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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9055 Nov 13, 2013
The_Box wrote:
It's not a special right; it expands an existing right to a greater group of people.
No, it creates a form of marriage never witnessed in written law before the 21st Century. There are no ancient arguments 'expanding' rights to redefine marriage for sexual predilection.

If homosexuality justifies same sex marriage then bisexuality justifies bigamy. Face facts, same sex marriage is part of the left's campaign against male/female gender differences and the family.

.
The_Box wrote:
Traditional marriage laws segregate opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Allow SSM *reduces* segregation.
^^^This is untrue; same sex cohabitation and religious same sex marriage is perfectly legal in every state. There are criminal bans on polygamy but none for same sex marriage. Gays can live as they please, there are no couple's rights in the Constitution.

Same sex means sex segregation; opposite sex means sex integration. Words have meaning and you'll have to live with the fact you support discrimination, segregation, disunity and separatism because that's what same sex marriage is about. That's one of the reasons they like to call it 'gay marriage'; the truth is too hard to hear.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9056 Nov 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Many married same-sex couples are producing the next generation as well,
We both know that's impossible, uncle dad.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9057 Nov 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Not anymore; marriage now includes same-sex unions as well.
Technically, yes, but from a larger perspective, even sheer numbers alone, it's a statistical minute number. Society still thinks in opposite sex, boy girl, bride groom, and husband and wife, terms. Even if polygamy were to be legalized, it's numbers would be very small.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9058 Nov 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like there was no reason nor need to expand it when inter-racial couples were banned from marrying, because it already covered all men and all women?
Yet, interracial couples did marry, in various parts of the country at various times. Interracial marriage existed despite the bans. Not all states banned them, nor every interracial combination. SSM is a new invention, less than ten years old.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9059 Nov 13, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage developed for many reasons. Control over sexual reproduction. Ownership of women. Political utility. Personal commitment.
At the core, is the union of the sexes, and what that union produces, children. All the other aspects are secondary, and dependent on the core.
Then, by your reasoning, those opposite sex couples who cannot or will not procreate should not be able to marry. They are not fulfilling the "sole reason" for marriage.
Not true, marriage is a union of the sexes, and what that union produces, children. Opposite sex couples who choose not, or cannot marry, reinforce this norm. A same sex relationship, is just that.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9060 Nov 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Technically, yes, but from a larger perspective, even sheer numbers alone, it's a statistical minute number. Society still thinks in opposite sex, boy girl, bride groom, and husband and wife, terms. Even if polygamy were to be legalized, it's numbers would be very small.
Of course, polygamy won't come to pass, because it seeks greater, not equal, protection of the law.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#9061 Nov 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, it creates a form of marriage never witnessed in written law before the 21st Century. There are no ancient arguments 'expanding' rights to redefine marriage for sexual predilection.
Uh, who cares? "Tradition" isn't a valid reason for maintaining discrimination.
Brian_G wrote:
Face facts, same sex marriage is part of the left's campaign against male/female gender differences and the family.
You face facts. Opposition to SSM IS anti-family.
Brian_G wrote:
This is untrue; same sex cohabitation and religious same sex marriage is perfectly legal in every state.
Irrelevant. Not allowing them to marry creates a legal separation between the two.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex means sex segregation; opposite sex means sex integration. Words have meaning
Words do have meaning, and that's the most absurd use of "segregation" I've ever heard.
Brian_G wrote:
and you'll have to live with the fact you support discrimination, segregation, disunity and separatism because that's what same sex marriage is about.
My position opposes discrimination, segregation, disunity, and separatism. Your position supports them all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9062 Nov 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You got one thing right- your position doesn't count.
Many married same-sex couples are producing the next generation as well, they're just doing it with assistance.
The vast majority of married couples who procreate, do it the old fashioned way.
The federa govt and 14 (soon to be 16) state govts recognize those married couples the same way they do opposite-sex married couples.
Simply as a recipient of federal benefits, and other considerations. That's all, that couple apply to any relationship a state designates as marriage. The states define marriage, not the Feds.
And there is STILL no evidence kids raised by same-sex couples turn out any different than kids raised by opposite-sex couples.
Oh pleeeze......there's simply not enough of a sampling to prove that. How does one find the numbers of children raised since birth by a same sex couple, both male and female, who remained together during the entire time the child was raised, from birth to age 18? Those kids would have to be compared to children raised by their own mother and father during the same time period. Unless there are thousands, of children raised by same sex couples from birth to 18, and the couple stayed together the entire time, it's not a valid comparison.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9063 Nov 13, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, polygamy won't come to pass, because it seeks greater, not equal, protection of the law.
SSM came to pass despite it sought greater, or double gender protection, so why is polygamy becoming legal impossible?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9064 Nov 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's about the most ignorant statement you've made so far; and that's saying a lot.
Had my uncle been able to marry, he wouldn't have had to sell the home & farm he shared with his partner after he died suddenly. As a spouse he would have been exempt from paying the estate tax.
That's just one example.
How does a deceased person sell anything?
Do you think a survivor never had to sell their home because a spouse died? How about couples that don't want to marry?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9065 Nov 13, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, polygamy won't come to pass, because it seeks greater, not equal, protection of the law.
How? Be specific, don't give us that 3 is greater than 2 crap.
A married couple with one child is a family of 3. Your 'logic' says that children can't be born into a family because they seek greater, not equal, protection. You are a laughing stock.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9066 Nov 13, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't adequately cover any gay men or women, as it's defined in a way to be non-functional for them.
It's still designed to function for men and women, regardless of self professed sexual identity label. If a woman who identifies as a lesbian, or once identified that way, marries a man, it functions the same way.
The reasons to allow gay couples to marry are the same as those for straight couples.
Until men getting pregnant, and women produce sperm, the reasons aren't the same.
And up is down. And war is peace. And black is white.
And men can be lesbians too.
SSM removes segregation by treating more people equally.
George Orwell, some are ore equal than others. SSM is segregated marriage. If you're suggesting by dripping the opposite sex foundation, and requirement for marriage, people are treated "more equally", by that reasoning other restrictions should be removed as well.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#9067 Nov 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
At the core, is the union of the sexes, and what that union produces, children. All the other aspects are secondary, and dependent on the core.
Not true. All of those elements, were, at some point, core to marriages. The current social core of marriages is personal commitment between two individuals, not procreation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not true, marriage is a union of the sexes, and what that union produces, children. Opposite sex couples who choose not, or cannot (sic)[procreate], reinforce this norm.
What a pathetically weak excuse. They get an exemption because their relationship could superficially be confused with one of people who procreate?

