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.

Gay_But_Not_Gay

India

#5167 Sep 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you see what a waste of time it is to debate with rational ideas on this thread.
Here's the part that I think you're missing.
What we have here is a "one hand washing the other" political mechanism that is really unique to Western European culture. Liberals use gays as a litmus test of loyalty. What it really is, is a recent trend to co-opt liberalism to a matriarchal agenda.
Gays can sit here and experiment on you for ever and ever and a liberal won't budge. They're obedient to the matriarchy and no longer even have an interest in a masculine role. It's all been absorbed in a desire to be in a higher class of society.
Now, the gays themselves have had a long time to experiment and what they've really come up with is a cycle of passive-aggressive arguments, mixed with acting out on their own compulsive tendencies. Notice how often you've been called "sweetie".
Yep! They get off on it! Continuing to indulge this is only amusing westerners who are really in a state of cultural breakdown. They have no goals because our culture has succumb to blind financial ambition. To them, you're just the day's entertainment, playing pop-goes-the-weasel with a nutjob. They're smoking a joint, witting on their butts, talking trash, while you have an aroused chimp jumping all over you.
The only supporters you'll find here are Jesus creeps who are just as marginalized and turned into litmus tests by Western conservatives.
Now, the question I would pose is, do you embrace the ridged caste system of India, or are you actually here out of some sort of curiosity? This discussion is as played out as a stereotypical Batman-vs-Joker story. Yes, they're nutty as it gets. Yes, arguing with them only make them nuttier. If you're just re-enforcing your own beliefs, you'll just get the monkeys flinging poo at you, and you may have had it coming to you!
Don't waste time on American culture. They're a train wreck in progress. Better off to let it happen the way it is supposed to happen.
Thankyou for the input. I gathered as much from the earlier posts.
With the i-net, we have become a global village. I really can't wait for this to blow off, as it has spread its tentacles far and wide and is knocking at my doorstep. Yucks!
Gay_But_Not_Gay

India

#5168 Sep 4, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You've tossed around two terms of the mental health profession: "compulsion" and "disorder".
What are your credentials to be doing so?
Barring that, where are the links to APA/ASA-based sites that support your lay opinion?
Is 'option' also a medical term?'Compulsion' juxtaposed against 'option', that's all.'Compulsion' means you're one track or even better, off-track and that's a disaster, which is far acute than a 'disorder'.
Now why do you go to great lengths to infer that I'm a shrink? Are you looking for one all the time?
I too have looked-up wikipedia, and there is nothing flattering about your world. More suicide rates, depression, anxiety. That's not flattering.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5169 Sep 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Buddha was not a teacher of Hinduism, although he was a native of India.
2. Are you suggesting that science is well represented by the belief that all animals have a "soul" that resurrects in another form, based on its deeds in its past life?
Your debate is long dead.
Siddhartha Gotama Shakyamuni was a reformer of hinduism.

Buddhism does not teach the existence of a "soul" at all. "There is no permanent unchanging self."

"Kamma" is merely cause-effect.(If you don't like the effect, change the causative factors.)

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5172 Sep 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
.....
Show Mr. Obama your genitals and advise him on how to conduct a war. Then tell him that you're going to stay home and get a free sex change operation on the taxpayer's dollar, followed by a pardon and a "hard earned" war hero's book tour.
DO IT! You WILL DO IT!....and it will probably work!
What does this silly rant have to do with gay folks legally marrying?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5173 Sep 4, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
<quoted text>
Thankyou for the input. I gathered as much from the earlier posts.
With the i-net, we have become a global village. I really can't wait for this to blow off, as it has spread its tentacles far and wide and is knocking at my doorstep. Yucks!
Gay folks are not fighting to marry at your doorstep, and you are searching out gay/lesbian forums to post on.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5178 Sep 4, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay folks are not fighting to marry at your doorstep, and you are searching out gay/lesbian forums to post on.
No, actually they really are. They are demanding to be married in churches that do not accept homosexuality. Might as well be demanding to engage in gay sex in front of the kids. Obama will endorse it. At this stage of the game, he's probably only interested in the speaking fees anyway.

