Gay marriage

There are 61396 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.

Jeena

Chennai, India

#5005 Aug 30, 2013
Jeena wrote:
Now this problem has arisen because, we have too many holes in our body and a guy is confused as to which hole to use. Thats all about gay psychology.
Solution: Choose the hole which fits you easily and effortlessly and also allows you to go all the way.
Jeena

Chennai, India

#5006 Aug 30, 2013
Jeena wrote:
<quoted text>
Solution: Choose the hole which fits you easily and effortlessly and also allows you to go all the way.
No, not the mouth. The mouth is meant to be one-way. What goes in does not come out. Also, in the mouth you can put better tasting things.
Jeena

Chennai, India

#5007 Aug 30, 2013
Jeena wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not the mouth. The mouth is meant to be one-way. What goes in does not come out. Also, in the mouth you can put better tasting things.
Also, mouth is not the safest hole. God knows what mood your partner is in. You should not take such life threatening risks.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5008 Aug 30, 2013
Jeena wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been trying to tell these guys that 'marriage' itself is merely a means to secure the future of children, but they go on that 'procreation' is not needed for 'marriage'.
If that were the case, then the only way you should be allowed to get married is if you already have a child, or if the woman is pregnant. Marriage doesn't guarantee children, even if a couple is planning to have children. And this scenario would also prevent older couples, who are past their childbearing years, from getting married. Your argument is null.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5009 Aug 30, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Parse Bunny! Up to your usual foppish nonsense, eh? Oh,well!
Brian doesn't seem to have the linguistic ability to stop others from metaphorically humping him. Might as well try to convince him that such is his purpose.
And yet you read each line and felt compelled to insult.

Silly stuff.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#5012 Aug 30, 2013
fr Brian_G:

>None of those businesses refused custom to gays, they only refused to participate in their same sex marriage....<

WRONG. They did indeed ILLEGALLY refuse services to a same-sex couple, and by golly, karma came right back around, rightfully.
The AssTroll Stopper

United States

#5013 Aug 30, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr Brian_G:

>None of those businesses refused custom to gays, they only refused to participate in their same sex marriage....<

WRONG. They did indeed ILLEGALLY refuse services to a same-sex couple, and by golly, karma came right back around, rightfully.
Bull Dyke, get lost
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#5014 Aug 30, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you read each line and felt compelled to insult.
Silly stuff.
No, no! I wouldn't waste my time reading every parsed line of his/her ego trip. I just like how the irony of righteous indignation about insults goes on the way it does.

In your cases, hate crime is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

None of this will register on you. "These aren't the droids you're looking for!"

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5015 Aug 30, 2013
AntiGlobalist Easterner wrote:
Nicely quoted. This concept is recognised by most countries, and in all such nations, incuding USA, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.
Actually, in the US Constitutional rights, like equal protection of the law for all, may only be infringed if doing so serves a compelling governmental interest. It's a simple matter of strict scrutiny.

You can't begin to offer such an interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman, expressly denying same sex couples the right to legally marry.
AntiGlobalist Easterner wrote:
You can't have a right to be wrong! Got it?
You certainly have a right to be wrong, and you are wrong.
AntiGlobalist Easterner wrote:
You can't insist upon ratification of something which will eventually destroy the social fabric.
Feel free to concretely illustrate how. Your assertion is utterly unfounded.
AntiGlobalist Easterner wrote:
Never mind what your shrink or somebody else told you, yours is not congenital or uncorrectable. There are ways, and Yoga could be one of them. Love.
Wow, you really aren't so bright.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5016 Aug 30, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Parse Bunny!
Is that the best you've got?

It sounds like you are only able to insult on a Jr. High School level, and that you are utterly incapable of responding with a factually based argument.

In short, you look quite foolish in making such simple responses that fail to offer support of your position. It calls into question you ability to offer a rational response. It also calls into question whether you are over the age of 14.
AntiGlobal Easterner

Bangalore, India

#5018 Aug 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, in the US Constitutional rights, like equal protection of the law for all, may only be infringed if doing so serves a compelling governmental interest. It's a simple matter of strict scrutiny.
You can't begin to offer such an interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman, expressly denying same sex couples the right to legally marry.
<quoted text>
You certainly have a right to be wrong, and you are wrong.
<quoted text>
Feel free to concretely illustrate how. Your assertion is utterly unfounded.
<quoted text>
Wow, you really aren't so bright.
LAW IS IN MY FAVOUR, LAW IS ON MY SIDE, LAW SUPPORTS ME ....!!! Go on. Thats all you harp about.
Yes you are Legal, but that does not take away from the fact that you are crazy. Law has sanctioned many crazy things in the past.

