Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61362 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.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#21796 Jan 26, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's a relief.....you had me worried there for a moment.
I was never concerned. I always knew you were an imbecile.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I'm glad you asked! First lets start off with the definition of sex, so that there's no confusion. It is coital sexual intercourse. While other sexual acts have been sometimes called "sex", they should not be confused with actual coital intercourse. Second, courts have referred to sex as "marital relations". The first act of coital sexual intercourse between husband and wife is know as "consummation", which, in some states, failure to do, is grounds for annulment. Lastly, sex can, and does lead to conception....procreation...wh ich we both know is a function of marriage and a legitimate state interest in marriage, as numerous courts have ruled.
Dear, dumb person. None of this is a prerequisite for, nor requirement of legal marriage. It is absolutely grounds for annulment, but that is a completely separate issue. Congratulations, you are an idiot.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There are numerous reason, but one often overlooked, is the issue of equality. By maintaining the monogamous conjugal definition of marriage, the state ensures not only that both genders are integrated into the marital union, but that all men and women are treated the same as it relates to marriage.
Conjugal, there is that word again. I am starting to think you don't know what it means. It certainly doesn't support your notion of marriage being one man and one woman.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You seem unable to offer a compelling state interest in depriving some men and women of their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, that would render such a deprivation, constitutional.
Tell me, moron, how does allowing same sex couples to marry deny anyone the right to, "enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife?"
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's no state interest in treating some men and women, unequally, than other men and women as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife. You seem to be of the opinion that such unequal treatment is okay.
Of course, not. At question is whether there is an interest in treating same sex couples differently.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Some courts have recognized the compelling state interest in treating all men, and women the same as it relates to marriage. Why you continue to advocate for unequal treatment for some men and women, is puzzling.
I am not. I am advocating all people be treated equally. You are the idiot advocating for some people to receive less than equal protection of the law.

How's that hunt for a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman going?

Clearly, from your earlier responses, you are too stupid to understand the legal concepts in play, or the applicability of a compelling governmental interest.

I would explain it to you, but quite frankly, it seems a waste of time. Just keep being the idiot you are.

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#21797 Jan 26, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, BFD. Liberace went with a 17 year old.
You have a stupid idea that what Liberace and his partner did has anything to do with the legal recognition of gay marriage.
I'd reply, but your comment is so incoherent I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#21798 Jan 26, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Study history stupid, I'm not obligated to teach you.
If you are unable to answer the questions, just say so.
That's like saying everybody had the same right to sit in their race's section of the bus.
Do Italians get their own section too?
A man can marry a woman, so a woman should also be able to.
A man can enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, so a woman should also be able to.
A woman can marry a man, so a man should also be able ti.
A woman can enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, so a man should also be able to.

SURPRISE.....They both can!

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#21799 Jan 26, 2014
We set up a polygamy forum for "Frankie". Now he has no excuse to keep interjecting this topic here.

Why do you guys keep feeding him?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#21800 Jan 26, 2014
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
And here you play semantics: "There's so such thing as gay pedophiles according to the FBI and APA."
Riddle me this then: When Librache first had sex with 17 year old Thorson, what was he?
A very rich and well known man.
garylloyd wrote:
And remember Larry Brinkin? He was the most respected homosexual in San Francisco until he got busted with all that kiddie porn.
What was he?
Stop playing semantics, dude.
Someone you are fixated on.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#21801 Jan 26, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are unable to answer the questions, just say so.
I can answer them. But I don't want to get into your silly semantics arguments.
There were laws defining race and who could do what.
If you really cared about them, you'd do a little studying.
Since you don't, you just try to goad me into playing a semantics game with you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do Italians get their own section too?
<quoted text>
Study.
If you are too stupid to find out info about the Jim Crow era, just ask another dumb question like that, and I'll provide you with some links. As vile as you are, I still pity you because you are so stupid.
Pietro Armando wrote:
A man can enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, so a woman should also be able to.
<quoted text>
A woman can enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, so a man should also be able to.
SURPRISE.....They both can!
That's like saying everybody could marry someone of their own race before Loving v VA.