Anyway, what I see at the top of the page is "US News Forum". Are you just monologing like an arch-villain now? You scare the pothead kids when you do that, you know!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5180 Sep 5, 2013
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>So you want to be separate but equal?
"Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does... Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system... We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."
Brown v Board of Education

Can you prove the separate but equal is any less inherently unequal when applied to marriage, or are you conceding that you are not so bright?
anonymous

Netherlands

#5181 Sep 5, 2013
OK. For lides and snyper, this is going to take a while to explain, so I'm writing it in advance. I'm also intent on keeping my anonymity. Why? Because eff Topix, that's why! I'm not violating the conditions of their agreement, just denying them control. On that note, I expect the nannybot to sporadically reject posts so this may take a while to fully post.

I'm going to start by explaining what I consider is and isn't a protectable culture. I'll use what I consider to be my own experience so it's entirely on the table as to my motives, my prejudices and my reasoned out strategies are. You can question me on the details, but you cannot question my "culture". As with all cultures, it's a developing thing and to be protected by the Constitution.

Now, from here I'm going to make scientific suppositions. You don't have to agree but if you don't, you have to give a scientific reason. I don't give a rat's @ss about who is a scientific authority. If you can't accept that, don't debate.

First, I define a culture as a genetic thing. Elements of personality have a genetic basis. The mind is NOT a rainbow power soup. There are definable patterns of behavior that do not necessarily manifest themselves at the cellular level, but do manifest as clear algorithms of personality once trillions of neurons are acting together.

In my case, one of my dominant patterns is a Native American pattern of behavior. Asiatic patterns of behavior, other than those of the Indian region, tend to manifest in a somewhat consistent numerical fashion whereby those of one nation tend to think in similar numeric groupings. The exception to this phenomenon is a group that is strategically an "overlay" strategy.

Where one group, say the Japanese, may behaviorally, think in five bit number groupings, there is a group of those who are inherently Asian in their core pattern, but not predisposed to metaphorically "march in lockstep" because they possess an animal overlay pattern., typically those of mammalian predator species. They are NOT animals, but they use a strategy akin to animals to adapt their human aspect of personality to function in a particular country.

Let's go back to my previous example of "culture", the movies "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" vs. "Thelma and Louise". In "Alice", the protagonist is a mother trapped in that evil white man dominated culture where she is dependent on an angry frustrated man who neglects her needs and ambitions in a hostile bullying fashion. By an act of fate, she is free of his tyranny by a car accident and suddenly finds herself desperate to provide for her and her 12 year old son.

Later on, she takes on a job as a singer in a bar, where an aggressive male forces himself on her and she eventually gives in, trying to be optimistic in a harsh world. It turns out that he was cheating on a wife and had fundamentally violated the core values that Alice holds true. Alice honorably promised to never see him again when she met the wife and in that moment, the evil white male bust into the room, breaking things and threatening everyone.

Alice fled that situation. THAT is NOT culture. Choosing to honor the marriage that others had vowed to uphold WAS culture. Being determined to care for her son, the product of her own vows IS culture.(cont)
Gay_But_Not_Gay

Hyderabad, India

#5183 Sep 5, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Siddhartha Gotama Shakyamuni was a reformer of hinduism.
Buddhism does not teach the existence of a "soul" at all. "There is no permanent unchanging self."
"Kamma" is merely cause-effect.(If you don't like the effect, change the causative factors.)
Buddha called everyone 'anatmas', meaning 'soulless'.
Actually, it is not the 'soul', but the subtle or spiritual body which carries within it the seeds of karma that keeps coming again and again through rebirth, until the seed of karma is totally obliterated.
anonymous

Germany

#5185 Sep 5, 2013
So you see, there is a fine line between "culture" and mental illness. What needs to be considered is the genetics, the accountability of the overall culture and the mechanics of human nature. We are not an animal species and rationalizing a behavior because some animals engage in it is not scientific nor is it culture. At best or at worst, depending on your perspective, that is little more than eugenics.

