Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61385 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.

Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#42822 Apr 15, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, that's per your religious beliefs.....NOT mine or others and if you opt to believe what Paul wrote, then you MUST know that Paul was NEVER anything to Jesus, right?
St Paul was an Apostle of Jesus born out of time.

It is not per mine religious beliefs but the state of reality: The Divine Milieu, in which we live, move and have our being.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#42823 Apr 15, 2014
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality is not part of the 'normal' spectrum of human sexuality.
The normal attraction between a man and a women evolved over time for the survival of the human species. This is normal. Deviation from this is not normal.
If homosexuals are allowed to marry and have no kids of their own, true homosexuality may be breed out of the human species.
LOL.
You must be a fundie.
That whole "logic" thing, you're not into it.
Heterosexual couples have been having homosexual kids forever.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#42824 Apr 15, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian represents morons who hide their head in the sand. There are over 12,000 peer reviewed studies showing negative human impacts upon global weather, often referred too as global warming.
Oh, that's where he hides his head.:)
I was thinking it was some other place.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#42825 Apr 15, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Why my twist? How about the translators? How about exegesis which must include historical context among other things? Besides, Paul is the "word of Paul." Paul does not speak for either God or Jesus. In the greater scheme of things, Paul is not very important.
St Paul was appointed by Jesus as the apostle to the gentiles and his message was blessed by the leaders of the Church at the Council of Jerusalem.

St Paul's advise in 1 Cor. 6 was to the Church and your twist is not valid.

Judged:

14

14

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#42826 Apr 15, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No worry, you heteros will keep giving birth to more homosexuals- about 1 in every 10-20 births. Just as you have throughout history.
That 1 in every 10-20 births was determined when homosexuals were still in the closet and entering into heterosexual unions. We will need to wait and see if this rate of homosexual births continues.

Judged:

14

14

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#42827 Apr 15, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the man caught with her? Why weren't they going to torture him to death as well?
There is no mention of what happened to the man. For all we know he was already stoned to death.

Judged:

14

14

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#42828 Apr 15, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
You must be a fundie.
That whole "logic" thing, you're not into it.
Heterosexual couples have been having homosexual kids forever.
Were these kids born to a homosexual who was in the closet and had heterosexual sex?

Judged:

14

14

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#42829 Apr 15, 2014
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
The size of the tribe would have been little impacted by homosexual members thus homosexuality would not have been a survival characteristic.
You aren't smart enough to get it.
It might not have to be very much of an impact, to give one tribe an advantage over another.

And clearly homosexuality doesn't harm human survival. There are 6 billion of us.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#42830 Apr 15, 2014
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no mention of what happened to the man. For all we know he was already stoned to death.
The real answer is the buy-bull is extremely anti-woman.
It even says a woman can be put to death for being raped!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#42831 Apr 15, 2014
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing wrong with a platonic relationship between same sex couples.
Why do you try to shut down conversation by asserting some straw man argument that this subject is none of my business? I am in no ones business, for we are not talking about anyone.
There is nothing wrong with a sexual relationships between same sex couples.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#42832 Apr 15, 2014
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Were these kids born to a homosexual who was in the closet and had heterosexual sex?
I'm sure some were, and some were born to heterosexual couples.
Why do you ask?

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#42833 Apr 15, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing wrong with a sexual relationships between same sex couples.
It's a grave sin. But also a source of grace for those who will be eunuchs for the Kingdom of God.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#42834 Apr 15, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure some were, and some were born to heterosexual couples.
Why do you ask?
Well if this is true than the number of homosexuals born will be less than the now given rate of 1 in 10 to 1 in 20.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42835 Apr 15, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You poor thing. You just can't handle it, can you?
When the law states all marriages are equal, as they are in a bunch of states now (and soon to be the entire country) your assessment of fruits and rationality doesn't mean anything to anyone.
You are pouting like a little kid saying, "I didn't want to play, anyway." You're full of crap. You wanted to own marriage. You don't. You never will.
For a married gay family living in California, New York, or many other states, their marriages are 100% equal to any heterosexual marriage. That's not opinion, that's law.
So no matter what you say or how you try to degrade them, their equality remains.
How can that be true Tony?

