Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61405 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.

common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3582 May 23, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Come back to the topic at hand Brian.
Quit posting irrelevant drivel.
Its not irrelevant,it just goes to show the level that people are willing to stoop to to get gay marriage approved.
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3583 May 23, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, YOU are the ONLY one in this discussion that has been talking about other folk's sex lives. If it disgusts you as much as you claim, you might want to stop endlessly obsessing and fantasizing about it. Not real bright, are you? Either that or you are one seriously weird masochist.
Just trying to paint a more realistic picture of what you folk are really like ,and not the walt disney image that you and the media try and portray.If it wasnt for you people trying to change the meaning of marriage to suit your lifestyle i really wouldnt care what you do .


This issue means a lot to me because by allowing gay marriage ,its basically sending out the message that being gay is just as normal and prominent as being straight when that just is not true as is evident by only such a small percentage of the population being truly gay(mayby up to 5 percent).That just does not warrant the whole world changing their cultural and traditional beliefs of what marriage is to suit what is basically a small bunch of people that are normal except for thier abnormal sexual practices.

The other reason im willing to speak up against gay marriage is that by sending out the message that being gay is just as normal and moral and righteous as being straight ,you are going to cause a lot of confusion with adolescents growning up who are at a vulnerable age .Lets face it ,most responsible parents obviously would like their kids growing up to be happy but also ideally to be straight and getting married and having kids naturally with thier husband or wife,and for those kids to grow with their parents .Thats the sort of message we should be giving out and striving for ,not the message that its ok to experiment with your sexuality .

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#3584 May 23, 2013
common sense wrote:
Just trying to paint a more realistic picture of what you folk are really like ,and not the walt disney image that you and the media try and portray.If it wasnt for you people trying to change the meaning of marriage to suit your lifestyle i really wouldnt care what you do .
I'm just trying to paint a more realistic picture of you folk are really like, sexually obsessed, badly informed, and not particularly bright.
common sense wrote:
This issue means a lot to me because by allowing gay marriage ,its basically sending out the message that being gay is just as normal and prominent as being straight when that just is not true as is evident by only such a small percentage of the population being truly gay(mayby up to 5 percent).
Reality check: Significantly less than 5% of all marriages are interracial in their make-up, but the meaning of marriage was forced to change in most states to accommodate what is most definitely a lifestyle choice. Like all malinformed bigots, you'll either learn to cope or be remembered as an embarrassment to history.
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3585 May 23, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I'm just trying to paint a more realistic picture of you folk are really like, sexually obsessed, badly informed, and not particularly bright.
<quoted text> Reality check: Significantly less than 5% of all marriages are interracial in their make-up, but the meaning of marriage was forced to change in most states to accommodate what is most definitely a lifestyle choice. Like all malinformed bigots, you'll either learn to cope or be remembered as an embarrassment to history.
Your an idiot Rick.As to interacial marriages,they're still a marriage that produces a bride and a groom as it should be ,not the union of two freaks like yourself.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#3586 May 24, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't it suck to get caught posting under multiple screen names?
It's certainly disingenuous.
It's the only way she can get anyone to "agree" with her.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#3587 May 24, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
I don't know...the case looks like it's going forward.....
Kaitlyn Hunt Update: Charges against girl, 18, in same-sex underage relationship won't be dropped, despite public outcry, Fla. state attorney says
comments
By Stephanie Slifer Topics Daily Blotter
CBS--SEBASTIAN, Fla.- A Florida state attorney says the charges against Kaitlyn Hunt, an 18-year-old high school student who engaged in a same-sex relationship with a 14-year-old classmate, will not be dropped, despite petitions from the public, CBS affiliate WTSP reports.
Hunt has been expelled from Sebastian River High School in Sebastian, Fla. and is charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious battery of a child 12 to 16 years of age as a result of the relationship.
The case began in February when Hunt was arrested and charged after the younger girl's parents notified authorities, reportedly when Hunt turned 18. Since then, the story has garnered national attention for what some say is a gay rights issue.
Kelly Hunt Smith, Kaitlyn's mother, created a Facebook page to gain support for her daughter in an effort to get the charges dropped, the station says. The page, entitled "Free Kate," had over 30,000 members as of early Tuesday.
No one reads your cut and paste crap anymore.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#3588 May 24, 2013
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Your an idiot Rick.As to interacial marriages,they're still a marriage that produces a bride and a groom as it should be ,not the union of two freaks like yourself.
I see your still going strong with the insults.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#3589 May 24, 2013
*you're* Sorry, don't want to be busted by the grammar police!
common sense

Box Hill, Australia

#3590 May 24, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
I see your still going strong with the insults.
just returning the favor.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3591 May 24, 2013
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not irrelevant,it just goes to show the level that people are willing to stoop to to get gay marriage approved.
Hardly. Try again.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3592 May 24, 2013
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Just trying to paint a more realistic picture of what you folk are really like ,and not the walt disney image that you and the media try and portray.If it wasnt for you people trying to change the meaning of marriage to suit your lifestyle i really wouldnt care what you do .
...
The true picture is the SAME picture that is painted for ALL marriage. Simple.

