Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61390 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

Absecon, NJ

#41572 Apr 10, 2014
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Projection? What's your closet all about?
Is that projection? I don't recall this forum being posted as anything other than as an invitation for discussion.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#41573 Apr 10, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I care about your phony testimonial?...And you're a dummy-dumm-dumm!
Don't worry about my details. You get nothing.
Love it - a moron calls someone else stupid....

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#41574 Apr 10, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Right! "WE" is the important word here. The problem is that my choices belong to ME! There's a disconnect on perspective here, isn't there?
Thanks for showing up and playing the mimic game for us. I can't demonstrate that reality all on MY own. YOU made it complete. Now, who is that "WE" that you wish to indiscriminately lump people in with YOU? Other than the obvious trolls on this thread, I'm betting that you will offend many that you'd rather presume are on your side.
...and THAT is why I am disinclined to marry. Marriage IS an act designed to announce one's choice to the community and I actually do think that most of the community are as screwed up as you. Just as greedy, yes! Just as fanatical, usually! But denial and compliance to peer pressure is all part of that game.
My solution is usually simple: "If you want me to marry, you'll have to say "Please!"". That ends the argument on the one side and on the other. The denial in mimicry and compliance twisted up in personal pride are typically inseparable and that is a one-way street I don't intend to travel. There are other reasons why I have not married and they are selfish. I'm entitled to my own selfishness as much as the next person,....that is unless "WE" wants to strut the mimic stuff some more! Hmmm?
LOL! You are a mess and a disaster. And a huge liar!

Just be honest and say no woman will have you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41575 Apr 10, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
But what is different now is that SSM has proven moral disapproval is not a reason to deny marriage, grasshopper. You don't seem to understand that.
What makes you think that applies to polygamy?

All sorts of laws are based at least in part on moral disapproval. Does that mean ALL those laws must now be repealed just because the courts have ruled moral disapproval is not a reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

They're all separate issues, and each will stand or fall on their own merits.

Until a significant portion of society wants polygamy to be legal, it will remain illegal. That's just how it works in our country.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#41576 Apr 10, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that projection? I don't recall this forum being posted as anything other than as an invitation for discussion.
Well, if it is for discussion......then you HAVEN'T been doing ANY of that......lol!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41577 Apr 10, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny! Moral disapproval is only a valid reason to deny polygamy and not other marriages. Priceless! Explain how that works son.
This should be good.
The same way moral disapproval is a valid reason to ban certain sex acts but not other sex acts.

They're each different issues which will stand or fall on their own merits.

And I never said moral disapproval is the ONLY reason to ban polygamy. In fact that's probably the LEAST important reason among the many reasons to ban polygamy.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41578 Apr 10, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny! Moral disapproval is only a valid reason to deny polygamy and not other marriages. Priceless! Explain how that works son.
This should be good.
It's also the same reason we don't allow incest marriages, infant marriages, animal marriages, etc, etc.

Society has decided marriage should be between 2 consenting adults, with the occasional child thrown in the mix.

If society is ever ready for marriage to include multiple groups of people, then it'll happen. Until then, it won't.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#41579 Apr 10, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
#41326
<quoted text>-
The issue isnít whether beliefs are valid; it is whether the arguments supporting beliefs are valid. And it certainly has nothing to do with being a real American. Are oneís beliefs based on facts, realistic observations, reasonable premises and logical rigor? You have relied mostly on emotional, irrational arguments, bitter insults and wild, hateful accusations against my character. You have not been able to argue on the merits of your position, because there is nothing there.
You must be reading another page.

I have destroyed your "arguments" which have been pure opinion on your part, unworthy of the attention they have already been paid.

This is further proof that you have constructed your own universe with your own bizarre rules.

You're out of touch. I'm out of time.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41580 Apr 10, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
<quoted text> I is glad you is happy, or thank you is happy. Hope you and your husbane has a long life, even if it has to degrade itself with all that nasty stuff you dose.
Ditto. Feel free to degrade yourself with all that nasty stuff you dose as well.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41581 Apr 10, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How can he marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, with a man?
<quoted text>
The 14th amendment doesn't address marriage, nor was it written to.
<quoted text>
How can she marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, with a woman?
<quoted text>
The 14th amendment doesn't address marriage, nor was it written to.
Same lame failed circular logic your fellow anti-gays keep losing with in court after court and state after state.

Keep up the good work.

Please stick with that argument until same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41582 Apr 10, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Millions"? Please cite source. You are raising your biological children which you created during the course of your previous conjugal, husband and wife, marriage, or other opposite sex relationship. Ya didn't make with your same sex partner.
<quoted text>
All conjugal marriages are on some level.
<quoted text>
It can't be about joining the sexes, and making babies, that's for sure.
<quoted text>
Except if one is a plural marriage practitioner.....right?
US Census and other govt data indicates millions of same-sex couples raising children with a biological connection to at least one parent.

