Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61384 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

#9222 Nov 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, he has to be able to prove he's a woman trapped in a man's body.
When he/she can demonstrate that proof, then the definition of lesbian would be changed.
How do you expect to "prove" that? Can you "prove" your "sexual orientation"?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9223 Nov 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You said SS couples have their OWN children. Now you are talking about SS couples raising OTHER people's children.
That's simply lying. Why is that necessary for a just cause?
Same-sex couples DO have their own children. Whether they are created through in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, or adoption, those kids are their own legal children.

Which is why they are entitled to all the legal rights & protections which come from marriage.

Which is why you anti-gays keep losing in state after state after state...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9225 Nov 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuals have been present in every culture. If you want to talk specifically how that looked on a particular culture, go for it. You choose.
You are not addressing the issue of discrimination that occurs when children are removed from consideration. Nor are stable couples a prevailing interest got the government.
As long as everyone has the same opportunity to marry the unrelated adult of their choice, then there is no discrimination.

Stable couples benefit society whether they are raising children or not; that makes it a prevailing interest for the govt.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9227 Nov 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
We were talking about procreation, not adoption.
You were deceitful in a vain attempt to equate an imposter relationship to marriage, and a fake half duplicated half to mom and dad.
You are stuck with deception because you are living a lie.
Since procreation or even the ability to procreate has NEVER been required for marriage, then it's irrelevant.

And gays & lesbians procreate all the time.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9228 Nov 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It singles out one segment of society for special treatment. You know that and are playing dumb.
As long as everyone has the same opportunity to be a member of that segment of society, then there is no discrimination.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9230 Nov 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not talking about 'having' children. You are talking about raising children as if it was the same as procreating. Not just a lie, but a devastating default situation for the child.
You perpetrate a fraud on the backs of children. Diabolically evil.
Except of course no one is talking solely about the irrelevant choice to procreate other than you.

And there is STILL no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples turn out any different than those raised by opposite-sex couples.

NONE.

Which is part of the reason you anti-gays keep losing state after state after state...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9232 Nov 14, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like:
Section 1. No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, stepmother, grandfather’s wife, grandson’s wife, wife’s mother, wife’s grandmother, wife’s daughter, wife’s granddaughter, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s sister or mother’s sister.
Section 2. No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, stepfather, grandmother’s husband, daughter’s husband, granddaughter’s husband, husband’s grandfather, husband’s son, husband’s grandson, brother’s son, sister’s son, father’s brother or mother’s brother.
Section 4. A marriage contracted while either party thereto has a former wife or husband living, except as provided in section six and in chapter two hundred and eight, shall be void.
Looks like same sex couples aren't alone, and yet, you seem to be only for their inclusion. Hmmmm...
They're not similarly situated to all the other unrelated adult couples, which is why equal treatment under the law doesn't apply.

Same reason a 4 y/o has no right to vote; they aren't similarly situated to adults over the age of 18.

Until you anti-gays can understand how "similarly situated" applies to equal protection claims, you'll continue to be confused by your losses in state after state and court after court.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9234 Nov 14, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that if I embrace homosexuality, gay marriage, HIV, gay literature in our public elementary schools, gay boy scouts, banned father/daughter dances in RI, etc. I will have the thought process of an adult?
I never want to grow up.
No worry, you're irrelevant regardless of your age.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9235 Nov 14, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care about them, just as I never cared what gays did. If two men can marry then all restrictions on marriage should be lifted. People could marry their kids, their mother, they 1955 t-bird, their cat, their dog, whatever. I really don't care. UNTIL you want to teach my kids, without my ok, that any of it is just another normal way of expressing one's sexuality. Is there a condom that can protect one's penis from the sharp edges of an exhaust pipe. I think I'll go propose to my vacuum cleaner.
Society has valid reasons to restrict marriage to unrelated adult couples.

We'll teach kids whatever we want, whether you approve or not.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9237 Nov 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you expect to "prove" that? Can you "prove" your "sexual orientation"?
How he/she proves that is his/her problem.

Until it can provide proof, then it's just another lame claim.

