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.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#4202 Jun 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I don't like "FULLY HOMOSEXUALIZING" the social ideals of marriage and family. I'm against rewriting marriage law to satisfy sexual predilection.
If you are against "gay marriage" then by all means, YOU shouldn't marry someone of the same gender. But for people who wish to do so, and if they are a member of a religion that allows and blesses the e marriages, YOU have no right to prohibit the free exercise of religion by these people. I'm a church-going Protestant and the 2 denominations I belong to (ELCA & UCC) allow these marriages.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#4203 Jun 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I don't like "FULLY HOMOSEXUALIZING" the social ideals of marriage and family. I'm against rewriting marriage law to satisfy sexual predilection.
Wow, did ya happen to learn a new word? or just make it up?

No one is making marriage fully anything......just allowing it to be more inclusive by letting adults decide who they want to marry, not just because they have different sexual parts!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4204 Jun 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I don't like "FULLY HOMOSEXUALIZING" the social ideals of marriage and family. I'm against rewriting marriage law to satisfy sexual predilection.
Just keeping the one that you have?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4205 Jun 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
..... I'm against rewriting marriage law to satisfy sexual predilection.
And since no one is trying to do that, you should be fine.

Well, unless you think there is nothing to any marriage but raw sex.

Now, we do have to admit that most people do marry people they enjoy having sex with - at least that's the norm for our society. Does it worry you that heterosexual people do that? Does that make you fear that they are marrying only to "satisfy their sexual predilections"?

If not, then why in the world would any rational person worry if gay people do the same thing?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4206 Jun 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There are arguments against slavery more than three thousand years old, but no law licensing same sex marriage more than 13 years old. See the difference?
BTW, everyone has ""One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights" and nobody gets the special right to redefine marriage law for everyone to suit sexual predilection.
I see that you have no valid argument so you pony out non sequitars like this one pretending they are valid arguments.

No one has the right to unconstitutionally define a right in such a way to deny it to fellow citizens.

How's that hunt for a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry going?
Brian_G wrote:
If we license our government to view marriage as unisex, force courts and bureaucracies into gender blindness; we'll get a new culture too. One where mothers and fathers, husbands and wives are disposable, no different from two fathers, two mothers or anybody else.
And this is good, why?
Keep marriage one man and one woman; think about your own mother and father.
How long have you been an idiot?

Can people procreate out of wedlock? That poses a much greater danger, and has for some time, to society than allowing same sex couples to marry. Grow up, grow a brain, and move on.

What ever are you going to do with your time once gay marriage becomes the universal reality?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4207 Jun 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
You're ready for a culture that says moms or dads are disposable? Don't find ANY benefit to encourage couples to raise their own children without public assistance?
The culture already says that. Nearly half of births are to out of wedlock parents, and divorce is the norm (many states allow no fault divorce).

Your point is inept.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4208 Jun 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I don't like "FULLY HOMOSEXUALIZING" the social ideals of marriage and family. I'm against rewriting marriage law to satisfy sexual predilection.
You are against equal protection of the law, which is constitutionally guaranteed.

You are a homophobe, you are a bigot, and you lack a valid argument for your position.

Still waiting for that compelling state interest served by confining marriage to being between a man and a woman. I think you lack the grey matter to come up with it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#4209 Jun 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If we license our government to view marriage as unisex, force courts and bureaucracies into gender blindness; we'll get a new culture too. One where mothers and fathers, husbands and wives are disposable, no different from two fathers, two mothers or anybody else.
And this is good, why?
Keep marriage one man and one woman; think about your own mother and father.
this has not happened in the places that have had SSM for while now.

you were proved wrong before you were told to parrot that silly idea...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4210 Jun 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
this has not happened in the places that have had SSM for while now.
you were proved wrong before you were told to parrot that silly idea...
I think the brain rot has gotten the better of Brian G. They clearly are struggling with basic concepts, and don't respond to real threats to a traditional family unit with two parents. You know, like divorce, out of wedlock births, single adoption, etc. None of which does the state prevent.

I think Brian would really like a Christian theocracy. You know make the US the Christian Iran. After all, we already have the nukes...

For those who can't tell:
*The text above is heavily laden with sarcasm*

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4211 Jun 16, 2013
Same sex marriage is bad because of depopulation. See post http://www.topix.com/forum/sf/TCR09D1CUDAO9TR... # for evidence.

