness, is delusion. You are very delusional.
Ok loser. I have stomped your backside into the dirt for many post now. Time to run off. You have lost and your only making a fool of yourself. Notice how you get nothing but negative judgeings....IT IS BECAUSE YOUR AN IDIOT AND WRONG.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#6476 Oct 8, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
YES ANYONE TO ANYONE....It does not have to be equal to be civil right.
Here are your marriage laws:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/topics/...

You're saying that they should be deleted and anything goes.

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 An East Tennessee store owner put up a 'No Gays... 3 min lides 171
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? 3 min Knowledge- 172
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 5 min lides 207
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 min lides 22,926
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 6 min Frankie Rizzo 7,151
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 11 min WasteWater 34,098
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 15 min Dan 41
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 16 min THE VOICE OF GOD 628
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 18 min WasteWater 441
News Gay couple quickly granted marriage license aft... 3 hr RalphB 40
More from around the web