Yes, I can prove I'm sexually attracted to men but not to women, which makes me a homosexual.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9238 Nov 14, 2013
Toys R Us kid wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Laugh away. Many fools and crazies do it over nothing, nothing new.
2. Many gays have kids of their own and if you don't believe that then you might want to exit you cave one day for a little sunshine.
3. My parents? Yeah..they're proud.
4. Should your parents be crotch scratching ignorant hillbillies who think their fat pimple covered 3rd grade educated fool selves are the master race in the local Aryan Nations I'm sure they're proud of you as well.
1. I'm not laughing at nothing, I'm laughing at you.
2. Of course many gays have kids of their own. It's gay couples that can't.
3. I bet.
4. You're upset, blame your stupidity.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9242 Nov 14, 2013
Toys R Us kid wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Nah...not upset. For one you and your other ignorant club doesn't have the ability to make me upset.
2. I think what you're TRYING so hard to say is that gay couples cannot have kids which carry both of their DNA.
Is that right my little communication challenged friend???
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???
3. Hell..if that's what you're trying so hard to say...who cares???
4. Now if you're to claim a gay couple that either adopts a child or has one with the help of a surrogate or sperm donor in which you lay claim that child is hence not theirs.....GOOD LUCK.
5. Try taking that kid away from that family unit and you'll be doing 15 to 30 years looking out a set of bars like Goldie the goldfish looks out wistfully hoping for freedom one day...LOL!!!!
You stupid piece of shit. You're so morally f-ed up I bet it took you six years to understand you couldn't sleep with your neighbors under aged kids. Get lost punk.
1. Happy to hear that.
2. Duh...what does gay couple mean to you?
3. Ok, you failed at reading comprehension. No problem.
4. Ok, you failed at biology too.
5. Everything you driveled after my inserted 5. is an irrelevant tantrum. Oh, I take back #1 too, you lied. Go play with your toys.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9243 Nov 14, 2013
Toys R Us kid wrote:
<quoted text>
I already know you're pretty stupid
Coming from the Queen of Stupid, that's quite a compliment.
but for me at least seeing two guys liplocking like they were working on vacuuming their partners tonsils out kinda proves to me they're GAY Einstein....LOL!!!!!
How does that "prove" it, it's no more proof than a man claiming he's a woman trapped in a man's body, and he likes women.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9244 Nov 14, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't need to, twit. It guarantees equal protection of the law for all. Read the 14th Amendment.
Equal protection, all men and all women, understood.
No, I am advocating equality.
Something you already have. What you are advocating is a man to be treated as a woman, and vice versa.
You are the idiot advocating for some to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
On the contrary, treat all men, and all women the same as it relates to marriage. It is you, who advocate some men, and some women, not be treated like all men, and all women.
Have you noticed that those on your side of this argument are losing, in courts, in public opinion, and in real life?
But not by voters in 30 states.
No, they won't. They don't seek equality. Sorry that you are too stupid to count.
They seek recognition of their marriages, as do you, and they rainbow crowd.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9245 Nov 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
How he/she proves that is his/her problem.
Until it can provide proof, then it's just another lame claim.
Yes, I can prove I'm sexually attracted to men but not to women, which makes me a homosexual.
What does that prove? So you like outies, not innies. You're still a man, that can be proven, not that you're a "homosexual". No different from the man who claims he a male lesbian.

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#9246 Nov 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Equal protection, all men and all women, understood.
<quoted text>
Something you already have. What you are advocating is a man to be treated as a woman, and vice versa.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, treat all men, and all women the same as it relates to marriage. It is you, who advocate some men, and some women, not be treated like all men, and all women.
<quoted text>
But not by voters in 30 states.
<quoted text>
They seek recognition of their marriages, as do you, and they rainbow crowd.
It also should be noted that when given the right to marry, gay males don't get marry. At least in Massachusetts where after 10 years of same-sex marriage, less than 5% of gay males are married.

This is the dirty little secret about same-sex marriage the gay community doesn't want you to know -- same-sex marriage dosn't work.

Finally, the right for two men to marry each other is only equality if we concede that two men equal a man and a woman. If we don't concede this paradigm, we're not talking about equality.

Is equality allowing women boxers to compete against male boxers?

The question is not an academic one. Already the LGBT is demanding transgender sprinters be allowed to run against women sprinters and transgender beauty queens be allowed to compete in traditional beauty pageants.

Obviously, the LGBT community is engaged in a fishing exhibition not a legitimate equal rights movement.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#9247 Nov 14, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I am talking about having children. Surrogacy and IVF both results in the creation of NEW children, and they can have same-sex parents. Adoption does not result in the creation of a new child, but can be raised by same-sex parents all the same.
SSM opponents frequently tell us that marriage is valuable because it's improved stability is good for children. Yet, magically, that improvement doesn't count when it comes to children being raised by a gay couple.
<quoted text>
Your evidence that it is a devastating default situation, please?
Are you really suggesting that a child be deliberately birthed apart from one of their parents?

Do you understand what an abomination that is? Stay away from children you bastard!

Every study of default family situations show a drastic decline in child well being. Oh, except for a lesbian couple study by two lesbians that asserted that two lesbians make BETTER parents than natural parents...

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#9248 Nov 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really suggesting that a child be deliberately birthed apart from one of their parents?
Do you understand what an abomination that is? Stay away from children you bastard!
Every study of default family situations show a drastic decline in child well being. Oh, except for a lesbian couple study by two lesbians that asserted that two lesbians make BETTER parents than natural parents...
Good point about these supposed lesbian researchers. An additional detail is virtually all these supposed studies showing "gays" are good parents are authored by lesbian researchers who use their peers as subjects. None are based on gay male parents because there simply aren't enough to be statistically significant.

The result is gay males would have us believe there's no difference between lesbian and gay male parenting.

Typical of the junk science the LGBT manufactures to advance their agenda.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9249 Nov 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Their understanding doesn't change the simple fact I'm still a married man.
Legally perhaps in some states. But not all, nor based on the common historical, cultural, social, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a union of one man AND one woman, as husband AND wife. But thanks for trying.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9250 Nov 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Coming from the Queen of Stupid, that's quite a compliment.
<quoted text>
How does that "prove" it, it's no more proof than a man claiming he's a woman trapped in a man's body, and he likes women.
Physical sexual attraction can be measured.

Claiming to be a woman trapped in a man's body can't.

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 Danes charge imam for comparing gays to pedophi... 10 min The Troll Stopper 10
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 16 min neighbor 2,208
Gay/Bi Skype? 2 hr Bi Curious 14
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr cpeter1313 53,720
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr cpeter1313 8,405
News Twitter Blasts Ex-Google Employee Who Says Bein... 3 hr Kree 6
News Gay rights is personal for Florida gubernatoria... 4 hr Darius 1
News Teen weighs impact of joining school gay-straig... 4 hr Darius 8
More from around the web