Gay marriage

There are 59875 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.

anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3290 May 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Translation: The law can't defend individual elements of itself so why should I assume I have to.
We lock away murderers. We take away their civil rights. We know why we do it, but your argument style would just demand that they have all their civil rights.
We also limit the rights of the mentally ill and engage in practices that effectively deny rights to the poor. Some of those acts are with good reason while others are efforts to exploit the labor force.
Life is complicated. Homosexuality is not a sound bite issue. It crosses into the area of mental disorder whether you like it or not. It crosses into the area of repressing the poor whether you like it or not.
Whether or not you consider homosexuality an obsessive/compulsive disorder, a "normal" personality akin to being a "nerd" or something that is an actual evolutionary trait, you'll have to address the politics. And politics is a very cagy animal.
So considering politics, are you going to apologize for your regular indulgences in name calling or will you simply concede the point that you're a fear mongering, rabble rousing, weasel who does nothing in sound-bite increments?
A simple YES or NO is all that is required!
Thank you for driving that car off the cliff and once again, proving my point far better than I ever could alone.
*** As noted, a YES or NO is only required for the question "are you going to apologize for your regular indulgences in name calling" Conceding is automatic when the first question is evaded.

Welcome to sound bite land, Mr. Parse Bunny!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3291 May 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the last post, you simply lack the understanding of active and passive arguments. You don't retain "many" civil rights. YOU lose "SOME" civil rights, and that's all that matters in sound bite rhetoric.
Downs Syndrome is a "normal" part of the human species too. Is it a mental disorder? YES or NO?
If I really want to make a point, I probably DO have to ensure that there aren't two actual questions. Fortunately, there's always a troll ready to provide.
you said we take away their civil rights. we do not. we take away some of them. again, stop talking about shit you do not understand.
no, downs syndrom is a chromosonal disorder. homosexuality is not a disorder at all. again, stop talking about shit you don't understand...6884

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3292 May 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the last post, you simply lack the understanding of active and passive arguments. You don't retain "many" civil rights. YOU lose "SOME" civil rights, and that's all that matters in sound bite rhetoric.
Downs Syndrome is a "normal" part of the human species too. Is it a mental disorder? YES or NO?
If I really want to make a point, I probably DO have to ensure that there aren't two actual questions. Fortunately, there's always a troll ready to provide.
Well, what "compelling interest" - state or otherwise - is there for banning gay couples from legal marriage?

Is it good for the couples?
Good for their children?
Does it protect straight people in some way?
Will it turn straight people gay?
Does it send a bad message to gay youth?

List all of the compelling arguments that prove that marriage is a wonderful thing for straight couples and their kids, but that gay couples and their kids should be denied it.

Sorry, but you can't just strip away basic civil and human rights from honest taxpayers without a stronger reason than:

"we don't really like you".

It's just that simple.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3293 May 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, what "compelling interest" - state or otherwise - is there for banning gay couples from legal marriage?
Is it good for the couples?
Good for their children?
Does it protect straight people in some way?
Will it turn straight people gay?
Does it send a bad message to gay youth?
List all of the compelling arguments that prove that marriage is a wonderful thing for straight couples and their kids, but that gay couples and their kids should be denied it.
Sorry, but you can't just strip away basic civil and human rights from honest taxpayers without a stronger reason than:
"we don't really like you".
It's just that simple.
Sorry, but you can't just strip away due process.

Here's another definition:

Due process:

(law) the administration of justice according to established rules and principles; based on the principle that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards.

Do you see the word "established". Good!

Now, let us discuss the "principles" and "safeguards".

Explain why one unconventional practice is different than another. You've got polygamy and pedophilia as references as to how homosexuality is different.

Here's another definition.

Homosexuality:

A sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex.

See how the definition is based on sexual attraction and/or relations?

This line of logic is absolutely relevant and contiguous. Stop taking a legal debate and turning it into a "passion" that inevitably, lazy plebeians who may be swayed in the short term, will absolutely reject in the long term. And that time WILL come.

Give in on one tit-for-tat unethical decision and you've set a legal precedent that absolutely will become the next agenda, and that will be compulsory hate-crime laws AND an Affirmative Action mandate.

It's not the government's job to engage in social engineering. That said, they do engage in it while trying to protect it in the name of civil rights. It is failing. Minority progress is backsliding so the Socialists have picked a professional victim that can hide their nature and agenda like an Islamic terrorist.

If you want to look for historical precedent, look to England. They had hundreds of years of a colonial empire. What did the world really gain from it? Well, all the countries who profited and represent the aftermath of colonial England will say that a lot came from it, but the English are no longer the majority in the U.S. The U.S. is both in its peak days of colonialism and is flawed with bureaucratic inefficiencies that seem to demonstrate themselves about every ten years now when some new bubble occurs.

