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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#43472 Apr 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
To deliberately birth a child apart from one gender parent is diabolically evil. What on earth would possess someone to deprive a child of a mother and father?
Moreover, marriage still involves a husband and wife. Any relationship that does not, is immediately inferior. Add to that, the absolute inability to mutually procreate, and you have not just an inferior relationship, you have a farce.
Marriage has always described a unique relationship in every society in human history. Ss couples fail at the most basic level of equating. No manipulated legal ruling will ever change that.
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
blah, blah, blah ... none of it, in all it's verbosity and floweriness, is a viable definition for legal purposes.
The Government doesn't "define" Civil Marriage, nor dictate it's content or character. Not on the Federal level. Not on the State level.
Criteria for participation are not definitions.
Oh quit your incessent whining! You have no defense except to frantically wave a piece of paper that idiotically denies reality.

If the government doesn't define, why is marriage limited by age and number to name two?

Ss couples are inferior to marriage, even you see that.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#43473 Apr 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text> ... If the government doesn't define, why is marriage limited by age and number to name two?...
Again, criteria for access or participation are NOT definitions.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#43474 Apr 21, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you ask the legions of single mothers who neither marry the father of their children nor have anything to do with them after the child is born?
<quoted text>
It can for those who make that choice. Unfortunately for you, others aren't bound by your personal feelings on the matter.
<quoted text>
Well that includes yours then since real mothers and fathers don't have multiple sex organs.
<quoted text>
Its simply too bad nobody gives a f*ck about your personal opinions, isn't it?
<quoted text>
And gays were excluded because of prejudice and bigotry like yours so what tradition may have been is irrelevant as it doesn't justify continuing such discrimination.
<quoted text>
And no matter how many times you repeat your prejudiced drivel it will never have any relevance or importance to anyone but you.
1. One wrong excuses another? How old are you?

2. My personal feelings? How about the entire history of marriage in human history! Gays simply are setting themselves up for a perpetual identity of inferiority, ALWAYS mutually sterile, ALWAYS only a duplicate gendered half of marriage.

3. Don't forget my third nipple!

4. You clearly do care, your angry rant proves that...

5. First it was religion that precluded, now, after I schooled you, it is every culture in all of human history that is bigoted? Honey, the ignorant one is you...

6. How long have you been able to speak for everyone?

Ss couples fail at the most basic level of equating. No manipulated legal ruling will ever change that.

Smile.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#43475 Apr 21, 2014
Cali Girl 2014 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you had 3 inferior relationships
going on at once ? Deny it Greg.
No, I simply reported your slander.

Contact by my lawyer is next.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#43476 Apr 21, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, criteria for access or participation are NOT definitions.
Yes they are.

Since: Mar 14

Narangba, Australia

#43477 Apr 21, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like a true Republican. Too bad you can't be honest and open about your choices but like any other Republican, nobody trusts you to do anything but steal people's money anyway.
Got a candidate for the next election? Nope? Guess not. Being president isn't very profitable. Too much scrutiny. Much easier to arrange kickbacks from safety of a Senate committee.
money is irrelevant, all is spirit. Politics fades. The democratic does not. Say goodbye mostly to capitalism, prepare for the paradigm shift or kiss your precious arse goodbye. Every 25 year old , every generation has to try and communicate one infinite progression. Stu
Nine Ball

Harrodsburg, KY

#43478 Apr 21, 2014
Bama Yankee wrote:
<quoted text>
Go buy a dictionary.
A sodomite also is anyone that engages in sodomy.
If a gay does the butt thang why dose he git mad when someone calles him a sodimite?
Nine Ball

Harrodsburg, KY

#43479 Apr 21, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You homophobes often talk about taxes as if gay people don't pay them.
Whut is a homophobe Rosie? Dose a person have to say what them gays and lesbanes does to each is a peach in order not to be a homophobe?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#43480 Apr 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
".....ass...."? Always thinking of something to eat aren't you.
Labels actually....labels that once were used to describe various "heterosexual" sexual behavior and people. A gay man used to describe a womanizer! Rather ironic now it means a manizer.
Quibble, quibble, quibble....

It won't stop same-sex couples from being able to marry.
Nine Ball

Harrodsburg, KY

#43481 Apr 21, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
So what, you stupid b!tch? The meanings of words change. And now the term "straight" means heterosexual.
I always thought that strait was like a strait line. You homeysexuls don twitsted a good word to meen somethhang else. Like you took a word which meens happy and turned it into a word that meens a poor mixed up feller who lusts after other fellers. I still thanks that you ain't no black "strait" woman. I bet you is an old fat gay trying to git your frustratiens out by typing on here.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#43482 Apr 21, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is more ethical than monogamy. It is more natural too.
And yet couples can marry, while polygamist groupings can't.

Hmmm, I guess that tells you how creepy most people find polygamy.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#43483 Apr 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, individual men and women.
<quoted text>
With one significant difference, the husband is presumed to be the father of the child. The form, husband and wife, remains the same, and the child is born to his legal mother and father.
<quoted text>
Two men, or two women, aren't similarly situated to a man and a woman.
<quoted text>
No, just a man and a woman. Besides, "gay" once referred to a womanizing man, and a female prostitute! So how were those "gays" discriminated against?
<quoted text>
Sooooooo....what conflict is there in allowing same sex siblings to marry?
<quoted text>
The bottom line is, sex between men and women produces offspring. Marriage serves as a societal means of regulating the relationship between the sexes, and recognizing their offspring.
<quoted text>
So have you had discussions with your gay friends on this issue, and do some of them disagree with legally designating same sex relationships, "marriage"?
<quoted text>
But the existence of one, procreation, provides the compelling governmental interest in establishing marriage as a state recognized relationship and right.
Same lame losing arguments.