A man can marry a woman, so a woman should also be able to.
A woman can marry a man, so a man should also be able to.
I notice you can't deal with that.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#21802 Jan 26, 2014
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd reply, but your comment is so incoherent I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Let me try and break it down for you.
"First of all, BFD. Liberace went with a 17 year old."

BFD stands for Big F** Deal. In other words, it's not big deal that Liberace went with at 17 year old.

"You have a stupid idea that what Liberace and his partner did has anything to do with the legal recognition of gay marriage."

The subject is gay marriage, so I assume you keep bringing up what Liberace did because you feel it has something to do with gay marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#21807 Jan 26, 2014
snyper wrote:
We set up a polygamy forum for "Frankie". Now he has no excuse to keep interjecting this topic here.
Why do you guys keep feeding him?
This is the perfectly proper forum for discussing marriage, which includes plural marriage, or polygamy, a valid form of marriage throughout time and place.

Judged:

13

13

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#21808 Jan 26, 2014
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
And here you play semantics: "There's so such thing as gay pedophiles according to the FBI and APA."
Riddle me this then: When Librache first had sex with 17 year old Thorson, what was he?
He wasn't a pedophile, because the age of consent is 16 in Nevada. Personally, I find the age discrepancy troubling, but it wasn't illegal.

Riddle me this: why are you so obsessed with sex between old men and young boys?
Why do you never contemplate sex between old men and girls?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#21809 Jan 26, 2014
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd reply, but your comment is so incoherent I have no idea what you're trying to say.
And yet, the rest of us understand the comment perfectly. Go figure.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#21810 Jan 26, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I can answer them. But I don't want to get into your silly semantics arguments.
There were laws defining race and who could do what.
Yes there were, and the intent was to preserve the "white race", and maintain white supremacy. "White" as in Anglo Saxon Protestant white. The laws did not address all "races", and applied an unequal formula in determine which "race" a person should be categorized as. It also only prohibited certain racial marital combinations, not all.
If you really cared about them, you'd do a little studying.
I have, and I also know that Italians, at least those from the Mezzorgiorno weren't always considered "white". Even today, most Italians aren't considered "white".
Since you don't, you just try to goad me into playing a semantics game with you.
I expect you to be precise, and accurate.
If you are too stupid to find out info about the Jim Crow era, just ask another dumb question like that, and I'll provide you with some links.
Keep your links for golf. As to the Jim Crow era, you seem to under the impression there are only two "races". Not true, nor is race comparable to gender.
As vile as you are, I still pity you because you are so stupid.
Now that was funny....let me guess you stole that line from Cruella DeVil. I can't imagine you wrote that line yourself.
That's like saying everybody could marry someone of their own race before Loving v VA.
Not even close. White black interracial marriages, in addition to other racial combinations took place BEFORE Virginia put their ban into effect. Besides not every racial combination was prohibited. For instance, Irish and Italians, both considered separate "races" at one time, could intermarry.
A man can marry a woman, so a woman should also be able to.
A woman can marry a man, so a man should also be able to.
A man and a woman both have the same right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.

I notice you can't deal with that, nor have you offered your personal definition of marriage.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#21811 Jan 27, 2014
lides wrote:
Oh, Brian, don't be an idiot. Scalia is in no way my idol. I quite him because his politics reflect your idiotic views, and yet even he can see the reality of the situation. Only an idiot, such as yourself, would believe my views advocate criminalizing homosexuality. Congratulations, Brian. At this point, you have convinced me that you are, in fact, dumber than a rock.
Not my politics; I oppose Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v Texas; lides quotes him and endorses his views. Same sex marriage supporters don't care about the welfare of homosexuals; they care about political power.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#21812 Jan 27, 2014
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
He wasn't a pedophile, because the age of consent is 16 in Nevada. Personally, I find the age discrepancy troubling, but it wasn't illegal.
Riddle me this: why are you so obsessed with sex between old men and young boys?
Why do you never contemplate sex between old men and girls?
Let's back up a minute... Isn't your argument "homosexuals can't be pedophiles"?