I don't know why you think it makes any difference whatsoever whether our daughter has my DNA, my husband's DNA, or neither of our DNA.

Marriage has never been about "joining the sexes and making babies", both of which can be done without marriage, and millions of marriages have never make babies either.

Same lame losing arguments.

Keep up the good work.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#41583 Apr 10, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
So, what struck me about the story of the discovery of your homosexuality is the shame that you experienced over it. This shame seems to have occurred all on its own, as if you had instinctively felt that your homosexual feelings were wrong and shameful. You would have probably felt the same shame If, instead, you had felt sexual attraction to the family pet, though the subject of bestiality probably never came up in your household, either, to prejudice you against that sort of thing. So, people "like me" had nothing to do with it, because it is unlikely that you had ever met "people like me" during your entire childhood and youth. There are just some things that we naturally feel are wrong, and homosexuality is one of them.
No one has to force homosexuals into closets. Homosexuals go there on their own to hide from others the guilt and shame they naturally feel about themselves. The shame and guilt you experienced were entirely self-inflicted, because, while you had homosexual feelings, you also felt that these were perverse and wrong. That explains all your praying. But no one had to make you ashamed of your feelings. You did that naturally all on your own. You, like other homosexuals are, now, attempting to shift unto others the blame for the perfectly, natural feelings of guilt and shame you felt towards yourself for your unnatural desires before you killed your conscience. You have been engaging ever since in a long, convoluted, masturbatory process of rationalization and blame-shifting.
Oh, you are so stupid.

Nobody is "naturally ashamed" of something.

While homosexuality was rarely mentioned, it was never mentioned in a positive way.

Let's just talk about pre-puberty.

First, you were wrong, in addition to my Star Wars action figures, I played jump rope with the girls and hated football. I was unathletic and while not particularly girly, I was called queer and fag even in grammar school.

The first time I heard the word "gay" was from my cousin who had a much older sister. We were at Grandma's house and I was probably around 7 years old. My Uncle (her father) came in the front door and kissed my Grandfather hello. As we all know, this is a common show of respect. Apparently my cousin had just learned the word, "gay" because she started running around saying my Uncle and Grandfather were gay (clearly misapplying the term.) I asked what she was talking about and she said if a boy kisses a boy they're gay, and by the way, eeeeew.

Examine the effect of your parents telling you (and teachers, everyone else) that you "will grow up and meet a nice girl" and so forth. The possibility of being gay is never even entertained. There is no other option. This will happen.

Then there's Sunday School, church, the misrepresentation of the Sodom & Gomorrah story specifically designed to teach children that homosexuality is wrong.

Let's add not one positive representation of a gay person on TV or in a movie or in a book, and no internet.

So the "shame" as you call it was not in fact shame. As I described it, it was panic. It was confusion. What I had been told was not true. It was not happening. Through no action of mine, this was the way I was wired.

And when you are 12, you don't want to be anything different. You don't want to be skinny. You don't want to be fat. You don't want to be teacher's pet. You don't want to be the last one to get a few whiskers on your face.

You certainly don't want to be the only boy who won't have a girlfriend.

So no, it's not "natural shame." It's institutional cruelty. It is definitely "people like you."

And you are responsible for other children going through that. You're so concerned about children - except gay ones. Ass.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41584 Apr 10, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
To provide a basis for a sexual identity, among other reasons.
<quoted text>
Very good Sheepie.
<quoted text>
Very good again.
<quoted text>
As long as the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife was in place nationwide, polygamy would remain criminalized.
<quoted text>
"Homosexuals"/" gays and lesbians" are modern creations. Granted SSSB has always existed, as have people who engaged in such, perhaps even exclusively. But it wasn't until the development of a sexual identity, did the idea of a "homosexual" or "heterosexual", as a distinct group, appear.
<quoted text>
A variety of consensual sexual activity was, and still is, if one considers adultery, criminal, for most of American history, not just SSSB.
<quoted text>
No doubt the social climate in regards to same sex behavior has changed, including attitudes towards those who engage in such.
<quoted text>
If that were the case, it would still be criminal, no reality television shows about plural marriage families would exist, nor would people go to hear polygamists give interviews or talks.
Quibble over terminology all you want, it just makes you look stupid. I'll continue to use the common terminology and let you have a hissy fit about terminology because you obviously can't refute the substance of the issue.

Considering the history of both polygamy and homosexuality throughout the world, it still should have been easier for the polygamists in America to convince society to allow a man to have multiple legal wives, than for homosexuals to convince society to allow 2 men or 2 women to marry.

What's your explanation why homosexuals have been so successful at getting marriage rights, but polygamists haven't?