For now, everyone sees the festering boil that is healthcare. Jobs are pushed to the brink and yet, we still spend about as much as the rest of the world combined on our military. American education is poor, little more than esteem-building and babysitting while the kids drink and watch sports. We all see the job situation failing day by day. The solution that Washington has devised is to import more H-1B applicants because Americans "aren't qualified". No, they aren't qualified. They are incurring debt and getting no opportunity to pay off the debt.

Now, YOU think that it's your special moment to demand tax breaks and police protection while you go hunting new meat in the workplace? Yes! Yes! I'm sure it's all in the State's interest!

It's going to pop! It may be a dark moment in American history but then again, it already is for anyone who isn't trying to capture and live the magic of the "American Empire". The Empire has outlived Pax Americana. We don't have anything left to offer the world if all we've become is a quota system.

So don't ask me to tell you anything! YOU tell ME... What do gays, who by definition CANNOT HAVE children, mean that requires the community to make an institution of their behavior?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3294 May 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you said we take away their civil rights. we do not. we take away some of them. again, stop talking about shit you do not understand.
no, downs syndrom is a chromosonal disorder. homosexuality is not a disorder at all. again, stop talking about shit you don't understand...6884
Then what is homosexuality?

OK, bad eyesight isn't a genetic disorder. Don't expect to become a fighter pilot if you've got it!

Homosexuality is a psychological condition. There are many restrictions put on people with psychological problems, genetic or otherwise.

You insist that homosexuality ISN'T a psychological disorder. There are others who insist it IS! The only thing I have to decide on the matter is that homosexuality does not biologically promote reproduction, and that IS an essential adaptation of genetics!

Bonobos engage in all sorts of ritual acts of homosexuality. but bonobos are tree dwelling animals. If you wish to find a metaphorical tree to live in and can make it your home, then do so! The rest of us have to contend with the reality of terrestrial life and the drastic change away from old tribal lifestyles to modern urban existence.

You're not making a positive case for what any of the rest of us would call a singularly frivolous behavior. You might as well claim that nose pickers need government protection an subsidies.

Make a positive case and stop posting propaganda. I don't care about "YOUR CHILDREN" because they aren't YOUR CHILDREN. At best, they are the children of one parent and some would say that demonstrates a lack of parental commitment that should not be encouraged.

SOOOOO, MAKE a POSITIVE CASE for your cause! I see nothing but pathological lying and passive-aggressive confrontation. You're not a hero. You're not a role model. You're not a port in a storm. You're cannon fodder for an aristocracy that is rotting from the inside out.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3295 May 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>In fact, we do NOT take away murderers civil rights. prisoners int he US still retain many of their civil rights.
Yeah...freedom from incarceration...freedom from voting...freedom from healthy teeth...you name it...they still have it! LOL!!!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3296 May 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you said we take away their civil rights. we do not. we take away some of them. again, stop talking about shit you do not understand.
no, downs syndrom is a chromosonal disorder. homosexuality is not a disorder at all. again, stop talking about shit you don't understand...6884
Disorder or not...it's not what marriage is based on...
Anonimo

Los Angeles, CA

#3297 May 15, 2013
Hello, gay marriage is alright. It is not sin. In the Bible says it is no sin. Gay marriage is no bad. Neither Adam and Eve have sinned against God because they have had sex. While man and female gets married since thousands of years. Male and female had he created is not sin. It is just the same as gay sex is not sin. It is same as hetero marriage. Hitler has not sinned for having slain Jews and all of the massacre and has killed gays was alright and has not sinned. Hitler has not sinned and was a righteous man. The Jews were right for having slain Jesus Christ, and it is okay. It is no sin killing Yawhehn. It is alright. It was part of the job of the Jews to sacrifice God so that our sins may be wash out. Hitler was right for having slain the homosexuals and jews and many people. It is no sin. Gay marriage is no sin.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3298 May 15, 2013
Anonimo wrote:
Hello, gay marriage is alright. It is not sin. In the Bible says it is no sin. Gay marriage is no bad. Neither Adam and Eve have sinned against God because they have had sex. While man and female gets married since thousands of years. Male and female had he created is not sin. It is just the same as gay sex is not sin. It is same as hetero marriage. Hitler has not sinned for having slain Jews and all of the massacre and has killed gays was alright and has not sinned. Hitler has not sinned and was a righteous man. The Jews were right for having slain Jesus Christ, and it is okay. It is no sin killing Yawhehn. It is alright. It was part of the job of the Jews to sacrifice God so that our sins may be wash out. Hitler was right for having slain the homosexuals and jews and many people. It is no sin. Gay marriage is no sin.
Nothing you said here is true or makes any sense...sorry...you lose...
Anonimo