But wait. I find a silver lining in this. Making SSMs lawful takes away the 'charm' in them, as with all forbidden things. All this fight over denial is only until then. When every corner of the world makes it lawful, you guys will lose interest in it. Lets just see how many of you commit to marriage. One of your friends here posted that only 2% of you is willing to commit. All this brou ha ha will die the moment there is no resistance. With our generation this excitement will die and our children when given equal choices, will prefer the other sex, to explore and accept the differences lovingly. Heterosex is UNITY IN DIVERSITY. It requires some maturity. I call your bluff! I don't think there is any serious intent to all this, except the pleasure of defiance.
AntiGlobal Easterner

India

#5019 Aug 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, in the US Constitutional rights, like equal protection of the law for all, may only be infringed if doing so serves a compelling governmental interest. It's a simple matter of strict scrutiny.
governmental interest?.
Govt. does not function in the clouds, it works in reference to the nation, its citizens, their family & business. Yes, considering all this, it is a simple matter of strict scrutiny and the law will be remade.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5020 Aug 30, 2013
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
LAW IS IN MY FAVOUR, LAW IS ON MY SIDE, LAW SUPPORTS ME ....!!! Go on. Thats all you harp about.
Yes you are Legal, but that does not take away from the fact that you are crazy. Law has sanctioned many crazy things in the past.
But wait. I find a silver lining in this. Making SSMs lawful takes away the 'charm' in them, as with all forbidden things. All this fight over denial is only until then. When every corner of the world makes it lawful, you guys will lose interest in it. Lets just see how many of you commit to marriage. One of your friends here posted that only 2% of you is willing to commit. All this brou ha ha will die the moment there is no resistance. With our generation this excitement will die and our children when given equal choices, will prefer the other sex, to explore and accept the differences lovingly. Heterosex is UNITY IN DIVERSITY. It requires some maturity. I call your bluff! I don't think there is any serious intent to all this, except the pleasure of defiance.
How long have you suffered from delusions of adequacy?

The law is not on your side, and existing restrictions against same sex marriage ARE unconstitutional.

Keep it coming, you are doing an excellent job of making yourself look foolish.
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
governmental interest?.
Govt. does not function in the clouds, it works in reference to the nation, its citizens, their family & business. Yes, considering all this, it is a simple matter of strict scrutiny and the law will be remade.
Sorry charlie, government works under the auspices of law and the law is administered by the courts. The courts in the US have held that fundamental and constitutional rights are subject to a greater degree of scrutiny, called strict scrutiny. It requires that in order for a law restricting such rights to be constitutional, it must first serve a compelling governmental interest, and must further be narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal.

So, not only is the law, specifically the US Constitution, not on your side, you also are ignorant of the law and the relevant jurisprudence. Congratulations for making a fool of yourself. Now, why don't you go outside and play? The adults are having a conversation.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5021 Aug 30, 2013
Same sex marriage won't have anything to do with you unless you have a job related to the wedding industry or any other job that deals with the public. Then, you might be sued for a perceived if you exercise your freedom to campaign marriage is one man and one woman. That's happened many times, same sex marriage is good for lawyers.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5022 Aug 30, 2013
Jeena wrote:
The P*nis is solely a reproductive organ (No, you don't need it to pee. You see women & eunuchs too pee?) and so is the v*gina. The two fit like hand in glove and for a purpose. Such is the glorious ways of nature. Any other use is abuse. You don't have a right to self-abuse.
Now this problem has arisen because, we have too many holes in our body and a guy is confused as to which hole to use. Thats all about gay psychology.
Sweetie, if you want to limit your sex life to the you damned well better get pregnant and you damned well better not enjoy it, you go right ahead. Selling that as the only acceptable lifestyle choice, you ain't. You're also not selling it as the only lifestyle choice acceptable under civil law. Sweetie, you really should less concerned with the psychology of others and more concerned about the well being of your own.
AntiGlobalist Easterner