Btw, they have reality tv shows about all sorts of moronic things like the Jersey Shore, Honey Boo Boo, Amish Gone Wild, etc, etc, but that doesn't mean anyone actually approves of them either. Sometimes it's just fun to watch a freak show.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41585 Apr 10, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
#41299
<quoted text>
-
It is not a matter of what any individual might presume; it is a matter of what the law presumes.
-
<quoted text>-
Identify what criteria you are using to determine your classifications. Are you classifying according to gender; according to procreative ability; according to non-procreative ability; according to what people do or DONíT DO; according to sexual orientation? Your confusion about classifications and their mixing renders invalid your argument.
Furthermore, your argument relies on two fallacies: the "two-wrongs-make-a-right ", and the "goose-and-gander", and basically assumes as one of its premises that procreation is a requirement. You, then, reason that because straight, non-procreating couples can marry, even though they do not satisfy the requirement of procreation, then gay, non-procreating couples should, also, be able to marry as they don't satisfy the requirement of procreation, either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, even though both are in the wrong.&#8232;&#8232;Th e fallacies are evident: Procreation is NOT a requirement of marriage, therefore, you begin with a false premise; and laws are not conceived of in terms of what people DON'T DO, but they are conceived of in terms of what people DO DO!
So the law presumes all opposite-sex couples can & will procreate?

Really??

Where does it say that???

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41586 Apr 10, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
#41326
<quoted text>-
The issue isnít whether beliefs are valid; it is whether the arguments supporting beliefs are valid. And it certainly has nothing to do with being a real American. Are oneís beliefs based on facts, realistic observations, reasonable premises and logical rigor? You have relied mostly on emotional, irrational arguments, bitter insults and wild, hateful accusations against my character. You have not been able to argue on the merits of your position, because there is nothing there.
#41311
<quoted text>-
Yes, My idea of marriage is better than your idea of marriage, because I conceive of marriage as society and governmentís recognition and legal institution of the natural, biological role of the sexes as it relates to procreation. It takes what occurs naturally in nature and creates a legal and social institution around it. It adapts nature to human civilization and societyís needs.
You conceive of marriage as a mere, legal artifice that, basically, institutionalizes certain forms of friendships. There is no connection to nature, or to the biological roles of the sexes and, certainly, nothing related to procreation. You conceive of marriage as an institution that really has no reason to be.
Then you should have the kind of marriage you think is best, and we'll have the kind of marriage we think is best.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41587 Apr 10, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
#41328
<quoted text>
-
My opinions, because they are based on realistic premises and logic, are superior to your opinions, which are based on wishful thinking, emotionalism, irrationality, stupidity and nothing at all. The part about arrogance, presumption, obnoxiousness and blasphemy is, merely, YOUR worthless opinion.
Your fellow anti-gays demonstrate the same arrogance you do, which explains why they don't understand why they're losing in court after court and state after state.

They blame their losses on "activist liberal judges" because they can't ever admit their arguments are flawed.

Keep up the good work, and soon same-sex couples will be able to marry in all 50 states.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41588 Apr 10, 2014
Notice the arguments are longer about IF same-sex couples will be able to marry, but rather gloom & doom proclamations about the effects of same-sex couples marrying.

The anti-gays have essentially admitted defeat.

We gladly accept your white flag of surrender!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#41589 Apr 10, 2014
Sex segregationist marriage is antidemocratic; the people of California voted to define marriage as one man and one woman.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#41590 Apr 10, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Notice the arguments are longer about IF same-sex couples will be able to marry, but rather gloom & doom proclamations about the effects of same-sex couples marrying.
The anti-gays have essentially admitted defeat.
We gladly accept your white flag of surrender!
I wish there was a live feed for oral arguments from the 10th......would love to hear the anti-gay folks fall.....ugh!!!

I couldn't even read the briefs from either Utah or Oklahoma they were so long and redundant!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#41591 Apr 10, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The same way moral disapproval is a valid reason to ban certain sex acts but not other sex acts.
They're each different issues which will stand or fall on their own merits.
And I never said moral disapproval is the ONLY reason to ban polygamy. In fact that's probably the LEAST important reason among the many reasons to ban polygamy.
Perhaps you'll clue us in to the many other reasons to ban polygamy? Or are they secret?

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 California says oceans could rise higher than t... 2 hr American 1
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr Go Trump 240,409
Election California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 6 hr The Computer Class 16,066
News Caravan Against Fear Wraps Up 3,500-Mile Trek A... 22 hr Law and Order 1
News Miley Cyrus smokes suspicious cigarette in swim... (Aug '15) Fri ThomasA 5
its bad if trump would not Thu trump fired flynn 1
Quail Valley Blue Baby Scam Thu Libi A Uremovic 2
More from around the web