Do you think repeating them will magically turn them into winning arguments in court?

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

#43484 Apr 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<Where are you getting this "second class citizen" stuff from? As far as Uncle Sam is concerned you are a woman no different from any other woman as it relates to marriage.
Hey look, you FINALLY got something right.

And thanks to the same lame losing arguments you anti-gays keep using in federal court, soon every state will ALSO treat every woman (and every man) no different from any other woman (and man) as it relates to marriage.

Keep up the good work.
Nine Ball

Harrodsburg, KY

#43485 Apr 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
To deliberately birth a child apart from one gender parent is diabolically evil. What on earth would possess someone to deprive a child of a mother and father?
Moreover, marriage still involves a husband and wife. Any relationship that does not, is immediately inferior. Add to that, the absolute inability to mutually procreate, and you have not just an inferior relationship, you have a farce.
Marriage has always described a unique relationship in every society in human history. Ss couples fail at the most basic level of equating. No manipulated legal ruling will ever change that.
You is rite on all counts. To put it plane and simpal. Homeysexuals are a mixed up lot. They is born one thang and they wants to be another. A man what lusts after another man just ain't natural. Same for a woman that lusts after another woman. So that bands together and tells themselves that they relly is normal and that if two of them hooks up together they should be able to call it a marriage. Some of the womans actually git knocked up by some one else's sparm so they can have a baby and then mess it up by raising it without a father. Some of the gays has a woman to carry thar child. They dose this to pretend that theor so called marriage is a peach and that it is normal. It ain't.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#43486 Apr 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
To deliberately birth a child apart from one gender parent is diabolically evil. What on earth would possess someone to deprive a child of a mother and father?
Moreover, marriage still involves a husband and wife. Any relationship that does not, is immediately inferior. Add to that, the absolute inability to mutually procreate, and you have not just an inferior relationship, you have a farce.
Marriage has always described a unique relationship in every society in human history. Ss couples fail at the most basic level of equating. No manipulated legal ruling will ever change that.
Hmmmm, so that means your musty dusty rusty crusty 3-nippled mangina relationship is "immediately inferior".

You're as crazy as a shithouserat; and no piece of paper will ever change that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#43487 Apr 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet the risk of sexually reproductive birth defects would be non existent with same sex siblings marrying.
<quoted text>
True....but no same sex union will sexually reproduce.
<quoted text>
Yet society recognizes the negative consequences of out of wedlock births, and the importance of procreation within marriage, at least in belief, if not necessarily in practice.
<quoted text>
Some things simply haven't changed. Sex between men and women still makes babies.....and stop thinking about people's behinds.
<quoted text>
Nice evasive wording. Do you have any gay friends who disagree with abolishing the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife?
<quoted text>
Is the state compelled to legally recognize marriage, issue marriage licenses, at all?
<quoted text>
There must be a reason why the state recognizes marriage in the first place, and in what form such recognition takes place.
Same lame losing procreation arguments.

Keep up the good work.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#43488 Apr 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<Nice evasive wording. Do you have any gay friends who disagree with abolishing the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife?
.
No state has abolished the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but 17 states have EXPANDED the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

No, I don't know any gays or lesbians who oppose same-sex couples from being able to marry, even if they personally have no desire to marry. I also know many straight people who have no desire to marry either.
poof

Madison, WI

#43489 Apr 21, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
<quoted text> You is rite on all counts. To put it plane and simpal. Homeysexuals are a mixed up lot. They is born one thang and they wants to be another. A man what lusts after another man just ain't natural. Same for a woman that lusts after another woman. So that bands together and tells themselves that they relly is normal and that if two of them hooks up together they should be able to call it a marriage. Some of the womans actually git knocked up by some one else's sparm so they can have a baby and then mess it up by raising it without a father. Some of the gays has a woman to carry thar child. They dose this to pretend that theor so called marriage is a peach and that it is normal. It ain't.
Dude give it up, YOU harm the image of everyone from the south

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#43490 Apr 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<Sure they can......statistically speaking....the odds of her being legally married to another woman are rather small. Similar to "lesbian", now that men can be lesbians too....you shouldn't ASSume when one is talking about a lesbian, one is referring to a woman.
So it would be just as reasonable to assume a white person is married to another white person, because statistically speaking the odds of a white person being married to a black or Hispanic or Asian are rather small.

That's what the racists were most worried about when inter-racial marriages were allowed- that someone might think they're married to a black person.

Now the bigots are worried someone might think they're married to another man, so they'll have to clarify that they're married to a woman.

You homophobes are hilarious.
Nine Ball

Harrodsburg, KY

#43491 Apr 21, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yeah sure...
and Katrina hit NO because of the gays...
your religious cult myths have no place in the rational world...
Millions upon millions don the Easter thang yesterday. Thar more of them than there is of you homeysexuals. Religious p[eople can love you and be again what you dose with your felller. You homeysexuals can't git over that, so you turn on the religious people. You wants to be thought of as normal people. You ain't.

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 Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 11 min Responsibility 1,323
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 21 min Rogue Scholar 05 216,614
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr Earthling-1 60,034
Bill Clinton "Did it " with Mondale's daughter ... 15 hr NoClinton 1
News High Desert residents struggle with wind turbin... (Mar '10) Sat Solarman 25
News Supreme Court leaves undocumented immigrants ou... Fri spytheweb 4
News Schwarzenegger seeks $95M for green research (Dec '06) Fri Follow The Money 5
More from around the web