Chennai, India

#5023 Aug 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
How long have you suffered from delusions of adequacy?
The law is not on your side, and existing restrictions against same sex marriage ARE unconstitutional.
Keep it coming, you are doing an excellent job of making yourself look foolish.
<quoted text>
Sorry charlie, government works under the auspices of law and the law is administered by the courts. The courts in the US have held that fundamental and constitutional rights are subject to a greater degree of scrutiny, called strict scrutiny. It requires that in order for a law restricting such rights to be constitutional, it must first serve a compelling governmental interest, and must further be narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal.
So, not only is the law, specifically the US Constitution, not on your side, you also are ignorant of the law and the relevant jurisprudence. Congratulations for making a fool of yourself. Now, why don't you go outside and play? The adults are having a conversation.
Hey Goofy, please read my post again, I am referreing to your harping about the LAW BEING IN YOUR FAVOUR. In your anxiety to refute you are making such apalling goofs.

Law serves compelling Govt. interests and the Govt. works under the auspices of law? They are both servants and masters to each other! Blow hot, blow cold, eh? It is this ambivalence which is the root cause of your disorder.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5024 Aug 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage won't have anything to do with you unless you have a job related to the wedding industry or any other job that deals with the public. Then, you might be sued for a perceived if you exercise your freedom to campaign marriage is one man and one woman. That's happened many times, same sex marriage is good for lawyers.
you still don't seem able to grasp the concept tha abrogating others' rights is illegal, do you? it does not matter if you do so in the name of your ideology, your religious cult, or just for shits and giggles, it is still illegal and you do not have that freedom in this nation you seem to know so little about.
AntiGlobalist Easterner

Chennai, India

#5025 Aug 30, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were the case, then the only way you should be allowed to get married is if you already have a child, or if the woman is pregnant. Marriage doesn't guarantee children, even if a couple is planning to have children. And this scenario would also prevent older couples, who are past their childbearing years, from getting married. Your argument is null.
By Jupiter, you are right!
Earlier Marriage was a pre-condition to pregnancy. Now pregnancy can be a pre-condition to marriage. I've given the reasons for these in my earlier post (No.4939). In other cases it can be a gentleman's agreement, without law entering the scene.
Really, I'm proud of you. You're open for a decent debate. Thankyou.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#5026 Aug 30, 2013
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
<quoted text>
LAW IS IN MY FAVOUR, LAW IS ON MY SIDE, LAW SUPPORTS ME ....!!! Go on. Thats all you harp about.
Yes you are Legal, but that does not take away from the fact that you are crazy. Law has sanctioned many crazy things in the past.
But wait. I find a silver lining in this. Making SSMs lawful takes away the 'charm' in them, as with all forbidden things. All this fight over denial is only until then. When every corner of the world makes it lawful, you guys will lose interest in it. Lets just see how many of you commit to marriage. One of your friends here posted that only 2% of you is willing to commit. All this brou ha ha will die the moment there is no resistance. With our generation this excitement will die and our children when given equal choices, will prefer the other sex, to explore and accept the differences lovingly. Heterosex is UNITY IN DIVERSITY. It requires some maturity. I call your bluff! I don't think there is any serious intent to all this, except the pleasure of defiance.
What are you, stupid?

Did interracial couples stop marrying after they had to stop fighting for legal recognition of their marriages?

No.

Wise up.

We take our marriage far more seriously than most of the divorced straight people we know.

Six years next week. Choke on that.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#5027 Aug 30, 2013
AntiGlobalist Easterner wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Goofy, please read my post again, I am referreing to your harping about the LAW BEING IN YOUR FAVOUR. In your anxiety to refute you are making such apalling goofs.
Law serves compelling Govt. interests and the Govt. works under the auspices of law? They are both servants and masters to each other! Blow hot, blow cold, eh? It is this ambivalence which is the root cause of your disorder.
When are you going to realize you don't matter?

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.

San Francisco Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... 2 hr Bubba Cooder 205
Science: No Such Thing as a "Transgendered" Pe... 17 hr Inquisitor 3
They shouldnt allow doctors from India to do me... Fri concerned patient 3
News California Lawmakers Approve Extension Of Clima... Fri Apostate 1
Gabrielangelo Fri anonymous 84
News 93,000 people voluntarily left Japan for North ... Aug 24 Robbo 1
Don't Worry She's Covered Under Obama Care Aug 23 Unaffordable Care... 1

San Francisco Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

San Francisco Mortgages