Los Angeles, CA

#3299 May 15, 2013
FFS- wrote:
<quoted text>LOl, GOD DOES NOT MAKE US LAWS DIMWIT
If you want religon, go to church!
I cannot go to church. Because I am not anglosaxon. What the heck are you up with you? No, I cannot go. I am not Anglosaxon. I cannot go to this church where they do not accept my race. Anyway. Whatever. I will never go to this church and it will never happen. Because a God I worship is not racist. Sorry. Though. I hope it did not give you effect of this or have affected you.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3300 May 15, 2013
Anonimo wrote:
<quoted text> I cannot go to church. Because I am not anglosaxon. What the heck are you up with you? No, I cannot go. I am not Anglosaxon. I cannot go to this church where they do not accept my race. Anyway. Whatever. I will never go to this church and it will never happen. Because a God I worship is not racist. Sorry. Though. I hope it did not give you effect of this or have affected you.
Whaaaa???

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3302 May 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Translation: The law can't defend individual elements of itself so why should I assume I have to.
We lock away murderers. We take away their civil rights. We know why we do it, but your argument style would just demand that they have all their civil rights.
Do you understand the concept of a legitimate state interest needing to be served before constitutional rights may be infringed. There is such an interest served by incarcerating criminals aand temporarily relieving them of SOME of their rights. Although, you might note, even incarcerated criminals have been held to have the fundamental right to marry.

That was a really bad example for you to choose. You attempted to inflame the debate, but only ended up further substantiating your ignorance.
anonymous wrote:
So considering politics, are you going to apologize for your regular indulgences in name calling or will you simply concede the point that you're a fear mongering, rabble rousing, weasel who does nothing in sound-bite increments?
A simple YES or NO is all that is required!
Don't hold your breath for an apology, the truth is an absolute defense against slander (actually, libel in this case, as the statements are written). Those statements are not untrue, you are an ignorant, and not terribly intelligent person, who lacks the ability to offer a rational on topic defense of your position. A fact proven when you post, time and time again, and don't even attempt to address the topic.

The simple reality remains that you can't offer even so little as a rational basis to pass the lowest level of judicial scrutiny, the aptly named "rational basis test". Feel free to prove me wrong by doing so.
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3303 May 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what is homosexuality?
OK, bad eyesight isn't a genetic disorder. Don't expect to become a fighter pilot if you've got it!
Homosexuality is a psychological condition. There are many restrictions put on people with psychological problems, genetic or otherwise.
You insist that homosexuality ISN'T a psychological disorder. There are others who insist it IS! The only thing I have to decide on the matter is that homosexuality does not biologically promote reproduction, and that IS an essential adaptation of genetics!
Bonobos engage in all sorts of ritual acts of homosexuality. but bonobos are tree dwelling animals. If you wish to find a metaphorical tree to live in and can make it your home, then do so! The rest of us have to contend with the reality of terrestrial life and the drastic change away from old tribal lifestyles to modern urban existence.
You're not making a positive case for what any of the rest of us would call a singularly frivolous behavior. You might as well claim that nose pickers need government protection an subsidies.
Make a positive case and stop posting propaganda. I don't care about "YOUR CHILDREN" because they aren't YOUR CHILDREN. At best, they are the children of one parent and some would say that demonstrates a lack of parental commitment that should not be encouraged.
SOOOOO, MAKE a POSITIVE CASE for your cause! I see nothing but pathological lying and passive-aggressive confrontation. You're not a hero. You're not a role model. You're not a port in a storm. You're cannon fodder for an aristocracy that is rotting from the inside out.
Youre best post yet,couldnt agree more.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3304 May 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Homosexuality is a psychological condition.
You can, of course, produce scientific proof of this claim, right?

Merely saying that it is so, doesn't make it true. Neither does repeating the unfounded assertion ad naseum.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3305 May 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
You're not making a positive case for what any of the rest of us would call a singularly frivolous behavior. You might as well claim that nose pickers need government protection an subsidies.
Many people didn't approve of interracial marriage when it became legal. The reality remains that the only argument we need is constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the law. We have always moved to greater equality for all persons, unless there is a legitimate state interest served by denying such equality.

Ironically, you are making a negative case against the constitutional guarantee of equal protection (read the 14th Amendment, it's all in there, and it's right up front in section1); but you yourself are not even offering arguments with a factual basis, while you argue for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law. That's not exactly a positive approach.