I ask this question because you point out the legal age of consent in Nevada is 16. But what does that have to do with what they did in the many states they traveled while Thorson was just 17?

In other words, Dusty, your technicality tells us more about your wormy mind than how most people define pedos.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#21814 Jan 27, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You saw the title of the forum "gay marriage" and decided to visit because...?
....because it's not a legitimate concept just because you've stuck the two words together. Are you going to demand gubbermint money because some joker posted the topic posted without following proper legal wording?

Judged:

13

13

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#21815 Jan 27, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I just said that to mock you and your rambling pretentious posts.
Sorry that went over your wee head.
<quoted text>
Zzzzz...
<quoted text>
When you have something to say about the law and gay marriage, wake us up, OK?
Sorry you have to resort to mocking in a childish effort to avoid logical arguments,....but not THAT sorry because I know you for what you are, and civility isn't part of what you are. You truly are one who would pick the carcasses of the dead like a buzzard. It's only expected from someone who's probably past her years for raising a family and still smoking pot for entertainment.

I really don't mean that as a bland insult that sounds "cool". Just think a bit about what you've become and try to avoid, just once, the obsession to simply rebel against "the Man".

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#21816 Jan 27, 2014
ChigayColin wrote:
The forces equality are winning the battle, but the war against the reich wing will be long and arduous, with many setbacks to come, but if we remain stedfast we shall defeat the thumpers and their minions. Having said this, I'm afraid the reich wing zealots will be out in force this election year, filled with an anger we've never seen.
They tend to do that when the Courts drop all common sense in the name of rhetorical, megaphone toting, hate peddlers like yourself. Personally, I don't think THEY would take the time to correct you because if you're NOT just a sock puppet here to be a stooge, you're demonstrating just what goes on in the minds of most political wind-up toys.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#21817 Jan 27, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
Three turtails is sitting on a log in a pond on a hot day. They decides to hop off into the water. How many is left on the log? Ain't none because they decided byd did not hop. Hormoans begin to swim around in to boys. One of then looks at a girl's butt and her cute face and he sees her in a new lite. The other looks at another boy and his pecker starts to rise. Dose either of them have to do more than decide what they thinks that they is? The boy what is turned on by the cute girl dose not have to try to do it with her. The boy what is turned on by the other boy does not have to try to do it with him. Not neither of them has to be what he thinks that he has decided to be. So no one has to be a gay.
Likewise, anyone who attempts to decode this sock puppet nonsense is just wasting time.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#21818 Jan 27, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage equality must include underage children or else it's not equality.
Wow! That's profound! Either you're finally getting the message or you're publicly avowing your own brand of bigotry!

What on earth are you all doing over the weekend?

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#21819 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Procreation is a benefit from marriage; not a requirement for marriage. There's no way to enforce a procreation requirement; its not practical.
Keep marriage one man and one woman for posterity.
Nah! Keep taxation based on income and on dependents, if you're going to have an income tax. Inheritances still get taxed as windfall profits or they don't get taxed at all, regardless of one's marital status.

Now, I don't have a problem putting a maximum on individual inheritances. That's another issue.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Snype

Boston, VA

#21820 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Not my politics; I oppose Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v Texas; lides quotes him and endorses his views. Same sex marriage supporters don't care about the welfare of homosexuals; they care about political power.
Soooo, marriage is bad for you and your kids if you are gay? And you're are arguing that the majority of Americans - ie "same sex marriage supporters", are really all about political power?

That's weird.

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 US top court rules for baker in gay wedding cak... 3 min Hudson 794
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 13 min Straight Shooter 63,341
News FCPS curriculum takes - biological gender' out ... 22 min Champ 2
News Smiling Tennessee hardware store owner puts 'No... 32 min Hudson 97
News ISIS Is Beaten. But Iraq Is Still Hell for LGBT... 32 min Champ 1
News As anti-LGBTQ activist wanted for promotion of ... 33 min Champ 4
News Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker on same... 36 min Straight Shooter 381
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 15 hr Straight Shooter 28,181