I wonder if that reasoning would fly with anything else in the world?

Hello, government. You want to promote people getting educated, right? And you give out $10,000 grants for State U for that sole purpose? I'll take one. I'm not actually going to spend it on tuition, but I'll wear a cap with the State U logo so I'll reinforce the idea of going to college to people who see me. Thanks!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9068 Nov 13, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Uh, who cares? "Tradition" isn't a valid reason for maintaining discrimination.
<quoted text>
2. You face facts. Opposition to SSM IS anti-family.
3. My position opposes discrimination, segregation, disunity, and separatism.
1. There is no discrimination. In all 50 states any qualifying man can marry any qualifying woman or remain single.
2. Impossible, two gay men or two gay women can't produce a family.
3. Your position just says you want you and your partner to be exactly like a straight couple, you can't be.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#9069 Nov 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's still designed to function for men and women, regardless of self professed sexual identity label. If a woman who identifies as a lesbian, or once identified that way, marries a man, it functions the same way.
It functions just fine with two people of the same gender as well. There is no required element of marriage that can be performed by one gender and not the other.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Until men getting pregnant, and women produce sperm, the reasons aren't the same.
Yes, they are. Personal commitment, increased stability, better environment for children.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM is segregated marriage.
Then so is a marriage between two white people or two Christians.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If you're suggesting by dripping the opposite sex foundation, and requirement for marriage, people are treated "more equally", by that reasoning other restrictions should be removed as well.
Like what?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#9070 Nov 13, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. There is no discrimination. In all 50 states any qualifying man can marry any qualifying woman or remain single.
2. Impossible, two gay men or two gay women can't produce a family.
3. Your position just says you want you and your partner to be exactly like a straight couple, you can't be.
1. then why did 30 States pass laws to stop gay marriage?
2. irrelevant
3. You mean like a straight couple that cannot procreate?

Today Hawaii, and next week Illinois. It seems as if your opinions are ineffectual.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#9071 Nov 13, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. There is no discrimination. In all 50 states any qualifying man can marry any qualifying woman or remain single.
Same-sex couples are discriminated against.
Wondering wrote:
2. Impossible, two gay men or two gay women can't produce a family.
Yes, they can. The only thing they cannot do is conceive by natural means.
Wondering wrote:
3. Your position just says you want you and your partner to be exactly like a straight couple, you can't be.
I'm a straight, engaged man. My position is that gay couples should be treated the same as straight couples.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9072 Nov 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM came to pass despite it sought greater, or double gender protection, so why is polygamy becoming legal impossible?
Pietro, how many people enter into a marriage in a traditional marriage?
How many people enter into a marriage in a same sex marriage?
How many people enter into a marriage in a polygamous marriage?

Is three (or more) greater than two?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9073 Nov 13, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
1.Same-sex couples are discriminated against.
<quoted text>
2. Yes, they can. The only thing they cannot do is conceive by natural means.
<quoted text>
3. I'm a straight, engaged man. My position is that gay couples should be treated the same as straight couples.
1. The state law applies equally to everyone.
2. Like I said, gay couples can't have children. Wrong parts, parts missing.
3. I agree. They are.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#9074 Nov 13, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The state law applies equally to everyone.
That doesn't make it non-discriminatory, as I've already explained.
Wondering wrote:
2. Like I said, gay couples can't have children. Wrong parts, parts missing.
Gay couples can have children. They may bring them in from previous relationships, adopt, or use artificial means. You cannot wish these things away because they are inconvenient for you.
Wondering wrote:
3. I agree. They are.
Can they get married? No? Then they're not.

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 min cpeter1313 46,280
News Anxiety in America up since Donald Trump became... 40 min jonjedi 31
News 'Reading a book can't turn you gay,' say author... 2 hr Wondering 18
News Perry blasts election of 1st gay Texas A&M stud... 2 hr jonjedi 3
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 3 hr guest 1,326
News Man Beat 2 Transgender Women Who Tried to Enter... 3 hr Mona 40
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 hr carter county res... 25,230
More from around the web