Can we agree that eugenics is a cultural abomination, destined to acts of genocide in pursuit of a foolish dream of becoming nymphs and satyrs?

If you're a Western White, you're going to sit on a fence. You're going to obey your master and wait for a choreographed chance to play the victim. The western leaders are off balance though. They depend on gays and they depend on Chinese banks not to upset their apple cart and because of that, they've lost all control and the sharks are moving in for the kill.

This trend has gone on for more than one cycle now. The first cycle began about the time Reagan got elected and political correctness was the mission. Since then, Bush Jr. got elected and being a Teflon president wasn't enough. He normalized dirty deeds done with plausible deniability. Now the next and maybe final act is in the works, the usurpation of all our civil rights to a hidden society. Everyone wants a stake in that game but we still live in a larger world which might have something to say about how we've mismanaged our leadership role.

You have your lie, and I have my clearly defined morality. In the end, we've both gambled on a chaotic future that the average Joe has no interest in. But I have culture on my side. My rules are established to thrive in peacetime and in war. You've got Chelsea Manning! Libertarian values only matter if they protect liberty. Chelsea will serve time in prison for as long as the State needs him/her as an example to put fear into people. Perhaps someday Chelsea will see the light of day again, but it will all be forgotten by a world that consumes in the name of instant gratification. You don't have a culture. You are mentally ill.
Gay_But_Not_Gay

Hyderabad, India

#5186 Sep 5, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I guess it has no bearing on my point that the Hindu caste system is not a good role model for Libertarian thinking. Right?
Now, here's the tricky part.
What is the symbolic meaning to "karma" or "kamma" as you seem to want to call it? What is the "symbolic" meaning of the "soul"?
Where I differ with most is that I perceive that kind of language as a rationalization of obsessive-compulsive behavior when reason does not support one's selfish intentions. It's the pathological liar thing. But nobody understands until they've gone all the way down to rock bottom.
Now, in another culture, I'd be more generous. As long as one seeks to understand his or herself, I'll indulge that abstraction a bit more......I don't think you're about that. I think you want to drive a metaphorical car off a cliff with your bestest buddy, but in a way that doesn't hurt you but makes bunk buddy more dependent on you.
Show Mr. Obama your genitals and advise him on how to conduct a war. Then tell him that you're going to stay home and get a free sex change operation on the taxpayer's dollar, followed by a pardon and a "hard earned" war hero's book tour.
DO IT! You WILL DO IT!....and it will probably work!
True. Karma cannot be a fallback to maintain status quo in our affairs. The same school of thought also says that we as humans are endowed with conscious choice in the conduct of our affairs and to work towards obliterating our karma.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5187 Sep 5, 2013
anonymous wrote:
This is where the "gay" thing comes in. The typical liberal is either the young, immature White child playing Alice and Kris off against each other or it is a married person who is prospering in the status quo, or it is a "victim" that the liberal establishment has chosen to exploit to disrupt the "cultural" efforts of those who challenge their selfish desire for personal prosperity.
......
You DO realize that the only difference between a gay person and a straight person is the gender they can be attracted to, right?

All the rest of this stuff has no bearing on anything.

Gay folks are liberals and conservatives, follow every religion and no religion, share the same morals, or lack of them. There is no other difference. We aren't "created" by society or "liberals". We are, and have always been, just a simply variation among humans.

And, when it comes to love, marriage, and family, we are the same as well. Many of us value and seek such things, and many of us fail at them, or don't value them at all. Again, no difference, except the ones that people like yourself seem to want to create and enforce.

Why blow such a small difference out of proportion? Why work so hard to identify people as "other", just to make yourself feel more secure?

