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.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2858 Apr 30, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>If that is the version of God you want to believe in, sweetie, you go right ahead, but sorry to disappoint you, his opinion really doesn't matter to those of us who haven't made the same mistake you have. There are plenty of versions of God in the public square that are more than happy to extend their blessings to the marriages of same sex couples. Whether you and your version of God like it or not, the right of those of us who would marry someone of the same sex is going to be recognized, you're both just going to need to learn to cope.
You are counting your chickens before they are hatched...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2859 Apr 30, 2013
April 17, 2013 at 4:07 pm

We recently reported Slate author Jillian Keenan's opinion that "the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy too!

Well, just in case anyone should think this is idle speculation and thought experiment, consider news coming out of Canada today:

A Canadian court is assembling an unprecedented set of testimonies and legal briefs about the pros and cons of polygamy. The goal is to answer the question of whether Canada’s anti-polygamy law is constitutional.

But, as the story reveals, there is still cause for hope. The case to legalize polygamous unions faces an uphill battle, against some formidable forces -- for example, the scholarship of Professor Joseph Henrich from the University of British Columbia.

Henrich has written of monogamy that it is "one of the foundations of Western civilization, and may explain why democratic ideals and notions of human rights first emerged as a Western phenomenon."

I don't know what they will find out...but this should be interesting...we'll be watching...
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2861 Apr 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's not. Your post is there is its full, uncut, and unmodified stupidity. If you consider it "parsing" to respond to each point in turn, then your are a pretty dim fellow.
It is not my fault that you can't craft a rational argument or support your position with facts.
The reality remains you can't offer a reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, which they are constitutionally guaranteed.
Do you need a dictionary to figure out "parsing"? Get one! I keep Wordweb handy all the time and maybe you won't feel quite so insecure and prone to name calling.

The reality remains that I don't have to offer a reason to deny same sex marriage. What I consider the issue is why should I offer any kind of State meddling and financial rewards for any kind of marriage. It's a very old adage called "Two wrongs don't make a right".
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2862 Apr 30, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>taxes are theft.
Ooh! That's inspired!

Well, when you remove all the taxes and especially the breaks favoring the married, I'll consider your ideal, but I'd rather not as I don't really think the State should be in the role of performing marriages and endorsing one type over another.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2863 Apr 30, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Ooh! That's inspired!
Well, when you remove all the taxes and especially the breaks favoring the married, I'll consider your ideal, but I'd rather not as I don't really think the State should be in the role of performing marriages and endorsing one type over another.
again, who else would control a legal, binding contract? why can you never answer that question?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2864 Apr 30, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
April 17, 2013 at 4:07 pm
We recently reported Slate author Jillian Keenan's opinion that "the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy too!
Well, just in case anyone should think this is idle speculation and thought experiment, consider news coming out of Canada today:
A Canadian court is assembling an unprecedented set of testimonies and legal briefs about the pros and cons of polygamy. The goal is to answer the question of whether Canada’s anti-polygamy law is constitutional.
But, as the story reveals, there is still cause for hope. The case to legalize polygamous unions faces an uphill battle, against some formidable forces -- for example, the scholarship of Professor Joseph Henrich from the University of British Columbia.
Henrich has written of monogamy that it is "one of the foundations of Western civilization, and may explain why democratic ideals and notions of human rights first emerged as a Western phenomenon."
I don't know what they will find out...but this should be interesting...we'll be watching...
your cult was a big fan of polygamy. the mythical god of your cult gave polygamy a big thumbs up. why do you have a problem with it?
threesome

Melbourne, Australia

#2865 Apr 30, 2013
I've been in a 3 way relationship with a man and a woman for 4 years now (myself and the other male are bisexual and the female is straight).We are all in love with each other and feel that if the law is changed for gays then it should be changed for other minorities that dont fit into the standard family unit such as ourselves.
As they say, love is love and marriage should be equal for all and that everyone has a right to happiness so why should we be denied that just because we have different needs and views to other people.
d pantz