Keep marriage one man and one woman for posterity.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4212 Jun 16, 2013
Same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked confidential tax information to a conservative group's political enemies:

On March 30, 2012, the Human Rights Campaign — NOM’s chief political opponent — published on its website, under the headline “One of NOM’s Top Secret Donors Revealed: Mitt Romney,” NOM’s 2008 Form 990 Schedule B, which contained the names and addresses of the organization’s major donors. HRC shared the document with the Huffington Post, which published it that same day. The document — which HRC said it had received from “a whistleblower”— would subsequently appear on a number of sites, among them New York magazine, Mother Jones, and the Daily Beast.
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/one-of-noms-top...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/mitt...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350599/...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#4213 Jun 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is bad because of depopulation. See post http://www.topix.com/forum/sf/TCR09D1CUDAO9TR... # for evidence.
Keep marriage one man and one woman for posterity.
how will SSM keep heterosexuals from having babies?

your fear and hatred is getting in the way of your logic.

it usually does...

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#4214 Jun 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is bad because of depopulation. See post http://www.topix.com/forum/sf/TCR09D1CUDAO9TR... # for evidence.
Keep marriage one man and one woman for posterity.
Firstly, procreation has NOTHING to do with marriage. For instance, in the U.S., 75% of black people are born out of wedlock, and that figure has been consistent for the past several decades.

Secondly. I'm OPPOSED to anything that leads to an increasing number of humans on this planet, because humans are, AND HAVE BEEN, destroying all the other animals, and plant life, on this planet at such an alarming rate that we are absolutely destroying the environment on this planet. We're SUPPOSED TO take care of this planet, NOT destroy it ! Now IF granting equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian Americans is gong to lead to less people in the U.S.(an idea which is ridiculous on it's face), then I'm all FOR it !

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#4215 Jun 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I don't like "FULLY HOMOSEXUALIZING" the social ideals of marriage and family. I'm against rewriting marriage law to satisfy sexual predilection.
Please explain how the legalization of same-sex marriage is "fully homosexualizing the ideals of marriage and family". What is "marriage law" and what would it be rewritten to say that simply satisfies "sexual predilection"?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4216 Jun 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is bad because of depopulation. See post http://www.topix.com/forum/sf/TCR09D1CUDAO9TR... # for evidence.
Keep marriage one man and one woman for posterity.
Brian, will same sex couples have any less children married than they would unmarried? Is marriage required in order to procreate?

This is an utter and complete failure at logic.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked confidential tax information to a conservative group's political enemies:
On March 30, 2012, the Human Rights Campaign — NOM’s chief political opponent — published on its website, under the headline “One of NOM’s Top Secret Donors Revealed: Mitt Romney,” NOM’s 2008 Form 990 Schedule B, which contained the names and addresses of the organization’s major donors. HRC shared the document with the Huffington Post, which published it that same day. The document — which HRC said it had received from “a whistleblower”— would subsequently appear on a number of sites, among them New York magazine, Mother Jones, and the Daily Beast.
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/one-of-noms-top...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/mitt...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350599/...
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/one-of-noms-top...
What do you know, it was a publicly available FEC filing, and you are a liar.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#4217 Jun 18, 2013
Well, it's the third Monday in June here and gone....looks like the justices aren't in any hurry to solve this mess...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4219 Jun 18, 2013
Firstly, procreation has NOTHING to do with marriage. For instance, in the U.S., 75% of black people are born out of wedlock, and that figure has been consistent for the past several decades.

Secondly. I'm OPPOSED to anything that leads to an increasing number of humans on this planet, because humans are, AND HAVE BEEN, destroying all the other animals, and plant life, on this planet at such an alarming rate that we are absolutely destroying the environment on this planet. We're SUPPOSED TO take care of this planet, NOT destroy it ! Now IF granting equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian Americans is gong to lead to less people in the U.S.(an idea which is ridiculous on it's face), then I'm all FOR it !
Since the left gave a financial incentive to break up the black family. Be careful, we don't get worse unforeseen consequences from gender segregation marriage.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#4220 Jun 18, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Well, it's the third Monday in June here and gone....looks like the justices aren't in any hurry to solve this mess...
They will announce their opinions on the DOMA case, and Prop 8 case next Monday morning. Not that long a wait.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4221 Jun 18, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Well, it's the third Monday in June here and gone....looks like the justices aren't in any hurry to solve this mess...
I don't think you will be thrilled with their solution.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#4222 Jun 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you will be thrilled with their solution.
Nope, it will give GTF just another thing to ramble on about.=(

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) 6 min Rogue Scholar 05 216,536
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr -This IS Too Easy 60,024
News High Desert residents struggle with wind turbin... (Mar '10) 6 hr Solarman 25
News Supreme Court leaves undocumented immigrants ou... 18 hr spytheweb 4
News Schwarzenegger seeks $95M for green research (Dec '06) Fri Follow The Money 5
News Obama Ties LBJ's Civil Rights Legacy to LGBT Am... (Apr '14) Jun 22 New York Slumlords 76
News End of California nuclear era: Last plant to cl... Jun 21 Solarman 1
More from around the web