I will never understand why it is important for folks like you to do so. It's just not logical.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5188 Sep 5, 2013
anonymous wrote:
OK. For lides and snyper, this is going to take a while to explain, so I'm writing it in advance. I'm also intent on keeping my anonymity. Why? Because eff Topix, that's why! I'm not violating the conditions of their agreement, just denying them control. On that note, I expect the nannybot to sporadically reject posts so this may take a while to fully post.
I'm going to start by explaining what I consider is and isn't a protectable culture. I'll use what I consider to be my own experience so it's entirely on the table as to my motives, my prejudices and my reasoned out strategies are. You can question me on the details, but you cannot question my "culture". As with all cultures, it's a developing thing and to be protected by the Constitution.
Now, from here I'm going to make scientific suppositions. You don't have to agree but if you don't, you have to give a scientific reason. I don't give a rat's @ss about who is a scientific authority. If you can't accept that, don't debate.
First, I define a culture as a genetic thing. Elements of personality have a genetic basis. The mind is NOT a rainbow power soup. There are definable patterns of behavior that do not necessarily manifest themselves at the cellular level, but do manifest as clear algorithms of personality once trillions of neurons are acting together.
In my case, one of my dominant patterns is a Native American pattern of behavior. Asiatic patterns of behavior, other than those of the Indian region, tend to manifest in a somewhat consistent numerical fashion whereby those of one nation tend to think in similar numeric groupings. The exception to this phenomenon is a group that is strategically an "overlay" strategy.
Where one group, say the Japanese, may behaviorally, think in five bit number groupings, there is a group of those who are inherently Asian in their core pattern, but not predisposed to metaphorically "march in lockstep" because they possess an animal overlay pattern., typically those of mammalian predator species. They are NOT animals, but they use a strategy akin to animals to adapt their human aspect of personality to function in a particular country.
Let's go back to my previous example of "culture", the movies "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" vs. "Thelma and Louise". In "Alice", the protagonist is a mother trapped in that evil white man dominated culture where she is dependent on an angry frustrated man who neglects her needs and ambitions in a hostile bullying fashion. By an act of fate, she is free of his tyranny by a car accident and suddenly finds herself desperate to provide for her and her 12 year old son.
Later on, she takes on a job as a singer in a bar, where an aggressive male forces himself on her and she eventually gives in, trying to be optimistic in a harsh world. It turns out that he was cheating on a wife and had fundamentally violated the core values that Alice holds true. Alice honorably promised to never see him again when she met the wife and in that moment, the evil white male bust into the room, breaking things and threatening everyone.
Alice fled that situation. THAT is NOT culture. Choosing to honor the marriage that others had vowed to uphold WAS culture. Being determined to care for her son, the product of her own vows IS culture.(cont)
Thank you, that was long, but pointless.

If you insist upon making "scientific suppositions" and "defining" things based upon your opinion, and then demand that your "suppositions" be disproven by "scientific reasons," while also asserting that you
"don't give a rat's @ss about who is a scientific authority," you are full of ****.

Thanks for tacitly admitting that you manifesto is nothing more then your opinion.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5189 Sep 5, 2013
Apparently, someone starts toking early.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5190 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
<quoted text>
Is 'option' also a medical term?'Compulsion' juxtaposed against 'option', that's all.'Compulsion' means you're one track or even better, off-track and that's a disaster, which is far acute than a 'disorder'.
Now why do you go to great lengths to infer that I'm a shrink? Are you looking for one all the time?
I too have looked-up wikipedia, and there is nothing flattering about your world. More suicide rates, depression, anxiety. That's not flattering.
Ever read the Merck Manual or the DSM? Those are FULL of hetero's unflattering reality.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5191 Sep 5, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I guess it has no bearing on my point that the Hindu caste system is not a good role model for Libertarian thinking. Right?
Now, here's the tricky part.
What is the symbolic meaning to "karma" or "kamma" as you seem to want to call it? What is the "symbolic" meaning of the "soul"?
Where I differ with most is that I perceive that kind of language as a rationalization of obsessive-compulsive behavior when reason does not support one's selfish intentions. It's the pathological liar thing. But nobody understands until they've gone all the way down to rock bottom.
Now, in another culture, I'd be more generous. As long as one seeks to understand his or herself, I'll indulge that abstraction a bit more......I don't think you're about that. I think you want to drive a metaphorical car off a cliff with your bestest buddy, but in a way that doesn't hurt you but makes bunk buddy more dependent on you.
Show Mr. Obama your genitals and advise him on how to conduct a war. Then tell him that you're going to stay home and get a free sex change operation on the taxpayer's dollar, followed by a pardon and a "hard earned" war hero's book tour.
DO IT! You WILL DO IT!....and it will probably work!
You're rambling and incoherent.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5192 Sep 5, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
What does an ignorant rant on Buddhism have to do with gay marriage?
People keep trying to give you object lessons on karma, but they ain't sticking.
(if this comes up more than once, it's the anonymous postings. I think the nannybot is just based on local laws.)
Sanskrit: karma