Portage, MI

#2866 May 1, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks captain not so bright.
If it doesn't then DOMA is unconstitutional.
Read the 10th Amendment.
yes DOMA is unconstitutional. In more than one way. Read the first amendment. The fededral tax code is nor granted to the states. Neither is honoring any religous or belief group.
d pantz

Portage, MI

#2867 May 1, 2013
d pantz

Portage, MI

#2868 May 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>again, who else would control a legal, binding contract? why can you never answer that question?
you have it written by you're lawyer and take it to the clerk of courts. Good luck getting the federal government to agree to your new terms as far as taxes go.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#2869 May 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>again, who else would control a legal, binding contract? why can you never answer that question?
A legal, binding contract called a "civil union" that has nothing to do with sexual preference? Answer the question!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2870 May 1, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Do you need a dictionary to figure out "parsing"? Get one! I keep Wordweb handy all the time and maybe you won't feel quite so insecure and prone to name calling.
The reality remains that I don't have to offer a reason to deny same sex marriage. What I consider the issue is why should I offer any kind of State meddling and financial rewards for any kind of marriage. It's a very old adage called "Two wrongs don't make a right".
Why should I be insecure, you are the one who can't defend their position, and who apparently takes umbrage at having your argument addressed point by point.

Feel free to respond with a rational argument, thus far, you have done nothing more than attempt to put forth a smokescreen and retreat.

That said, if my argument were as utterly unsupported as your own, I might do the same.

The reality remains that the constitution requires states to provide equal protection of the laws. You've never once been able to indicate a single reason why such equal protection should be denied same sex couples regarding marriage.

I don't think you're up to the task.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2871 May 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>your cult was a big fan of polygamy. the mythical god of your cult gave polygamy a big thumbs up. why do you have a problem with it?
Polygamy is not a Christian ideal...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2872 May 1, 2013
d pantz wrote:
yes DOMA is unconstitutional. In more than one way.
On one thing, we agree.
d pantz wrote:
Read the first amendment.
I have.
d pantz wrote:
The fededral tax code is nor granted to the states. Neither is honoring any religous or belief group.
What were you attempting to say?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2873 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is not a Christian ideal...
And you point is what, exactly?

Christian ideals are irrelevant to matters of civil law. The first amendment ensures as much.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2874 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is not a Christian ideal...
Woodstock....

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2875 May 1, 2013
Fool, it's terribly funny when you prove that you haven't the intellectual capacity to refute the arguments of others, and instead stoop to the, somewhat juvenile, practice of using the "Judge It" feature.

Each time I see that you have done so, instead of responding, I smile knowing that you have tacitly admitted defeat.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2876 May 1, 2013
lides wrote:
Fool, it's terribly funny when you prove that you haven't the intellectual capacity to refute the arguments of others, and instead stoop to the, somewhat juvenile, practice of using the "Judge It" feature.
Each time I see that you have done so, instead of responding, I smile knowing that you have tacitly admitted defeat.
"Each time I see that you have done so, instead of responding, I smile knowing that you have tacitly admitted defeat."

Ummm....JD, that IS a response.
You just can't make this stuff up. You are definitely dumber than a fifth grader.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2877 May 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"Each time I see that you have done so, instead of responding, I smile knowing that you have tacitly admitted defeat."
Ummm....JD, that IS a response.
You just can't make this stuff up. You are definitely dumber than a fifth grader.
He knows it too....

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2878 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
He knows it too....
That you lack the ability to respond intelligently and have opted instead to behave like a teenager?

Of course, I know.

I wouldn't take pointers from Wonderbread. If possible, they are more ignorant, and less intelligent, than you are.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Californiaa s anti-Trump `resistancea bills: Wh... 1 hr RickySucks 13
News California Attorney General: Constitution, Rule... 16 hr Wildchild 2
News CommuniCare reports its at risk of losing feder... 17 hr Concave 4
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 18 hr Misses Abiff 242,610
News APNewsBreak: Millions of Californians on hook f... Wed Geraldo Del La Fuego 9
News First year of community college could soon be f... Tue Concave 1
News Walters: It's time for liberal Californians to ... Tue Concave 11
More from around the web