Your relationship is still only ever a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#42836 Apr 15, 2014
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Sex other than between a man and women married to each other is a sin.
Your concept of sin is irrelevant to marriage law.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#42837 Apr 15, 2014
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuals were born eunuchs from birth and should live out the gift God gave them in a celibate life. This would be a blessing for them and the world.
Your particular god is irrelevant to marriage law.

I must say, however, he sounds like a douchebag.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#42838 Apr 15, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
According to your fellow bigots, YES; the race/ethnicity of the man or woman made LOT of difference on whether they could function as husband & wife.
That's just the point, THEY COULD FUNCTION as husband and wife, including sexually. Thus they could produce a mixed race child. Something the bans on interracial marriage was trying to prevent......mixing of he races.
You're no different in claiming a same-sex couple can't function as spouses.
Two brothers, or two sisters could function as spouses just the same as a same sex couple. But they can't function as husband AND wife.
There is a very rational reason for the government to support & encourage marriage- it's beneficial to the couple and therefore beneficial to society.
Yes encourage men to marry women, and vice versa. It's their union at government has an interest in. Two men can cross swords all day long, and two women can dig for clams for the same time, and nothing will happen.....nothing.

Simply calling a relationship "marriage" doesn't necessarily beneficial to society.
Only bigots believe that benefit only applies to opposite-sex couples.
Only bigots believes that benefit only applies to couples.

Judged:

20

20

19

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#42839 Apr 15, 2014
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Your concept of sin is irrelevant to marriage law.
It is not irrelevant to natural law, under which marriage falls.

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#42840 Apr 15, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you trying to be funny?
That's not even a good joke.
Did u laugh?
Here's a better one:
Man walking into a bar and says, "Give me 10 times the number of drinks anybody else has."
The bartender says, "Now, that's an order of magnitude!"
Yuk...yuk....yuk....
Are you trying to be funny, or just showing you are ignorant?
No Italian people in Rosie's world? Just black and white, and no mixed race people. Well that leaves the President out then.
I think this quote is a load of crap.
Fk people's religious traditions.
See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/ga...

It’s demonstrably not the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman.

You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
And you don't have to marry to procreate......you don't have to marry at all.
Why do people keep bringing it up as an "issue"?
Period.
Really Rosie...have you taken leave of reality? It's not hard to figure out. It's not a requirement, but a purpose and function, perhaps even THE function and purpose. Without it, does it matter who marries who?

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other...

“[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of socity, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”– Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211.

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”– Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12 (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra 316 U.S. At p. 541 and citing Maynard v Hill, supra, 125 U.S. 190)

“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978

“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.

“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33

Procreation is “[o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony.”– Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.

“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.

“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.

“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336

“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628

“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254

“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)

“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other...

Judged:

19

19

19

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#42841 Apr 15, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, that's where you'd be wrong..........Homosexuality is a NORMAL part of the human sexuality spectrum!!!
Yet the word wasn't coined until the late 19th century.
By the way, many heterosexuals can NOT naturally reproduce for one reason or another and we DON'T prevent them from having the right to marry....
Men and women, regardless of modern sexual identity labels, are allowed to marry, as marriage is defined by the state.

..

Judged:

18

18

18

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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 raises smoking age to 21, tightens v... (May '16) 1 hr Say What 24
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 hr District 1 237,187
News Lowea s hiring 45,000 seasonal workers includin... 12 hr Haha 11
News Powerful storm enters California and brings ris... 12 hr Ronald 2
News 24 military medals stolen during California dam... 16 hr Battle Tested 1
California Wine Events -March 2017 Fri howefortunate 1
News The children of illegal aliens (anchor babies) ... (Jan '10) Fri Now_What- 7,056
More from around the web