Pali: kamma
Gay_But_Not_Gay

Hyderabad, India

#5193 Sep 5, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem a little confused. Gay people can be the biological parent of a child, or they can adopt children in the same way that many heterosexuals do.
Nothing "artificial" about parents, My Dear. It's a lot of real life, real love, and hard work.
And those children, either biological or adopted, ALL can benefit from having married parents in the same way that every other child can, if their parents put in the love and commitment necessary.
Can you explain your dislike for adoption? And what would you promote as a better alternative, one less "artificial" for those children who were created out of irresponsible heterosexual fornication?
Euthanasia?
Others before me have said this, but I'll repeat the most obvious fact. You are poor social role models. Even one of you being a biological parent will not ease the child's life. I know, as I've already mentioned here, the dubious presence of the other same-sex person is explained as 'normal'. Otherwise the child will die of unhappiness, which will preempt Euthanasia.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5194 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
Others before me have said this, but I'll repeat the most obvious fact. You are poor social role models. Even one of you being a biological parent will not ease the child's life. I know, as I've already mentioned here, the dubious presence of the other same-sex person is explained as 'normal'. Otherwise the child will die of unhappiness, which will preempt Euthanasia.
You should really seek professional help.

This is nothing more than your opinion, and it is unsubstantiated by any study, or medical, scientific, or academic organization.

Simply put, it is nothing more than your own BS rhetoric.
anonymous

Austin, TX

#5195 Sep 5, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You DO realize that the only difference between a gay person and a straight person is the gender they can be attracted to, right?
All the rest of this stuff has no bearing on anything.
Gay folks are liberals and conservatives, follow every religion and no religion, share the same morals, or lack of them. There is no other difference. We aren't "created" by society or "liberals". We are, and have always been, just a simply variation among humans.
And, when it comes to love, marriage, and family, we are the same as well. Many of us value and seek such things, and many of us fail at them, or don't value them at all. Again, no difference, except the ones that people like yourself seem to want to create and enforce.
Why blow such a small difference out of proportion? Why work so hard to identify people as "other", just to make yourself feel more secure?
I will never understand why it is important for folks like you to do so. It's just not logical.
1. I'm talking about liberals, not you. Why is it always about you?.....professional victim!

2. Yes, you are different. You engage in a form of sexuality that does not agree with the biological purpose. We're not talking about Freudian death wishes, although that may be how it starts. We're talking about an obsessive-compulsive behavior that the majority community doesn't address responsibly. Some contain it better than others, but there is an established precedent to prohibit deviant sexual behavior. Our society tolerates a lot, but we don't have to make a protected institution out of it in any form.

We've been through this a thousand times. What's different between pedophilia and homosexuality? What's different between polygamy and homosexuality? I'll tell you what the difference is. It's purely a matter of what the collective culture is willing to tolerate.

I'm telling you that the collective culture is going to go critical if you continue to try to undermine the individual cultures in the name of socialist politics. Other than that, I couldn't care less about your nasty behavior!

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 Too many Californians are barely scraping by 1 hr Solarman 1
News Steve Bannon brings message of Republican revol... 1 hr RustyS 15
News CONFIRMED: Man Connected To Starting California... 5 hr Noe 4
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 hr Maverick 808 242,785
News Bannon brings message of Republican revolt to C... 8 hr Solarman 1
News California declares emergency to fight hepatiti... 10 hr hmmmm 16
News Revealing rejections: Jerry Brown's vetoes are ... 17 hr Solarman 1
More from around the web