And who is changing the meaning of YOUR marriage? Why would it be of any concern to you if some couple you have never met marries? Is your marriage, or the marriages of certain straight folks are going to change in some strange and terrible way if gay people legally marry?

If your idea of marriage is so weak and insecure, I suggest you not enter into one.

Leave that for the big boys and girls.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3593 May 24, 2013
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
....
This issue means a lot to me because by allowing gay marriage ,its basically sending out the message that being gay is just as normal and prominent as being straight when that just is not true as is evident by only such a small percentage of the population being truly gay(mayby up to 5 percent)....
Of course being gay is normal for gay folks. How in the world could it NOT be?

You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between "the norm" and normal. Having red hair is not the norm, but it is normal. Having green eyes is not the norm, but it IS normal.

Simple, harmless, and completely natural physical and mental traits are normal.

Being gay is not the norm for the population, but it is normal.

Do you understand, now?

And, no, gay folks marrying is of NO concern to you. It doesn't harm you or change your life ONE BIT, but it is a boon to gay couples and their kids.
hallelujah

Harrisonburg, VA

#3594 May 24, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly. Try again.
What is your view of homosexuals that are bigot racists towards Blacks who are homosexual?
hallelujah

Harrisonburg, VA

#3595 May 24, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I'm just trying to paint a more realistic picture of you folk are really like, sexually obsessed, badly informed, and not particularly bright.
<quoted text> Reality check: Significantly less than 5% of all marriages are interracial in their make-up, but the meaning of marriage was forced to change in most states to accommodate what is most definitely a lifestyle choice. Like all malinformed bigots, you'll either learn to cope or be remembered as an embarrassment to history.
NorCal Native is a bigot racist towards homosexuals that are Black.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3596 May 24, 2013
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Just trying to paint a more realistic picture of what you folk are really like ,and not the walt disney image that you and the media try and portray.If it wasnt for you people trying to change the meaning of marriage to suit your lifestyle i really wouldnt care what you do .
This issue means a lot to me because by allowing gay marriage ,its basically sending out the message that being gay is just as normal and prominent as being straight when that just is not true as is evident by only such a small percentage of the population being truly gay(mayby up to 5 percent).That just does not warrant the whole world changing their cultural and traditional beliefs of what marriage is to suit what is basically a small bunch of people that are normal except for thier abnormal sexual practices.
The other reason im willing to speak up against gay marriage is that by sending out the message that being gay is just as normal and moral and righteous as being straight ,you are going to cause a lot of confusion with adolescents growning up who are at a vulnerable age .Lets face it ,most responsible parents obviously would like their kids growing up to be happy but also ideally to be straight and getting married and having kids naturally with thier husband or wife,and for those kids to grow with their parents .Thats the sort of message we should be giving out and striving for ,not the message that its ok to experiment with your sexuality .
Let's consider the bigger picture. Perhaps the psychology of the human species is a bit prone to "experimental" behavior. Suppose we have behavior algorithm that expresses itself in all of the great apes. The characteristic that defines the separate species psychologically would be the "bit count" in how the algorithm interacts synapticly with nearby brain cells.

Now suppose we say that the brain cell is like a cube unit in an array. Synaptic patterns that manifest in "bit counts" of four or less are introverted in their social demeanor while those above are more extroverted.

Consider the idea that maybe chimpanzees represent one bit behavior, gorillas-two, orangutans-three, and australopithecenes-four. On the extroverted side, perhaps bonobos represent 5 and gibbons represent 6.

Now, the introverts can interact socially and keep control of undesirable behaviors, while the bonobos particularly express a behavior that is valuable but prone to acts of compulsiveness. This is probably because those bonobos are thinking in prime numbers and thus don't have a good feedback system they can internalize.

They also have not made a clean break away from the chimpanzee, largely because the lobe structure is not completely evolved to prevent such negative feedback situations, resulting in deviant behavior. The large scale changes to neuroanatomy require time to nurture under the protection of the parent species.

The question remains, is such a change likely to happen or is it a dead end? Liberals inherently prefer to indulge experiments, but they often have their own agendas nested within. Conservatives genuinely stagnate the future development of the species.

We're in an ethical situation of our own future. The question remains, is the whole debate about selfish interests or is there a genuine value? Personally, I see it as another number 5 problem. There's a perpetual instability here that is more problematic than the step between animal and human. It's more of a solution without a problem being solved.

I've asked for reasons why gays benefit the community. I really haven't seen answers. Mostly, all I've ever seen is poor logic, sound bites and attempts to deny facts. That can't be a good sign for what I consider the human condition. If our solution to problems was to flee to the safety of the trees, maybe. But that's not what I think our children should be working towards.