Just because you think homosexuality is icky isn't a legitimate reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3306 May 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You can, of course, produce scientific proof of this claim, right?
Merely saying that it is so, doesn't make it true. Neither does repeating the unfounded assertion ad naseum.
So what do you call homosexuality, a chemical state?

What you want to demand is that homosexuality is not an abnormal psychological state. Well, that's really not up to you, me, doctors or those who just play one on TV.

It's up to the voters.

Make your case. As I see it, homosexuality is just the flavor of the day. Pedophilia and talking in tongues will likely be tomorrow's lunch special.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3307 May 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Many people didn't approve of interracial marriage when it became legal. The reality remains that the only argument we need is constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the law. We have always moved to greater equality for all persons, unless there is a legitimate state interest served by denying such equality.
Ironically, you are making a negative case against the constitutional guarantee of equal protection (read the 14th Amendment, it's all in there, and it's right up front in section1); but you yourself are not even offering arguments with a factual basis, while you argue for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law. That's not exactly a positive approach.
Just because you think homosexuality is icky isn't a legitimate reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
I'm single. I want equal protection under the law. I don't like goody-two-shoes hiding behind their children to defend their bigotry. WHEN and ONLY WHEN I'm confident that my financial status will not be threatened by our modern wage slave culture, then I might have kids.
That's my lifestyle choice. I demand that I have equal protection. No tax breaks, insurance profiling or discrimination in the workplace against single people. That's all there is to it Jeeves, so make your case or go peddle your papers.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3308 May 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand the concept of a legitimate state interest needing to be served before constitutional rights may be infringed. There is such an interest served by incarcerating criminals aand temporarily relieving them of SOME of their rights. Although, you might note, even incarcerated criminals have been held to have the fundamental right to marry.
That was a really bad example for you to choose. You attempted to inflame the debate, but only ended up further substantiating your ignorance.
<quoted text>
Don't hold your breath for an apology, the truth is an absolute defense against slander (actually, libel in this case, as the statements are written). Those statements are not untrue, you are an ignorant, and not terribly intelligent person, who lacks the ability to offer a rational on topic defense of your position. A fact proven when you post, time and time again, and don't even attempt to address the topic.
The simple reality remains that you can't offer even so little as a rational basis to pass the lowest level of judicial scrutiny, the aptly named "rational basis test". Feel free to prove me wrong by doing so.
Parse bunny!

Admit that you CAN'T apologize. You are playing monkey pack rules and NO alpha would ever SUBMIT!

Anyway, you lose! You're just posing. You are in denial about your sound bite rubbish and You're still a parse bunny who can't defend anything he or she posts.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3309 May 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
So what do you call homosexuality, a chemical state?
What you want to demand is that homosexuality is not an abnormal psychological state. Well, that's really not up to you, me, doctors or those who just play one on TV.
It's up to the voters.
Make your case. As I see it, homosexuality is just the flavor of the day. Pedophilia and talking in tongues will likely be tomorrow's lunch special.
Nice try anonymous, but once again, you air only your ignorance.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and it is the business only of the consenting adults involved. Attempting to label it is a medical condition, compare it to pedophilia (which is illegal), or as abnormal are merely attempts to rationalize your own animus. The reality remains that your comparisons are both insults, and unfounded accusations. Have you ever heard of libel?

Legally, the US Supreme court has held marriage to be a fundamental right on 14 separate occasions. http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...

It has also separately held that,
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3310 May 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
I'm single. I want equal protection under the law. I don't like goody-two-shoes hiding behind their children to defend their bigotry. WHEN and ONLY WHEN I'm confident that my financial status will not be threatened by our modern wage slave culture, then I might have kids.
That's my lifestyle choice. I demand that I have equal protection. No tax breaks, insurance profiling or discrimination in the workplace against single people. That's all there is to it Jeeves, so make your case or go peddle your papers.
Nice try, but your argument is, once again, irrelevant. You have equal protection to choose to marry, that you ELECT not to do so is your choice, it does not represent unequal protection under the law, because you have chosen not to seek the legal protections of marriage.

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Brian_G 53,521
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Oriosano Nachos M... 189,892
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 18 hr Pietro Armando 201,810
News California Doesn't Have A Water SHORTage, It Ha... Sat wild child 1
News L.A. looking to 2016 to end the Bay Area's lock... May 23 Le Jimbo 1
News UPS Becomes Nation's Largest User of Renewable ... May 21 ShirleyWill12 1
News Mexico's Take Over Of California: Complete By 2... (Jun '09) May 21 Protester 27,520
More from around the web