It's not liberalism. It's reckless fantasy.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3597 May 24, 2013
common sense wrote:
Its not irrelevant,it just goes to show the level that people are willing to stoop to to get gay marriage approved.
It is, in fact, utterly irrelevant. Only a fool would state otherwise.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3598 May 24, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's consider the bigger picture. Perhaps the psychology of the human species is a bit prone to "experimental" behavior. Suppose we have behavior algorithm that expresses itself in all of the great apes. The characteristic that defines the separate species psychologically would be the "bit count" in how the algorithm interacts synapticly with nearby brain cells.
Now suppose we say that the brain cell is like a cube unit in an array. Synaptic patterns that manifest in "bit counts" of four or less are introverted in their social demeanor while those above are more extroverted.
Consider the idea that maybe chimpanzees represent one bit behavior, gorillas-two, orangutans-three, and australopithecenes-four. On the extroverted side, perhaps bonobos represent 5 and gibbons represent 6.
Now, the introverts can interact socially and keep control of undesirable behaviors, while the bonobos particularly express a behavior that is valuable but prone to acts of compulsiveness. This is probably because those bonobos are thinking in prime numbers and thus don't have a good feedback system they can internalize.
They also have not made a clean break away from the chimpanzee, largely because the lobe structure is not completely evolved to prevent such negative feedback situations, resulting in deviant behavior. The large scale changes to neuroanatomy require time to nurture under the protection of the parent species.
The question remains, is such a change likely to happen or is it a dead end? Liberals inherently prefer to indulge experiments, but they often have their own agendas nested within. Conservatives genuinely stagnate the future development of the species.
We're in an ethical situation of our own future. The question remains, is the whole debate about selfish interests or is there a genuine value? Personally, I see it as another number 5 problem. There's a perpetual instability here that is more problematic than the step between animal and human. It's more of a solution without a problem being solved.
I've asked for reasons why gays benefit the community. I really haven't seen answers. Mostly, all I've ever seen is poor logic, sound bites and attempts to deny facts. That can't be a good sign for what I consider the human condition. If our solution to problems was to flee to the safety of the trees, maybe. But that's not what I think our children should be working towards.
It's not liberalism. It's reckless fantasy.
Awwww, isn't pseudo-intellectualism as a rationalization adorable.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3599 May 24, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
No one reads your cut and paste crap anymore.
Too bad...lots of good info....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3600 May 24, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's consider the bigger picture. Perhaps the psychology of the human species is a bit prone to "experimental" behavior. Suppose we have behavior algorithm that expresses itself in all of the great apes. The characteristic that defines the separate species psychologically would be the "bit count" in how the algorithm interacts synapticly with nearby brain cells.
Now suppose we say that the brain cell is like a cube unit in an array. Synaptic patterns that manifest in "bit counts" of four or less are introverted in their social demeanor while those above are more extroverted.
Consider the idea that maybe chimpanzees represent one bit behavior, gorillas-two, orangutans-three, and australopithecenes-four. On the extroverted side, perhaps bonobos represent 5 and gibbons represent 6.
Now, the introverts can interact socially and keep control of undesirable behaviors, while the bonobos particularly express a behavior that is valuable but prone to acts of compulsiveness. This is probably because those bonobos are thinking in prime numbers and thus don't have a good feedback system they can internalize.
They also have not made a clean break away from the chimpanzee, largely because the lobe structure is not completely evolved to prevent such negative feedback situations, resulting in deviant behavior. The large scale changes to neuroanatomy require time to nurture under the protection of the parent species.
The question remains, is such a change likely to happen or is it a dead end? Liberals inherently prefer to indulge experiments, but they often have their own agendas nested within. Conservatives genuinely stagnate the future development of the species.
We're in an ethical situation of our own future. The question remains, is the whole debate about selfish interests or is there a genuine value? Personally, I see it as another number 5 problem. There's a perpetual instability here that is more problematic than the step between animal and human. It's more of a solution without a problem being solved.
I've asked for reasons why gays benefit the community. I really haven't seen answers. Mostly, all I've ever seen is poor logic, sound bites and attempts to deny facts. That can't be a good sign for what I consider the human condition. If our solution to problems was to flee to the safety of the trees, maybe. But that's not what I think our children should be working towards.
It's not liberalism. It's reckless fantasy.
Why do you bother to post to him...he's a useful i-diot!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3601 May 24, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you bother to post to him...he's a useful i-diot!
Who? common sense? He or she definitely swings to conservative FUD, but this particular point is worth elaborating on. lides, on the other hand, is just behaving like a troll anymore. He or she is in their place, and I suspect has no intention of leaving it.

The question is now about whether or not lides, etc. has any intention of thinking outside of their box. That's a win/win/win for me. First, they're likely to lose their composure. Second, they are likely to humiliate opportunist liberals. Finally, they provide the next segue once they do step outside of the box.

The same old sound bites bore me. This concept is in the oven and baking!

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 BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 23 min Joe Balls 219,243
News Leslie Van Houten, Manson follower, denied paro... 4 hr ted 1
Election California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 6 hr Edrosenthaal 16,048
News Victorville ranked No. 9 on 'California's most ... Fri Lulubelle Fire 5
Why do black people hate cats? (Mar '09) Fri That girl 54
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Fri Frankie Rizzo 201,877
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Fri litesong 60,655
More from around the web